I move—

We have discussed the various provisions of this Bill thoroughly during the previous stages. I do not want to enlarge on them at great length at this stage.

I cannot, however, allow this opportunity to pass without lodging our protest against some of these provisions, in so far as they are positive, and in other respects in so far as the Bill does not make provision for matters which we regard as important. In the first place, there is this difference in taxation which is now being imposed on the sale of fixed property, this increase of transfer dues, and the fact that the Minister failed to impose effective taxation as far as profits on the sale of shares are concerned, even by means of higher stamp duties. And then we want to protest against the curtailment of a right which the farmers have had up to the present to offset against their income, for income tax purposes, expenditure in respect of improvements on their farms. I want the country and also the other side to take cognisance of the fact that the farmers are to a great extent being deprived of a right which was given to them years ago after due deliberation. It was given after the whole question had been thoroughly investigated by the Nationalist Party Government of those days and by experts whose services were used for the purpose. In view of the nature of this matter, in view of the difficulties which the farming industry in South Africa has to contend with, a concession was made to the farmers, allowing them to take into account their expenditure on improvements for income tax purposes. The farmers are now being placed in this position that they can only take into account 70 per cent. of their expenditure in respect of improvements—

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I just want to make use of this opportunity once again to lodge the strongest protest of this side of the House against the extension of old age pensions to that section in regard to whom we have very little information in this connection, namely, the natives. The implications of this step are of such a nature that we are not prepared at this stage to grant these privileges to them. It is not a question of lack of humane feelings on our part, as we have already explained. In those cases where it is necessary to render assistance, it can be given in the manner in which it has been give up to the present. But it is a very dangerous principle, since we are dealing here with such a big population and such a big potential population, to extend these privileges to them, since one does not know what psychological effect it will have on them, and to what extent it will affect their mode of life, their sanctions. I do not think the charge can be levelled against us in South Africa that we are unfair towards the natives. I think if we look at the position in the neighbouring Protectorates which fall under the British Government, and if we look at the treatment meted out to the natives in those Protectorates, South Africa need not be ashamed at all of its treatment of the natives. But I want to point out that no such measure has been applied in any one of those Protectorates. The natives in the Protectorates are not entitled to old age pensions. We feel, therefore, that the Government acted precipitately and dangerously in taking this step; and the implications of this step which Parliament is now accepting, are not sufficiently appreciated by members on the other side, by members who want the European civilisation in South Africa to be perpetuated. I feel that this is a step which will yield bitter fruits in the distant future. We are faced here with an important problem, and it is dangerous to prejudice our prospects in this manner. I think that hon. members who have come into contact at all with the native population and who have a realistic outlook on affairs, who are not armchair philosophers who get ecstatic about the “noble savage” and whose eyes are open, will think twice before they vote for a measure of this kind. I cannot sufficiently emphasise our objection to this extension of old age pensions to the natives. I just want to repeat that our objection is not due to lack of humane feelings towards the natives, but because we feel that the effect on their own initiative to work and their mode of life is not sufficiently appreciated by the Government, which is now forcing this legislation on to the country. For that reason I am taking advantage of this opportunity to protest once again against the extension of old age pensions to natives and Indians.

New Clause 4 agreed to

In Clause 4,

I want to move the following amendment—

My amendment aims at excluding Hottentots, Bushmen and Korannas from the definition of “coloured person,” and also to exclude them from the definition of “Natives.” These people ought not to be eligible for pensions, for the reasons we have given. I thought I should exclude them from the definition of “Native”, but in that case they would fall under the definition of “coloured person.” I am therefore moving my amendment in this form. The Bushman particularly is being supported by the Government in the reserves.

They would first have to catch the Bushmen in order to give them pensions.

That is why I am moving this amendment. As far as the Hottentot is concerned, many of them have already associated with coloured persons and they are regarded as coloured persons; and in view of the fact that these people freely cross the borders and do not pay hut tax, they ought not to be a burden to the State.

I second.

The object of this amendment, of course, is to prevent the Bushman and Hottentot and Koranna from getting an old age pension. I cannot find sufficient justification for accepting this amendment. We are only dealing with a handful of people ….

You are determined to give a pension to the Bushmen, whether they want it or not.

We want to put them in this position, that if they are entitled to it and submit an application, they will be able to get it. There are not many of them, and the costs involved would be very little; and in my opinion the reasons which have been advanced to exclude them are not adequate.

Will you be able to get hold of the Bushmen?

It is not necessary to get hold of them. If they do not apply, they will not get a pension. If the hon. member is correct, there is no danger of their getting pensions.

May we just ask the Minister what the difference is between a Griqua and a Hottentot If the Hottentot is classified amongst the natives, why is the Griqua grouped amongst coloured persons? I wonder whether the Minister would not be prepared to accept an amendment to delete the word “Griqua” from (a) and to include it under (b).

The hon. member should have placed his amendment on the Order Paper.

Amendment put and the House divided :

Ayes—17 :

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter. J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

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

Noes—52 :

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 6, 16 (Afrikaans) and 40, put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move as an amendment to this amendment—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendments in Clause 15 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

In connection with magistrates’ courts, I want to refer to a question which I have frequently raised, and in connection with which the Minister of Justice made certain promises which he has apparently not yet been able to carry out. I refer to the matter of shorthand writers in our bigger courts. The position is gradually becoming impossible as a result of the fact that there are no shorthand writers in the magistrates’ courts. Cases take hours and sometimes days instead of being disposed of in a comparatively short time. It wastes the time of the parties concerned. Take a place like Bloemfontein. The Minister promised to appoint shorthand writers, but he has not yet done so. Take a preparatory examination. The magistrate has to sit on the Bench and laboriously write down evidence for days and days. There are magistrates who have gone to the length of taking typewriters on the Bench and typing the evidence themselves. It makes the work extremely trying for the magistrate, and when it comes to the final trial, questions are raised in regard to the accuracy of the evidence. It is alleged that it was not recorded fully, or there is some other complaint. The Department ought to put itself out to obtain shorthand writers for the bigger courts, if it cannot be done at the moment in the smaller courts as well.

Why not in the smaller towns as well?

There too, if we get the people. Such a shorthand writer need not only be a shorthand writer in the court. If the clerk of the court knew shorthand, it would greatly expedite the proceedings. Cannot the Government give an allowance to these clerks if they qualify in shorthand? It will encourage them to learn shorthand. I should like the Minister to start with it in the bigger magistrates’ offices, and then the system can be extended to the smaller magistrates’ courts. All that is necessary is to encourage the people by paying them an additional allowance in respect of shorthand, and things would then go more smoothly in court. At the moment there is very great delay in connection with preparatory examinations. Then there is another aspect of this matter. There is such a great volume of work and so few magistrates that the absence of shorthand writers results in hours and hours and sometimes days and days being taken up by trials, and it sometimes takes up to six months before the case reaches the final trial. I hope, therefore, that the Minister and his Department will give serious attention to the question of getting more shorthand writers.

It may be desirable to reply to this point immediately. As the hon. member said, I stated on a previous occasion that I agreed with him. We have had an advertisement in the newspapers for twelve months for shorthand writers for the Supreme Court. We thought that those who were not good enough for the Supreme Court could go to the magistrate’s court. But we cannot get one. The question of a special allowance is a good suggestion, and it is one which my Department will investigate. It is an excellent suggestion and we shall give our attention to it. I appreciate the position in connection with preparatory examinations. In Johannesburg we have already brought about an improvement, and I hope that we shall be able to extend it to other courts.

I am one of those who believe that an independent Bench is one of the most valuable assets in our social system, making as it does for the retention of the liberty of the individual, and where necessary the punishment of the offender. That being my view, it is with reluctance I venture to criticise in this House any action which a judicial officer, a magistrate, has resorted to in the exercise of his functions. I propose to do so this morning in a particular instance, because the facts would seem to indicate that a magistrate has very seriously departed from his duty. I think the Min ster has the papers in connection with the case and is aware of the facts. Early this year in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court a certain man by the name of J. W. Muller, a soldier, was charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The charge reads—

For that offence to which the accused pleaded guilty, he was fined £1. For kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach and breaking her arm he was fined £1, the sort of penalty that is imposed on somebody who parks his car in the wrong place or crosses the street against the traffic light. The matter was brought to my attention by Mr. Berrange, a well known member of the Side Bar, who was, I understand not personally connected with the case, and he sent me a letter which he wrote to this magistrate on the 15th February last. In that letter Mr. Berrange says—

That letter was sent to the magistrate and a copy to the Chief Magistrate. The magistrate’s reply is as follows—

Who wrote that letter?

The original letter was written by Mr. Berrange, a member of the side bar in Johannesburg. Now I know the Minister cannot increase the penalty. I have brought the matter into this House because the only remedy against judicial officers in matters of this kind is to bring them before the public. Mr. Berrange authorises me to say that he is prepared to face a charge in connection with this letter he has written. He accused the magistrate of a grave dereliction from duty, and I believe it was a grave dereliction from duty. In a serious case of this kind where there was an assault on a woman in the condition in which this woman was, it is difficult to imagine a more brutal assault, and to impose a penalty of £1 seems to me most unusual in view of the way in which justice is administered generally in this country. If there are further facts which have not been disclosed, I shall be glad to know what those facts are, accompanied by the magistrate’s explanation as to why those facts did not appear in the record.

I should like to raise a question which in my opinion is of great importance in connection with the administration of the magistrates’ courts. The magistrates in the platteland towns have been appointed as controllers of petrol and rubber, and I think that is very wrong. I know that the magistrates in the platteland have to do more work than can reasonably be expected of them; but there are all sorts of difficulties in connection with rubber and petrol. Just before I came down here I travelled through Ladismith, Calitzdorp and Oudtshoorn, and I found that the people in those towns as well as in my own town were dissatisfied in regard to this matter. The magistrate is appointed as controller of petrol and rubber, but he is instructed beforehand that he cannot do this, that or the other. He is allowed to issue permits for a certain quantity of petrol only, and for a certain number of tyres. The farmers need petrol; they need tyres. The magistrate is given instructions to reduce the petrol issue by say 25 per cent. During the month that he reduces the supply, the farmers may need more petrol and tyres. If they cannot get it, they become annoyed with the magistrate. In my home town there was even a story that the magistrate had been given a medal because he had curtailed the petrol issue to such an extent. In Ladismith I heard the same story. It so happened that I knew the magistrate there. I asked him what the position was. He explained to me that he was allowed a certain quantity of petrol, and that his neighbour was getting more. The magistrate has to go on the Bench and decide court cases. The magistrate is placed in a difficult position. He knows that the people are annoyed with him because he did not give them petrol and tyres. As soon as the party loses his case, he accuses the magistrate of partiality. This type of thing should not be allowed to go on. The people should be able to have confidence in the magistrate and I do not think it is reasonable to place the responsibility on the magistrate of issuing permits for petrol and tyres. The magistrate can only grant permits in respect of a limited supply. He gets definite instructions from the Controller, and he cannot issue permits for petrol and tyres against the instructions of the Controller. A man once approached me and told me that his crops were lying on the land, that he had to transport it, but that he could not get petrol. I advised him to see the magistrate. The magistrate could not give him petrol. I then telegraphed to the Controller and informed him that the magistrate could not give this man petrol. I was present when people told the magistrate: “You must give us petrol; we must have it. You are our servant.” This type of thing brings the magistrate into discredit. He is insulted. I know of one case where the magistrate was compelled to smack a man’s face. If I had been in the magistrate’s position I would have given him half-a-dozen smacks if he had said the same things to me.

Does an educated man smack other people?

Yes, if it is necessary. If you are an educated person, you should have better manners than to insult a man. Wherever one goes, one meets with the same difficulties. The people become annoyed with the magistrate because they feel that he is discriminating. But the magistrate’s hands are tied. He has to carry out his instructions, and the result is that he is placed in an impossible position. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to entrust this work to someone else, even if it is the post office. It does not seem fair to me to give this work to a man who has to sit on the Bench and try people and decide cases. It brings the magistrates into discredit.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to a case which was reported in the Johannesburg press a couple of months ago, a case in which two garage proprietors were charged with falsifying petrol coupons, and attempting to bribe one of the petrol control officials. I do not know what the result of the case was. From the evidence it appeared that the official concerned was a pensioner in receipt of a comparatively small pension, and those two accused had attempted to bribe this official by offering him £10 a week to falsify these coupons and to assist these people in getting an extra supply of petrol. As I say, I don’t know what the result of the case was, but what I want to impress on the Minister is this: Where a case of this description is proved I think instructions should be given to presiding magistrates that people like that should be sent to prison without the option of a fine. Cases of this descritption happen too frequently and where a case is proved, I think it is the magistrate’s duty to impose the utmost penalty. There are far too many such cases. Another aspect of the matter is that the commendable conduct of this official should not pass unnoticed. I think something should be done to show the Government’s appreciation of the attitude of that particular witness because it is a sore temptation for an official who is drawing a small salary when he is offered this not inconsiderable sum of £10 per week to assist these people in their nefarious practices. Another point—one notices in the Press that there are a great many cases of admission of guilt being signed in the magistrates’ courts where rather serious breaches of control regulations are being indulged in. I say that it is comparatively good business for the accused in these cases to do this sort of thing; they make pretty good profits in robbing the poor and to them it is nothing to have to pay a fine of a few pounds or perhaps £5 or £10 on admission of guilt. I ask the Minister to take into consideration the advisability of giving instructions to the right quarter that these admissions of guilt should not be allowed or too readily accepted; that heavier penalties should be imposed and that where the circumstances warrant it these people should be sent to prison. It is the only corrective, the only deterrent that will have the desired effect.

I should like to raise another point, but I want to express the hope that the Minister will not take any notice of the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) to send first offenders to gaol. One does not expect that of a member like the hon. member for Pretoria (East) I hope the Minister will leave the discretion in the hands of the magistrate. Where they feel that a fine is justified, I hope their judgment will not be interfered with. I feel strongly on this point. When a man is imprisoned his whole future is ruined. Why inflict such barbarous punishment in respect of the first offence? Then there is another point which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, one which particularly affects the country districts, and that is where members of the jury or witnesses are summoned to appear before the circuit court or the magistrate’s court. They have to buy petrol in order to travel to court. After having complied with the summons to appear, one finds that they sometimes experience great difficulty in getting coupons to replace petrol which they had to use from their own supplies. That is something which the Department of Justice should raise with the department which provides petrol. The man concerned should be entitled to petrol if he has to use his own motor car in order to attend the court; and he should be able to obtain petrol coupons to replace the petrol which he used for that purpose. Failing that, it amounts to this, that he may have to use his basic ration or a portion of the petrol which he requires in connection with his farming, and I do not think that is fair. Then one further point. We saw a good deal in the newspapers in connection with the unfortunate person who was recently punished in Johannesburg, a blind man who appeared before the court, and who was punished because he had begged. He could not make ends meet on his blind pension, a fact which the magistrate practically accepted, and he was obliged to resort to begging. Unfortunately he appeared before the court for the second time and he was then required to serve his first sentence, but after he had been in gaol for a day or two he was released under certain conditions. I should like to know what those conditions were, and express the hope that he will not be detained in prison.

I think it can be taken for granted that the staff which the Minister of Justice has under him, next to the post office, is perhaps bigger than that of any other department. When one looks at the various divisions which fall under him, one realises that he has a big staff. But there is a great deal of dissatisfaction, in the magisterial division as well, in regard to the salary scales. I think the Minister is aware of the fact that there is dissatisfaction among a large section of the Civil Service, and in particular in the magisterial division, in regard to the salary scales and other conditions of service. The Minister also knows that as the position is at present there is not much encouragement in the service for graduates and others, and in the past year or two many good men have left the service, especially the magisterial branch, and taken up employment with firms of attorneys and other businesses. They are not satisfied with their positions in the Civil Service. During the course of this Session, the position of the Civil Service was raised, and the Minister of the Interior then promised that a commission would be appointed to go into the whole question of salaries. Nothing happened. Approximately five or six weeks later I put a question on the Order Paper and asked the Minister of the Interior what had been done in connection with the appointment of the commission. The Minister replied that it would be done in the near future. He was only waiting for certain replies from the Public Servants’ Association. I think another five weeks have lapsed; the Session is nearing its end, and we know that there is a certain amount of impatience amongst the civil servants, including officials of the Minister’s department, as a result of this delay in connection with the appointment of the commission. In view of the fact that a large number of officials fall under his department—and I am thinking more especially of the officials of the magistrate’s courts who have to maintain a certain standard of living and comply with the requirements of their position and status—I want to ask whether the Minister can tell us whether he discussed this matter with his colleague, the Minister of the Interior, and whether he can give any information to the House. The vote of the Minister of the Interior has already been disposed of, and this is the only opportunity we have. Will he be able to tell us what is being done, and whether the commission will be appointed in the near future? Can he give us any indication in regard to the personnel of the commission? I think it would satisfy the officials if the Minister could make a statement and give us the assurance that this matter will be dealt with in the near future.

There are a few points which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) in connection with shorthand writers in magistrates’ courts. I appreciate the difficulties of the Minister. We know that there is a shortage of women who usually take up this work, but that will not always remain the position. I should like to have a promise or assurance from the Minister that he will give his attention to this matter, and that he will make provision for the appointment of shorthand writers in magistrates’ courts, where a fairly large number of cases are heard—defended cases, civil cases. I was recently concerned in a case at Paarl which would not have lasted more than a day if there had been a shorthand writer. We sat on the case for more than four days, and it involved great extra costs. Apart from that, we know that the magistrates have to do a great deal of extra work today, and they have not got the time to give proper attention to these cases. We also know that every judge or magistrate of experience will affirm that it is a great advantage to them, when trying cases, if they can give their full attention to the witnesses and study their demeanour. As the position is at present they have to concentrate on recording the evidence; they have to write at top speed in order to take down the evidence, and they cannot give proper attention to the witnesses. The result is that cases are dragged out, and when the attorney wants to address the court, the magistrate usually has to adjourn for a day in order to enable him to go through the evidence again. There are not many courts where a large number of civil cases are heard, but I shall be glad if the Minister can give us the assurance that he will give his attention to this matter. Then there is another point. According to the regulations in connection with criminal cases, no witness fees are payable when the witness lives within two miles of the court. If the witness lives within two miles, he does not get any witness fees at all. The result is that people who live within two miles of the court are not anxious to give evidence. It is often a case of assault, involving coloured persons. The witness may lose four or five days’ pay, and he does not get witness fees. The police sometimes experience great difficulty in getting people who know something about the case to give evidence. They do not want to appear. They know that they lose by it, and I think the position should be improved, because the absence of that evidence might lead to the acquittal of a man who committed a serious crime. When the country or the State requires the services of such people, even in the capacity of witnesses, it is right that they should be paid. Why should the man who lives within two miles of the court receive no fees, while the man who lives four miles away does get fees? Then one further matter. I do not know whether it is in order, but I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the position under the Liquor Act. The Minister stated that he would appoint a commission in connection with the liquor position. There are many unnecessary restrictions under the Liquor Act, and the time is overdue to bring about alterations. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us the assurance that this matter will be thoroughly investigated and expedited.

In connection With the question of shorthand writers which I raised a moment ago, I want to add a few words. I realise the difficulty of the department in getting sufficient qualified shorthand writers. Is it not possible to make use of the services of practising shorthand writers? There are qualified people everywhere who practice as shorthand writers, Cannot some arrangement be made with them to do this work when big cases are tried? There are shorthand writers who report commissions and who do Hansard work, and they would be available. Recently two cases of theft were heard in the Free State, in which more than a hundred witnesses were involved. At the moment there is a murder case where there are fifty witnesses, and we can imagine how long the preparatory examination of such a case will take. Would it not be possible at this stage tentatively to make use of the services of practising shorthand writers? Witness fees have to be paid; the witnesses have to be at the disposal of the court for days, and a great deal of the officials’ time is taken up, and in the long run it may be cheaper to employ practising shorthand writers in such cases. I do not want to suggest that it should be done in every small cases, but it should be done in respect of big cases which take up a great deal of the court’s time in the present circumstances. I hope the Minister’s department will give their attention to this suggestion.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the very inadequate sentences imposed on people found guilty of keeping shebeens—these sentences are no deterrent at all to the people carrying on this very lucrative business. A fine is imposed and the convicted person gladly pays it. I suggest to the Minister that the penalty should be imprisonment without the option of a fine, if we want to put a stop to the evil; it is indeed becoming very serious and these illicit liquor dealers are making huge profits.

I should like to raise a matter in connection with the magistrates’ courts for which I do not want to blame the Minister, but in respect of which the Minister can help to have the position improved. I refer to the position of Afrikaans in our magistrates’ courts. I have been in courts where the attorneys, the magistrate and the public prosecutor were all bilingual, and where the accused, usually coloured persons, hardly knew a word of English. Nevertheless one finds that the proceedings are all in English. I have spoken to attorneys about it, and they say that they want to do the best they can for their clients and that they are under the impression—I do not say whether it is justified or not—that their chances of success are better when they speak English than when they speak Afrikaans. I do not say that is the case, but there is that impression. I should like the Minister to take steps to remove that impression. We find certain courts where the people are all bilingual, and practically all Afrikaans-speaking. The accused is Afrikaans-speaking. It may be a coloured person; the prosecutor speaks to him in Afrikaans, but when he addresses the magistrate he speaks in English. If the Minister learns from the hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation how to disguise himself, and then went to court, he would find that what I am saying here is true, especially in the Cape Town courts. The proceedings are always interpreted. I do not blame the Minister for this, but I should like him to do something in order to improve the position and to remove the impression which I mentioned here.

I should like to add a few words under heading H of Vote 40, “Medico-legal Work in Magistrates’ Courts.” I refer to the question of drunkenness. It may appear to this House that the matter is purely academic, but I assure hon. members that it is an important matter socially. It is very difficult to establish when a man is drunk, and we find sometimes people of pretty good standing arrested for drunkenness being convicted; others again who are hopelessly drunk are discharged. The investigation in matters of this kind is not so simple and I suggest that the Minister of Justice should seriously consider the establishment in the bigger centres of South Africa at any rate, as they have in Sweden and in many states of America, of a laboratory for biochemical investigation. I do not mean to say that it is final but it is a very good connecting link. It does not require much apparatus and it will save a great deal of trouble for the accused. There are many people who, with a clever attorney are adjudged to be sober, but often they are not, and the converse also holds. I know of cases where a man or a woman suffering from other diseases are overtaken in the street and a kind Samaritan may come along and administer a little brandy obtained from the nearest public house; subsequently the person is taken to court and adjudged drunk. I think the Minister’s medico-legal experts should consider the question of establishing the facilities which I have referred to so as to deal with this very important matter.

The point raised by the hon. member for Gardens is a very interesting one, and I must say that I am impressed with the suggestion and would like to investigate and find out the position in Sweden. It is very helpful and it will be investigated. I won’t make any definite promise but it will be enquired into. Then there is the question raised by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). I appreciate what he said but I am sure he realises that it is not for this Department to give instructions on these matters. As a matter of fact we have no right to instruct magistrates as to what sentences they should pass. The law is there and gives them a discretion with which we cannot interfere. The most we can do in sentences which we do not understand is to ask for an explanation and I think that that is the correct policy. The Bench should be able to exercise discretion without being unduly influenced by the Department. If certain sentences are not adequate that is a matter for the legislature. As far as the question of accepting admissions of guilt and the magistrates being asked not to accept such admissions of guilt, that will be gone into. The same applies to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) said about shebeens. That is a matter entirely for the courts. On the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) I may say that the matter has been enquired into but we have not yet received details from the magistrate, but the whole subject will be fully gone into and I shall inform the hon. member of the results of the enquiry. The question of the shorthand writers I have dealt with and also the question of witnesses—these matters will be gone into.

*With regard to shorthand writers, I want to say that it is not always easy to get hold of these people. Even Hansard has its difficulties and has taken some of our people. I think that the suggestion which the hon. member made in connection with an allowance is a good one which the Department can go into.

Are you prepared to make use of the services of practising shorthand writers?

Yes, where practicable, but it is not always easy to get them. We may get them for a short while. We cannot do it as a rule, but in special cases we have done so. We shall go into this matter further. I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that I realise the difficulties in connection with petrol coupons, and we shall go into the matter further and see what can be done. In connection with the blind person who has been released, I also received a protest from the blind people. We naturally sympathise with the blind, but the object is that they should not look upon this as an encouragement.

Keep on being sympathetic until the allowance is big enough to make it unnecessary for these people to be on the streets.

Yes, I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) and I want to say that steps were Immediately taken. Then there is the case which was raised by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I discussed this matter with the Minister of the Interior. The chairman has been appointed, namely, Mr. Justice Centlivres. They are now engaged on the organisation for the composition of the commission.

They have been busy with it for five weeks.

It is extremely important that the personnel should be suitable people who will have the confidence of the various sections.

Is the delay entirely due to the Public Service Commission?

I would not say that. There is no delay; the difficulty is merely to get good members. The proceedings will take a fairly long time, and it is better to take a little time at this stage but to see to it that the personnel of the commission will satisfy all sections. With regard to the remuneration of the personnel in the magistrates’ courts, that will also be investigated and dealt with by the commission. I think I have now dealt with all the questions which were raised.

What about the petrol position?

With regard to the question which was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) in connection with the appointment of magistrates as petrol and rubber controllers, I want to say that I fully agree with him. The department was not prepared to agree, but after we had investigated the matter we found that the magistrate was the only person to whom this work could be entrusted. In the bigger cities special officials have been appointed for that purpose, but I fully agree with the hon. member that it is very undesirable that magistrates should do this type of work, and if there is any possibility of bringing about a change I shall investigate the matter. With regard to the question that was raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in regard to the use of Afrikaans in the magistrates’ courts, I just want to say that there is not the slightest ground for the fear which he expressed. I cannot believe that an Afrikaans-speaking magistrate would be prejudiced against a man who uses his language. As far as the English-speaking magistrates are concerned, I can save from experience that they go out of their way to meet the witnesses and the practitioners. I know of cases where the magistrates address the witnesses and the attorneys and the accused in their own language. I want to give the assurance that as far as the administration of justice is concerned, there is not the least ground for that fear, and it is customary to conduct the proceedings in the language of the accused, which, in my opinion, is the correct procedure.

If the evidence is given in Afrikaans, is the magistrate required to record in Afrikaans?

It is usually done. It is not absolutely compulsory, but it is done.

It should be compulsory.

I fully agree.

There is provision for it in the Magistrates’ Courts’ Act.

With the transition period, there were magistrates who did not know Afrikaans, but in 90 per cent. of the cases the magistrates today record the evidence in the language in which it is given. In fact, it is in the interests of the administration of justice to take it down in the language in which it is given, and those are the instructions of the department. I want to repeat what I said, namely, that as far as the prosecutors are concerned, they know that the prosecution must be conducted in the language of the accused.

I want to express my appreciation of the fact that the Minister has this matter in hand, and that he is bearing it in mind with a view to preventing the magistrates’ courts from becoming the dumping ground of all sorts of regulations which are made by other departments. The magistrate’s office is completely losing its original identity as a result of the diverse duties with which the magistrate is saddled. The magistrate himself is hard pressed as the result of these things, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will put his foot down and say that it will not be allowed to go on. I should like to mention a matter of local interest, and that is the question of Koppies. We have an assistant magistrate there. I am not complaining about the man. We are fortunate in having a particularly good and capable man there, a man who has satisfied the public; but Koppies has developed to such an extent latterly and is still developing so rapidly that the time has arrived when it should be declared a separate magisterial district. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to ask that this matter be investigated as soon as possible. Koppies is a very important place today. It is more important than a dozen other magisterial districts which have been established magisterial districts for many years. This place is still expanding, and it is difficult for us to work under these conditions. We shall appreciate it therefore if the Minister will deal with and dispose of this matter as soon as possible. Then I also want to say a few words in regard to the magistrate’s office at Koppies. We shall appreciate it if that matter can be investigated. The offices are not only inadequate, but they are in a bad state of repair. We shall be glad if the Minister will give his early attention to this matter. The same applies to the police offices. The police station is an old building; it is a small galvanised iron building with a floor which is in such a bad state that one has to be careful not to go right through it, and we shall be glad if the police can be properly housed. The time is not only ripe; it has long been over-ripe.

I just want to bring two minor points to the notice of the Minister in connection with the magistrate’s court in my constituency. I think it is really unfair towards the magistrate who has to travel about in the district to hold periodic courts, that he should receive the same travelling expenses as the man who is able to buy petrol cheaply at the coast. Those people get the same allowance, and they have to travel long distances every week. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to meet the people in that respect. In the second place, I want to say a few words in regard to the interpreters in our courts. I do think that those people require training, and I think the Minister of Justice ought to insist on a certain amount of money being made available for young people to receive training with a view to becoming interpreters. I know a little of the native language, and I find that the interpreter does not always convey to the judge the exact wording or the train of thought of the witness. I do think we should make every effort to give those people a thorough training. I notice that the salary scale of interpreters is very low, and we shall never be able to get capable interpreters unless we improve their prospects. I should like to endorse what was said by other members in connection with the various duties which are entrusted to the magistrates. The magistrate is the chairman of the Road Board; he is the chairman of the Farmers’ Assistance Board and all the other Boards. He is also the Controller of Petrol, and he is unable to give proper attention to his court work. He has to serve on these Boards continually. I just want to mention one example to show how difficult the position is. A magistrate acted as the chaiman of the Roads Board. The Roads Board came to a certain decision, and the magistrate fully endorsed the views of the members. At a later date he had to try a case in the district, and he had to decide the case against himself. I think it is an unsound state of affairs that the magistrate should serve on a Board, agree with the other members and at a later date find himself in this position. I think this matter should be rectified so that he will not later find himself in the position of having to give judgment against himself. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that the magistrates are not placed in this difficult position.

We are not quite satisfied with the Minister’s statement in connection with the recording of evidence in the language in which it is given. The Magistrates’ Courts Act provides that the evidence shall be taken down in the language in which the statement is made. It is true that as far as criminal cases are concerned, there is perhaps a different rule. The Minister stated that in 90 per cent. of the cases the evidence is recorded in the language in which it is given. But it should be 100 per cent. If the magistrate is not capable of doing it, he should rather be transferred to another department. The people who record the statements should be able to do so in the language in which the evidence is given. With regard to the petrol and rubber position, I can well understand that the Government is in a difficult position. They cannot always get capable officials. But it is such a serious matter and it causes so many difficulties that the State ought to make some other provision. The position is particularly difficult on the platteland. In the bigger districts the magistrate does not know the people, but in the platteland he knows everyone and everyone knows him. In the cities the people have to be satisfied, and I daresay they are satisfied, because they do not know the magistrate and there cannot be any suspicion of partiality. In the platteland the position is different. I think it is essential to make some other arrangement in this connection, even if the Department has to send a responsible official to the district—perhaps a licencing official. I take it that in the very small places the postmaster is usually a young man, and it is difficult to entrust him with this work. But the Department should make some plan to send a responsible person to the smaller places for this purpose. If necessary, the dates could be altered. At the moment one has to apply for coupons between the 6th and the 16th of the month. If the dates were changed, the services of one man could be used for two or three places. The dates could be altered in such a wav that one man would be able to visit two or three places. I do not think it is right to burden the magistrates with this work. I am speaking of personal experience. I know that the people are dissatisfied with the magistrates. The magisstrate may refuse to give them petrol. If, at a later date, he is obliged to give judgment against them, they feel that he is prejudiced. If the war lasts much longer, or if the shortage of petrol and tyres continues much longer, there will be trouble.

The hon. Minister knows that very often, when dealing with a record of a magistrate’s court case, one finds that the official portion which the magistrate has to complete, is completed in English, and only the evidence is in Afrikaans. It is very unpleasant to read such a record. It reads something like this: “Sworn in,” and then follows the evidence of the witness in Afrikaans; then follows the remarks of the magistrate in English, and everything is mixed up. When a case is heard in Afrikaans, the record should be in Afrikaans, and if it is in English, the record should be in English. The remarks of the magistrate, etc., should be in the language in which the case was conducted. I am sorry that I have to bring a personal case to the notice of the Minister, but it has been brought to his notice repeatedly, and the reply has always been that the matter is receiving attention. I refer to the necessity for a special justice of the peace at Kakamas. I have again received three letters in connection with this matter. As their member of Parliament, I have always submitted the requests of these people. Before the last election the matter was to have been investigated by an inspector of the Civil Service. I wrote again after the election and again the reply was that the matter was receiving attention. I hope the Minister will now appoint a special justice of the peace at Kakamas. It is a thickly populated area and a big centre. The Minister has appointed magistrates or special special justices of the peace in other places like Moorreesburg and Heidelberg where the population is very much smaller. The Kakamas Commission is quite prepared to provide housing, etc., and to negotiate with the Minister in that connection, but they feel that it is absolutely necessary, as a result of the growing activities of Kakamas in every sphere, that a special justice of the peace should be appointed.

I wish to express my thanks to the Minister for the fact that he has looked at this question of the use of Afrikaans and of interpreters in the right perspective. It is a matter of great importance when a case comes before a court that the accused and the complainant shall know what is going on. Hon. members have been talking of interpreters. I happened to be present in the Magistrate’s Court the other day when a native case came up. The question at issue was a white ox—the accused was charged with having stolen it. The magistrate asked him if it was a white ox. The interpreter got confused; the accused said it was a white ox, but the actual words used by the interpreter were : “It was a white calf.” The man was found guilty. He had admitted that it was a white animal. The question at issue was whether it was an ox, but the witness spoke about a white calf. I called on the magistrate and I told him that the interpretation had been wrong, and that they should have the white ox or calf brought in so that they could see what it was. After that the man was found not guilty. But I want to point out that if Afrikaans or English are spoken in a court of law the evidence should be recorded in the language which is spoken by the witness. Otherwise you have difficulties. In the High Court too one finds that it is not always done. Now let me refer to a matter of local importance. I want to ask the Minister to give us a special Justice of the Peace at Hobhouse. We need one badly there. We are far away from other towns, we are on the borders of Basutoland and a good many cases crop up there. I hope the Minister will be able to meet our requirements. I also want to put up a plea for a new Police station at Hobhouse. Conditions are such that the police have already left the building and have hired two other old premises which are so small that if a court case has to be tried, people have to stand outside and wait, and if it rains they have to sit in their motor cars. I also want to put up a plea for better accommodation in the Magistrate’s Court at Ladybrand. It is very difficult to carry on the administration there. Changes have been made repeatedly and hundreds of pounds have been spent and a further alteration has to be made now, but I want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that Ladybrand is one of our oldest towns, and the building was constructed of the best stone available, whether he will have the Magistrate’s Court pulled down and a decent court erected. The expense connected with all these alterations could be applied to putting up a decent building.

Let me say that the requests for the appointment of special Justices of the Peace, etc., will be looked into, but the subject is one in respect of which the Public Service Commission has to be consulted. The question of the language was raised in Select Committee by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren), and I wish to say that in principle I agree with the hon. member. As a matter of fact that is the practice in more than 90 per cent. of the cases. There are still a few magistrates, some of the older magistrates, who cannot do it, and they are usually kept in areas where very little Afrikaans is used.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Prisons and Gaols,” £902,000,

If I am in order I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the Minister most sincerely for having released the internee whose case I brought to his notice. I am glad the man has been released, and I do not think the Minister will have any further trouble with him. I also want to thank him for the further concession he has made in regard to a request made by the old father. I have had a letter from the Department that the matter is receiving favourable consideration. The Minister knows what I am referring to. I also want to say a few words about our gaols. We are passing through times when lots of people are being put in gaol although they are not ordinary criminals. At the beginning of the war certain people were arrested for the purpose of being interned, and the way in which those people were treated was deplorable. I have one case in mind. I was mayor of the town at the time, and the case was brought to my notice. I visited the man concerned and I do not think that the way in which he and others were treated is to the credit of the country or of the Department. He was a decent man, but he was treated like a criminal. There were no conveniences in his cell. He had to do things anyhow, and I think that sort of treatment is most reprehensible. These people may have committed political offences only, they are quite innocent and it is absolutely wrong to lock them up with ordinary criminals. The wav in which people are arrested is also wrong. I know of instances of men who have been put in gaol like ordinary criminals, men who have afterwards been found to be totally innocent. I hope the position will be changed, and that we shall return to normal conditions so that people will not be arrested on suspicion and treated like criminals.

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule for the purpose of impressing upon the hon. Minister the urgent need for a complete review and revision of the penal system of this country. This matter was brought up in 1941 in Another Place by Senator Hårtog. On that occasion the hon. Senator made a sufficiently convincing case to lead the Minister at once to talk in terms of the possibility of a commission to investigate the situation. At that time, however, the war was occupying our minds, and was in the forefront of everyone’s attention, and it was clear that the commission itself would have to wait for a more suitable occasion. But the Minister did appoint a departmental committee consisting of the Acting Director of Prisons, the Acting Assisting Director of Prisons and Mr. Jarvis, a law adviser. The terms of reference of that committee, however, were very circumscribed; as I had them from the Department itself at the time, they were to investigate the working of the prison system and the regulations that uphold that system from the records of the prisons themselves, the intention being to gather information that might be made available in due course to any commission that might be appointed. I do not know whether that committee has ever made any report to the Minister. I think it was made clear that its functions did not include the making of recommendations, but I should have imagined its work would have led it inevitably to make some recommendations to the Minister. The committee itself seems to have faded from the picture at present, but in Another Place the Minister stated quite recently that he had now appointed the Secretary for Justice, Mr. Hoal, as a one man committee, to investigate the possibilities of keeping short-term offenders out of gaol. This is a very desirable and encouraging step forward, but the issue I wish to put before the hon. the Minister this morning, is that that in itself is not nearly enough to serve the purpose we have in view at the present time; and that the time has arrived that the war has progressed sufficiently satisfactorily to permit us to give more concentrated attention to the question of the revision of the penal system as a whole, and I hope that the Minister will now decide upon the appointment of a commission. We have in the last three or four years had a variety of commissions appointed, many of which we might consider less urgent than this particular commission. The field that a commission of this kind could cover is of fundamental importance to the country, as I hope to show. Some of the facts require to be revealed to enable us to realise the dangers inherent in the type of penal system we retain. The criticism made against our penal system on the responsible authority of Mr. Justice Krause, a former Judge-President of the Free State, on a very wide experience, is that the whole of our prison system is antiquated, useless and barbarous, and the sooner it and the regulation which uphold it are abolished, the better it will be for the credit of the State. The basis of his contention is that the whole of our penal system has failed entirely to keep pace in any direction whatever with the progress of the science of penology in our day. The disturbing factors which have been revealed year after year by the prisons reports have been all too little noticed by the general public of this country. In the first place the prison population of this country is probably the largest prison population of any country that claims to be civilised, the largest in proportion to our total population. That in itself is a very startling thought. But those who are in a position to know, assert that not only is our prison population the largest in proportion to our general population, but that it is increasing more rapidly than the population itself— in other words that the criminalisation of our population is going on at an alarming rate. The second point which has been made, and fully substantiated by the reports of the Director of Prisons himself, is that a large section of our population in our prisons consists of persons imprisoned for one month or less. In 1938, 70.7 per cent. of the prison population belonged to this category; in 1939, 70.2 per cent., and in 1940, 70.3 per cent. belonged to this category. But a contingent consideration is that an increasing portion of our prison population belongs to the class of recidivists. That is, an increasing proportion of our prison population have committed more than one offence and the increase in this direction, I submit, is very rapid and very alarming indeed. In 1936, 20.4 per cent. of the prison population had committed more than one offence; in 1938 the percentage had risen to 26.3 per cent., and in 1940 to 29.1 per cent. Those are the last figures we have. Now that is a very alarmingly rapid increase in the recidivist character of our prison population, and I think it justifies the conclusion—that these facts taken altogether, justify the conclusion that our penal system is acting neither as a deterrent nor as a rehabilitative force in our society. Now, anyone who knows, or anyone who accepts the authority of those who know the actual conditions of prison life in this country would accept the premises that our prison system could not be rehabilitative, that everything about it is designed to create the recidivist, to create the criminal with an increasing number of convictions against him. Of course, that is very largely inherent in the application of our law. The Director of Prisons himself, or rather the Secretary for Justice has expressed it as his opinion that we are criminalising our population by giving people short doses of imprisonment in the way we were doing. These were his words—

The capacity of our prison system to have that result is reflected both in the character of the buildings in which we house our prison population and the way in which the prison population is controlled, once it gets inside the doors of the prison. Let me quote to the House the description of our prisons which has been given by Mr. Justice Krause, who comments as follows—

That is the mere building, and although it is a fact that many of our prisons have been condemned as unfit for housing anyone at all we have made no serious attempt to overhaul the whole plan and substitute new and more reasonable buildings. I admit it would be unwise to rebuild our prisons until we have revised our ideas of the functions of prisons, but that is a process on which we should have embarked long ago. That is the mere external of the prison, but here is a description of what happens inside the prison given to me, I think by one of my legal friends here in the Cape Province. I do not remember exactly where it comes from but it is authentic—

Now the additional comment by the man who saw those conditions in operation was that not only are the physical conditions of the prisoners in those country gaols such as he reflected, but he adds—

And still it persists here through the whole of our penal system. Now Judge Krause has gone on, from his wide knowledge, to speak of the evil effects not only of the present way of housing our prison population, but also of the disastrous effects of the regulations which uphold “a senseless and barbarious system.” I shall quote one or two of the regulations to show the sort of thing which Judge Krause had in mind. But first I wish to refer to the rest of his comment which he has stated recently in this article on “Penal Reform and how it could be accomplished.” He refers here to the effect of these regulations, the cruelty of which characterises our penal system. He says—

Here are some of the regulations—

Under these regulations the man who goes into our prisons becomes a number, not even a name. He loses his personality and becomes an automaton. The regulations to which I have referred provide for purely military discipline of the most reactionary and oppressive kind. Now it is true that certain small modifications have taken place in our prison routine. There has been a move in recent years to provide something in the nature of educational training and improvement for the long-term prisoner. But that applies almost entirely to the European offender; so far nothing has been done for the great bulk of the prison population which is native. Their life in prison consists of an alternation between long days of work, very often for a private employer like the gold mines, who use the prisoners of the Cinderella Gaol on one of their own deepest East Rand Mines, the E.R.P.M., or for the Railway Department which has established a vested interest in native convicts by itself building gaols at Maritzburg, East London and I believe, Bellville, running these gaols in order to use the prisoners for breaking stones, and then there is a further vested interest on the part of the public to whom these convicts are hired out against all traditions of civilisation. For the native convicted person life is an alternation of long days of hard, dreary and unimaginative work, and nights in the conditions described a few moments ago; conditions in which these prisoners are brought into contact with every evil impulse. How can a system of that kind ever hope to avoid the progressive criminalisation of our population? In this regard I consider that the public of South Africa have been grossly lacking in a sense of responsibility. Not only have we failed to take cognisance of what has been going on, but we have, in fact, surrendered to our prison authorities, powers which should never have been surrendered to any authority. I have been amazed to realise the enormous power which does exist in the hands of the prison authorities. I can only say that it is a mercy our prison authorities have some background of democratic practice, otherwise no one could come out of our prisons with one shred of hope in life left. When a man goes into prison, the magistrate or the judge who sentences him has no control over the administration of the sentence he has imposed. That is in the hands of the authorities governing the prisons; it is in the hands of the superintendent of the prison to say how a sentence will be carried out. The superintendents have it in their power to give good conduct marks and to take them away, a system which can operate to extend the punishment of the prisoner in very many cases. Further, I found to my amazement a few years ago that the Director of Prisons had decided that in future no man given the indeterminate sentence should be considered for release on probation until he had served seven years in gaol. And by administrative enactment it was then agreed also that if a man with an indeterminate sentence had been released on probation and lapsed into crime again, he should not again be considered for probation until he had served another seven years. That doesn’t apply only to natives but to Europeans as well. I may say that when I told a judge that I had come across this statement in a prison report, he assured me that if I could give him chapter and verse, he would never again sentence anyone to the indeterminate sentence. Well, I did. Here is the report from the Director of Prisons Report of 1938. It reads like this—

I may say that another Judge of my acquaintance assured me that in any case he would not commit a native to the indeterminate sentence because in view of the fact that there are no attempts made to rehabilitate native convicts, it was merely a matter of consigning a man body and soul to hell. Now here is my point. This system of penal administration is tending to the spread of criminality among our population and I contend that it is imperative that we review this whole system now. I am very thankful, as everyone must be, that the Minister has decided to go into the whole question of keeping the short-term offender out of gaol, the man who is not a criminal in the sense that he is probably given the alternative of a fine but who has to go to gaol because he has not the money to pay the fine. I believe, and I think the Minister agrees, that any man who is given a sentence with the alternative of a fine is not the sort of person who should go to gaol at all, and a great deal of the evil of our present system would be abolished if we could alter that particular system and keep those people out of gaol. But that will only be a step in the right direction; it will not, of itself, bring our penal system up-to-date and bring it into line with modern ideals. In achieving that we shall have to go a great deal further. We shall not only have to rebuild our gaols, but we shall have to re-classify our convicts. We shall have to consider what is the purpose of a penal system at all. We have failed to do our duty in this respect in the past. Our penal system at present simply reflects the idea of revenge by society against persons who have disturbed it or frightened it or cut across its ideas of progress and security. Now, revenge is surely an idea which should have been abandoned a long time ago. It is true that society must be protected from the criminal, but the people who go into our gaols should long ago have been protected against society. What is happening with us is what always happens when society does not do its moral duty. Today we are facing the progressive increase in crime in our midst, and facing it with every fear and anxiety, but that is exactly what one could have foretold would arise under these conditions. Today we claim that crime in this country is moving beyond our control—beyond our capacity to deal with it. But we have largely created that crime by our social system and our present practices will not have the effect of eradicating the evil. I beseech the Minister to appoint this commission and get on with the reform I propose now. It is the only way he will ever escape from these endless appeals and requests as to what he is going to do about the European, native and other criminals. He can never solve his difficulties, he can never hope to bring about a better relationship between the various sections of the public, and between the public and the police under our present system. The only way he can meet his situation is by going to the root of it. I beg the Minister now to begin with his process of reform; thus we may give some hope to the people who are in prison, and to the community as a whole, that we may be able to destroy their fears and build up a healthy and happy population, free from the blot and spreading of a tyrannical system of this kind. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that he will appoint this commission now.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter in connection with prison warders. In the past a prison warder used to be entitled to 30 days leave per year. He was allowed to let his leave accumulate up to four months. In other words, after four years he could get four months leave if he had not taken leave for four years. Let me tell the Minister that in the gaols here, especially in Roeland Street, there are men who get their leave regularly every year and there are others who haven’t had leave for years. It is said that there is a shortage of staff. Well, if there is a shortage cannot things be arranged in such a manner that the prison warders will all get their leave in turn? These people feel that there is discrimination because some gaolers get their leave regularly every year while others cannot get theirs. But now there is a new arrangement and that worries these people even more. Two or three months ago a rule was introduced that members of the staff who had joined the service after 1927 could not allow their leave to accumulate. The result is that if they cannot get their leave this year it lapses. They cannot carry it over until next year. It doesn’t seem fair to alter the rules in regard to leave in such a manner that only a certain proportion of the warders are affected. The leave of the warder who joined the Service before 1927 can still be accumulated, but that of the people who joined after 1927 has to be taken every year and cannot be accumulated. Why does the Department not treat all these people alike? These men are worried about their conditions. There is a shortage of personnel. They cannot get people to join the prison service simply because their leave conditions are altered from time to time and because their wages are very low. These men cannot possibly come out on their wages. I think the Minister should make a point of seeing to it that these men in the lower notches of the service receive better treatment from their immediate chiefs. Some of those senior officials treat the subordinate warders very badly—almost like dogs. I have the case of one warder in Cape Town before me, and I want to bring it to the Minister’s notice. His wife was ill and so were his children. The children had measles. The native girl who was 17 years of age looked after the children. The man asked his chief for leave to go home to see how his family was getting on. He told his chief that his wife and children were ill and that there was no one to look after them. The reply was: “We are not concerned with your wife and children.” Surely the people in charge of a staff like that should have a little commonsense and should be more humane in the way they treat their subordinates. This man couldn’t get leave and he hasn’t had leave for years. I am prepared to believe that the very senior officials are decent men who can use their discretion, but it is these lower rank officers who are so unreasonable in their attitude, and the Minister should see to it that suitable people are appointed to those positions. Naturally they have to be firm and I can quite realise that you must have discipline, but it does seem to me that they go to extremes, and that they treat these people as though they were dogs. The man who called on me told me that he didn’t mind my mentioning his name, but I don’t want to do so because I am afraid that if I do do so he may be prosecuted. He told me that the position has got so bad that he didn’t care. They could kick him out if they liked, even if it meant that he had to go and work on the roads with pick and shovel. I want to ask the Minister to instruct his officials to use their discretion and if there is a man in charge, who has not the right mentality for that kind of position, who doesn’t treat his subordinates as he should do, the Minister should warn him and tell him to treat his subordinates as they should be treated.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) on the subject of the reform of our prison system, but I wish to approach the subject from a somewhat different angle. The hon. member has discussed the question mainly from the point of view of the native. A great deal has been said and written on the matter, and there is one man whose name should be mentioned in this connection and that is Mr. Justice Krause. There can be no doubt that the reform of our prison system has become a matter of urgent necessity. One of the forms of punishment which has become fairly popular is that of putting prisoners on spare diet. I regard it as barbarous, as a survival of the Middle Ages. It doesn’t belong to present day conditions. I also feel that a person who has been committed for trial, and who has not yet been found guilty, should not be locked up in a cell. I do not think it right to treat a man as a convict until he has been found guilty. This is a question which is causing a lot of trouble, even at the time the man is arrested and before he has actually been charged. This applies to both Europeans and nonEuropeans. Europeans are sometimes also locked up in cells before they have been brought before the magistrate or the judge. A third point I wish to refer to is this. Our system should not aim at undermining or breaking an individual’s personality or his health. In the fourth place there should be segretation between the real criminals and others who are not real criminals—there should be a classification of prisoners. Shortterm prisoners are often put together with long-term prisoners, and the results may be disastrous. In Johannesburg we had a man who did a lot in that respect—a certain Van Niekerk. He was called the prisoners’ friend. He achieved considerable success with his efforts, and it would be a good thing to follow up his work by means of permanent welfare officials. The question of the rehabilitation of ex-prisoners should also be carefully considered. Even today there is a tendency, when a man comes out of gaol to save: “Look out, this man is an ex-prisoner.” Instead of saying to the man: “Come let us help you; you have been in trouble; you have come down in life; but we do not look upon you as a lost soul. Let us see what we can do to help you along in life.” That is how the community should treat ex-prisoners. We should revolutionise the position. There is an English author, I think Thackeray, who said: “Many of us should be in gaol, but the trouble is that we are not found out.” If we look at matters in that light I think we will have more sympathy for these people. If we do so, we shall try to rehabilitate the man and to prevent his losing his self-respect. The first suggestion I want to make is that welfare officials be appointed to look after these people while they are serving their term in prison, and afterwards. My next suggestion is that when a prisoner is released he must be compelled to submit himself to the guidance and advice of the welfare official. I am now thinking of the period immediately after the man has left gaol. In the third place prisoners, where necessary, must be assisted—financially too—to become established again in the community. We cannot deny the fact that many a man leaves gaol with a firm intention of keeping straight. He gets work, but he is found out as an ex gaolbird. People will persecute him. His employer is told: “You have a gaol-bird in your employ.” You turn that man into an animal. Instead of persecuting him we should help him to become human again. Sometimes people leave the town where they have lived before their imprisonment to try and make a fresh start somewhere else, and then they are found out and are told: “You are a gaol-bird.” In the fourth place I want to suggest the establishment of a vouth brigade for juvenile offenders, instead of sending them to reformatories, and my fifth point is a very important one—even if the Minister perhaps doesn’t agree with me. In this country very little is done in the way of teaching people the elementary principles of law I feel that even on the school benches the children should be taught the significance of the law, and the consequences of breaches of the law. It should be part of their curriculum, and if that is done it will contribute considerably towards the prevention of crime. That also applies to our natives who drift to the towns. If we can make them realise before they go to town what the ordinances provide, what the by-laws lay down, and what the results of various contraventions may be, in will contribute greatly towards keeping our gaols empty. I feel that it is better to prevent crime than to punish people for having committed a crime. It will give better results. In conclusion I want to point out that the reformation of the prison system will involve financial obligations, but it will be money well spent. Lord Macaulay, in 1847 said this in the British House of Commons—

Let us approach the matter in that spirit.

I can quite appreciate hon. members pleading here on behalf of the people in need and on behalf of the poor, but the kind of pleas which are made here on behalf of the prisoners are entirely beyond me. If one listens to hon. members’ remarks, one really comes to the conclusion that the gaols should be made so pleasant that people are anxious to go there. I am surprised that no one has suggested that the Minister should give instructions that every prisoner should be given a whisky and soda each morning. I am perfectly sure that the police are very careful before they arrest anyone. I have been on the Bench for many years, and I know that the police have instructions from the Department of Justice to be most cautious before arresting anyone. The gaols should act as a deterrent to anyone to commit a crime. A man must be afraid of gaol, and the arguments used by hon. members this morning in support of our gaols being made pleasant so that people like going there, are sheer nonsense. I have given the Minister telegrams and letters from people who complain about cases of theft, and my contention is that the prisoners are treated too lightly. Scoundrels who steal our sheep, who steal our fowls, who try to murder people, are not punished today as they should be punished. That is what I object to. I contend that the Department should give instructions to punish these people more severely. As far as we are concerned it is a serious matter. We hear reports of motor cars stopping at people’s doors, of the man of the house being knocked down, the woman threatened with a knife, and of money being demanded of them. “Where is your money?” And £35 10s. is taken away from these poor people, the fowls and the pot and the kettle and all other goods are shifted out of the house, put on to a lorry and moved away. The next morning at three o’clock a constable on a pushbike finds out what had happened. We should act far more drastically and if penalties are imposed, these scoundrels should be taught to be afraid of gaol. Don’t turn our gaols into hostels.

The hon. Minister has certainly had an opportunity of hearing both sides of this important issue put in the most forceful terms. The hon. member who has just spoken has appealed very effectively and emotionally to that very factor of revenge on people who commit crimes against society, on which, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has pointed out, our whole penal system is based. Now the case against our penal system has been stated by the hon. member for Cape Eastern and supported by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy), and it is this, that our whole penal system is not only behind the possibilities of a penal system framed in accordance with the latest scientific discoveries, but is even backward in comparison with the penal system in other parts of the world. There are quite a number of patchwork reforms that can be made to meet the criticisms that have been heard this morning, but necessary as those may be, any comprehensive review of dur present system must be based upon our making up our minds whether the object of that system is the punishment of an offender for a sin against society, irrespective of the sins society has committed against him; or whether its object is to rehabilitate and reform those capable of rehabilitation and reform, and to separate and segregate from society those not capable of rehabilitation and reform. That ought to be the main objective, to reform those who are capable of being reformed and to segregate those who are incapable of it. One cannot model a penal system having those objectives without having a most thorough enquiry. That is what we are asking for today, for the most thorough enquiry into the causes of crime.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When the House adjourned I was putting it to the Minister that we have to make up our minds whether our object is to punish individual criminals or whether it is either to reform the criminal, if he is capable of reformation, or if he is not capable of reformation to segregate him from society in a manner which will ensure that he will do no more damage. In order to determine the criteria for the decision as to whether a man is capable of reformation or not, that can only be done by an enquiry which we have reason to believe the resources of contemporary science is able to supply the answer to. Now there are certain quite definite steps that will require to be taken on the assumption that the second alternative which I have referred to is adopted as the objective of our penal code. The first step is to clear our gaols of people who are not criminals at all, people whose only offence in a society built upon a money economy is that they are poor. That covers about 70 per cent. of the so-called criminals in this country, the prison population of this country. As the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. du Toit) has correctly said, they are people who have not enough money to pay their taxes and who are given the alternative of a prison sentence if they have not the money to pay. When we have reduced the prison population by the simple process of abolishing these multitudinous technical offences, we shall have reduced the problem to manageable proportions. This country will then no longer suffer the discredit, for it is a discredit, of having one of the largest prison populations of any country in the world. We hear much of fascist countries and communist countries, but none of them, I believe, are as bad as we are in that respect. Once that is done, we must set about remodelling our present rules and regulations in accordance with a system designed, either to reform the individual or to segregate him from his fellows, in the same way that we segregate the victims of infectious diseases. In this process I feel that the light of publicity is an important factor. Our present system enables what is done inside the gaol to be done behind closed doors. Even the Prison Board is not allowed to have full knowledge of what is going on in the gaol, and I maintain that the present Board ought to be remodelled and on it should be represented the best scientific knowledge available. It should not be just a crowd of people who have to decide whether any individual prisoner should or should not continue in captivity. It should have thoroughly supervisory powers over our whole prison system. At present our gaol regulations make it a criminal offence for the Prison Board, a warder or anybody else to say what is going on inside our gaols. Dr. Krause says on this point—

What is the necessity, Mr. Chairman, for a law of that kind? Not only should the Prison Board be reconstituted but we should have an entirely different type of man as warder, we should have men specially trained for this type of work. I believe, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, that warders are members of the Police Force not regarded as fit for other duties. That is quite a wrong criterion by which to choose warders. The warder ought to be a highly trained and skilled person and he should be properly paid. I am saying nothing against the present warders, who no doubt on the whole carry out their duties in a proper manner, but what I am suggesting is that an entirely different type of qualification ought to be required from the men who fill these posts. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I must say I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) this morning. I can give her the assurance that reforms have largely been introduced in the gaols, and that some time ago. In the time of my predecessor, General Beyers went overseas to attend an International Conference, and many improvements were then made. For instance, a first offender is treated on an entirely different basis now and much more leniently. But I would remind the hon. member that there are naturally in our gaols members of a section capable of reformation, but we have also another section which, although I will not say they are incapable of reformation, but are hardened criminals and very difficult to deal with. I admit that the question of revenge should not come in, but you cannot avoid the question of punishment. When certain crimes have been committed, the perpetrators of those crimes must be punished for the protection of society. The exact nature of that punishment and the efficacy of that punishment, is a matter that is being discussed in all parts of the civilised world. I think the public has got rather suspicious of Commissions being appointed, almost, I may say, under the slightest provocation. Anyway, Commissions are appointed very often. In this matter we have had a departmental enquiry, and as a result certain reforms should be introduced as soon as possible. At my request Mr. Hoal has accepted an appointment as Commissioner to bring in certain reforms, and to investigate the best manner of introducing those reforms. One of the first steps towards reform is to get as many people as possible out of the gaols, people such as defaulters in the matter of Poll Tax, and ensure that they do not become a part of the prison population of this country. I dealt extensively with this question in Another Place and I won’t repeat my remarks here. I am sure the hon. members for Cape Western and Cape Eastern will not regard it as discourtesy on my part. They mentioned the question of fines. We have the strange position of two people sentenced for the same offence, perhaps a very trivial offence. They are sentenced to a fine or imprisonment. In the one case the person can pay the fine, and in the other he cannot. The one man goes to gaol for a week perhaps; that is the type of case we want to deal with and we want to make it possible for these people to pay their fines. There are large sections of the population who today become portion of the prison population and we want to prevent them from going to prison. That is the first step of reform—prevention is better than cure. We should tackle the thing at the root. It is also a question of environment and of the social conditions of these people which we have to deal with; and our attention should be largely directed against preventing people from going to gaol, rather than reforming them when they are there. Of course the other part must not be neglected. Even when all these steps are taken you will still have a large number going to gaol and with them we shall also have to deal. The hon. member for Cape Eastern, in her very interesting speech, referred to the growth of our prison population. I said that from a social point of view this question must be tackled. We have a large part of our population sent to gaol for offences which are not essentially crimes. Take liquor offences. I know there is a large section of the people who regard the prevention of drunkenness in the interests of the liquor trade as one of the first essentials, but in order to prevent drunkenness arid to prevent the sale of liquor we have to a large extent filled our gaols, and caused untold misery and horror to innocent families. That is a matter which needs serious attention. We have created a prison population and surely it cannot be our object in the prevention of one danger to create as great if not a greater evil on the other side. These are questions which are going to be dealt with, and I think it is much better in the recess to take steps rather than to have another enquiry. Once we have prevented these people from going to gaol we can take the other steps. If a large section of the people can be kept out of gaol we should not delay. And that is the reason for Mr. Hoal’s appointment. As regads conditions inside the gaol, that is a matter of very great difficulty. I do believe that our prisons—I’m speaking of the larger centres— are as good as you’ll find anywhere in the world, probably, with the exception of Mexico.

They’re even worse than Mexico.

No, Mexico is very good. Mexico has adopted drastic reforms.

That’s right, support the Allies.

Their system needs very careful consideration. It has not been in operation very long but we are closely watching it. Then hon. members referred to the gaols at Bellville, Maritzburg, and East London. These gaols are run by the Prisons Department. The prisoners there are used to supply the Railways. The prisoners are sent to hard labour, and they have to have some sort of hard labour; the Cinderella Prison is run in connection with the E.R.P.M., but the prisoners do surface work only. This matter will be given attention immediately the session is over. I may just point out to the hon. member for Cape Western that the magistrates visit the gaols regularly; they are the best persons to listen to complaints. You cannot have the Prison Boards coming in and upsetting everything. They do go to the prisons of course—I hope I haven’t started a discussion on Prison Boards,—but magistrates go to the prisons and any prisoner can make complaints about his treatment.

I should like to discuss a matter which has not been touched upon yet—a question of political prisoners. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the case of those unfortunate people who today, as a result of war conditions, find themselves in the position of prisoners, and I should like to put up a plea for some relief for them from the conditions under which they find themselves. I don’t want to deal with any individual case, the Minister is familiar with them. If he enquires into the matter, he will find that some of these people are kept in our gaols under very difficult conditions. I don’t want to go into details, but what I do want to ask is whether people are still detained in our gaols without any charge having been brought against them—whether there are people who have yet to be tried, and whether people are still detained for questioning. If so, how many are there, and how long have they been there? We are anxious to have that information. And then I want to refer to a question which I recently asked the Minister—a question in connection with promotions in the prison service. Before I deal with that subject I want to ask the Minister to have the service conditions of prison warders looked into to ascertain whether it will not be in the interests of the State and in the interests of the prisoners to have their service conditions improved, so that a better type of man may be attracted to that class of work. The type of warder we have is, generally speaking, good, but if we can improve conditions, why should we not try to do so? With the pay they get it is impossible to attract the better type of man. If howeVer, conditions are made a little more attractive, a better type of man will come in. Now let me come back to the service conditions of prison warders. It is perfectly true that there are chief warders who take up a humane attitude towards the warders serving under them. Then there are warders, chief warders and others, whose attitude is inhuman and unreasonable. They are under the impression that they have to ride rough-shod over everyone and everything under them. I have in mind the case of a young man who was born in 1910. He Joined the prison service in 1933. In 1939 he became chief warder, Class III. His salary was £335 per year. I don’t propose mentioning his name. The Minister knows to whom I am referring. In 1940 he was appointed Chief Warder, Class II, and within a few months he became Chief Warder, Class I, shortly after which he was further promoted to Chief Warder, Special Class. When he got his first promotion he went over the heads of 42 chief warders. With his second promotion he went over the heads of 14 chief warders, and when he got his third promotion he went over the heads of 19 chief warders. He went rough-shod over everybody who stood in his way.

He must have been a component man.

Didn’t he deserve it?

Not over the others.

Are you pleading for the principle of seniority?

Not at all. But this young gentleman didn’t care whom he walked over, and he didn’t care how he did it. He was a good climber, and it didn’t matter to him whose reputation and whose good name he trampled down. He was one of those ambitious people who only wanted promotion and it didn’t matter to him how he got it. I don’t begrudge any person his promotion if he earns it. I don’t begrudge any man, who has the necessary qualifications, his promotion, but this man isn’t one of those. He is one of the expert climbers in the service.

Still he must be a good man.

And he doesn’t care how he treats the prisoners in gaol. He doesn’t care whom he uses to spy on the prisoners and to keep them down. He will use the service of the greatest criminal in the country to trap and trample on his own people. He will use the lowest type of individual in South Africa to trap his own people. He will use the lowest types to help him climb higher on the ladder. We want the Minister to keep his eye on that gentleman. Generally speaking, our chief warders are a good type of man, and my complaint is by no means a general one. We have many good men who are doing excellent work, but there are a few—and this fellow is one of them—who do not care what methods they use to get higher on the ladder and to get promotion. They only want to climb. The poor individuals whose lot it is to come under his supervision and authority are treated unfairly and unreasonably. Surely the Minister should see to it that their lot is not made unnecessarily hard. I would welcome it if the service conditions of prison warders could be reconsidered. Cannot the Minister in consultation with his departmental heads, refer this matter to the Public Service Commission for investigation, and can he not see to it that the whole situation is improved? There is another matter which I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice, and that is the case of those warders who have become the prey of a man’s ambition, and who, as a result, have unfortunately been interned. I assume that if a warder contravenes the law there are disciplinary regulations under which he can be dealt with. If a man does anything wrong he can be dealt with under the Departmental regulations. If a man commits a criminal act he can be charged before a court of law, but 5in this instance the Government has apprehended nine prison warders and put them in an internment camp, possibly because no charge could be brought against them under the disciplinary regulations or under the law. The Minister is now using the Emergency Regulations to punish these people—a means which he would never have had otherwise. We want every case to be considered on its merits If these people have broken the law, they can be punished in the ordinary way. There are regulations to which they have to submit, and those regulations are quite severe; in fact, They are inhuman sometimes, if they are applied by a man of the kind to which I have referred. Why then should another means of punishment be applied to them— why should they be interned? If they break the law, the courts of the country are there to deal with them. Do not avail yourself of the present abnormal conditions to cast them into internment camps and to punish them in that way. The internment camps have been established for different purposes— they are not there to punish a man who, perhaps, has not been strict enough in carrying out his duties, who perhaps has not carried out his duties in accordance with the whims and the wishes of the chief warder, or who, perhaps, in your opinion, has broken the law.

I rise on this prison vote, because I too have read this indictment of Mr. Justice Krause’s, and am greatly concerned about it. That indictment of prison conditions which he has written is an indictment of our society as such; and if, once our attention has been drawn to it, we still allow such a state of affairs to continue, I think we shall ourselves have earned the reproach that he has levelled. So far I think the opinion of the general public, what they thought at all of this matter of prison reform, has been that generally to assume that on this important question we have kept pace more or less with reforms in other countries, and the general assumption is that our penal legislation is as adequate as that of other countries. That has been the case till now. But in view of the grave indictment by Mr. Justice Krause we shall be failing in our duty now unless we carefully examine the facts of the position. So while I do support the plea of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) that a thorough enquiry should be made, I am glad to hear from the Minister that in fact he is already taking action and is appointing the Secretary for Justice in the capacity, I understand from the Minister, of a one-man court of action. And I hope that the Minister will see to it that the Secretary for Justice has an adequate staff at his disposal to deal with the subject, because it is a job that calls for immediate remedial action and no one man can carry that out without an adequate staff. I want to impress that point on the Minister. Again while Mr. Justice Krause, in his indictment, has dealt mainly with the native criminals in our gaols, he has also made it clear that not very much has been done for the European criminals either. Beginnings have been made here and there for Europeans, but we are a very long way from reaching the stage they have arrived at in some States of America in their criminal procedure, where they are beginning to find their gaols are progessively getting emptier and emptier, whereas ours, as the Minister has demonstrated by opening the doors of our gaols, have an ever-increasing flow into them. So I hope the Minister will instruct the Secretary for Justice to investigate the position of the European criminal also, and investigate even more particularly the lot of the women prisoners as to whom I am specially concerned. I want to remind the Minister ţhat two or three years ago a series of articles in one of our weeklies appeared which showed conclusively that in the handling of women prisoners we were a long way behind other countries. Hence I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that this one-man court of action will deal with the situation as it applies to all classes of offenders not non-Europeans only and that the unfortunate women prisoners who are, alas, only too numerous in our gaols, will get special attention.

I merely wish to say that I am not disappointed with the length of the Minister’s reply, but with its conclusion. I can appreciate the attitude he has taken, in view of the extensive statements he has made in Another Place, but itwas just because these statements were not as satisfactory as we wished that we have raised the issue here. I know the Government is beginning to fear that they will go down in history as the Commission Government; and there are good reasons for that fear; but I am certain that this Commission that we are asking for would be justified where a considerable number of the other Commissions which it has appointed cannot be justified. I feel that the willingness of other Ministers to appoint Commissions might be curbed with advantage, but that the Minister of Justice might be encouraged to abandon his unwillingness in this regard. I appreciate very thoroughly the efforts the Minister has made and is making to improve the administration of our penal system. I know he is doing his best to keep down our prison population; but I feel there is no hope of real reform of our present system—which my information indicates is much worse than the prison system of any of the Western countries—unless we first decide what the principles of our prison system should be and where we are going wrong at present. I do not see how the Secretary for Justice can establish a real reform until we have effected a change in the principles at present governing our prison system. I ask, in conclusion, that the Minister will, at least, promise that he will review the policy of our penal administration at an early date and possibly next year give us a compréhensive statement in that regard which will give us some guarantee of an effective improvement.

In 1940, the first year after the present Minister took charge of this Portfolio, we put a number of questions about the housing of prison warders. I am referring particularly to Bellville and Cape Town. At Bellville a certain number of prison warders have houses, but others get an allowance and have no houses. Those who get an allowance are in a very unfavourable position as compared with those with houses. The Minister then promised us that he would go into the question. I know that there was unpleasntness between people stationed in Cape Town and people stationed at Bellville. They were not keen to go to Bellville, because the houses there are far away from the gaols, and it was difficult for them to get there. I should like the Minister to make a statement to inform us what has been done to meet those people in regard to houses. I agree with the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) that gaols are not pleasure resorts, yet I feel that I have to agree with the Native Representatives to a large extent, and that prisoners must not be treated in such a manner that their health is detrimentally affected. I feel that if a man has been punished, he has to serve his, term, and his term of imprisonment should not be changed in the way it was done in Jaffe’s case; Jaffe was sentenced to five years’ hard labour, and for four years he did nothing in gaol. What I want to get at is that at Bellville many of the gaol-birds have to work on rainy days; they are transported long distances in the rain and when they return they have to go into their cells with their wet clothes. Whether you are a gaolbird or an (ordinary criminal, it is the duty of the State to see to it that these people’s health is not affected when they are in gaol. You punish a man because he breaks the law, and you give him work to do, but you have no right to ruin his health. I understand that even the warders complain that many of the convicts who are taken out to work return in such a state that their health suffers as a result.

And in spite of that you still agree with the hon. member for Losberg?

I agree to this extent that a gaol must not be a pleasure-resort, and that steps should be taken that people’s health is not detrimentally affected there. Now I want some information on a few points. On page 256 of the Estimates I notice that there is a schoolmaster, a teacher for the gaols. Is he there to teach in one gaol only, or in more gaols, and in which gaols? Then I notice two items there, one a cost-of-living allowance and the other a special war allowance. I should like to know who gets the cost-of-living allowance and who gets the special war allowance. Do people who are not on active service get the cost-of-living allowance, and do those who are on war service get a special war allowance, or both, and how is it applied?

I would not have Intervened in this debate, Sir, were it not for the fact that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) omitted to refer to the deterrent effect which punishment has on people who contemplate committing crime. I am afraid that we cannot all agree with the Very humane views which have been expressed in regard to penal reform. This question is nothing new, it has been considered in many parts of the world. I have here an amusing cartoon which depicts a couple of convicts sitting in armchairs before the fire, one with a newspaper and the other with a bottle of beer beside him.

Whisky and soda?

Well, perhaps it is whisky and soda. A warder appears with a salver and says: “No. 657, your wife is here to see you.” The convict answers: “Didn’t I tell you, Willie, there is always a snag about it.” Well, I hope the hon. Minister and his Secretary for Justice will not recommend that our prisons are made so attractive that a considerable section of the population will want to get inside. Many of the crimes committed in the Union today could, in my opinion, be stopped, if prison sentences were more severe, and if some of them were carried out as they were meant to be carried out. For instance, in the illicit liquor business, we find that under War Measure 2 of 1940, published in Notice No. 256 of the Government Gazette in October, 1942, the Magistrates were empowered by the Government to impose sentences of imprisonment for illicit liquor selling in addition to or in lieu of fines, but, Sir, we find that very few magistrates impose the prison sentence, and I believe, personally, as many other people do, that sentences of imprisonment would certainly stop this trade to a very large extent. These people make very large sums of money by selling liquor and they easily find the money to pay their fines. I believe a few more prison sentences on shebeeners would have a salutary effect. I agree entirely with the hon. member as far as the imprisonment of natives for small things like infringement of the Pass Laws and non-payment of taxes are concerned. I believe it should be possible to find some other method of dealing with these offenders. Personally I have always been in favour of the abolition of the Poll Tax, but while these taxes are still in force, I feel that natives should hot be thrown into prison because of inability to pay and other means can be found to collect the payments due.

The hon. member has not understood the point we are making, although I was very glad to hear him say that he is opposed to the imprisompent of natives for trivial offences. Our point is that you must decide who is a real criminal and who is not, and not treat people accused of political offences or technical offences as criminals. That is the first thing that should be got rid of entirely, and with regard to those who are classified as criminals you have to decide whether they require punishment or reform or whether they should be segregated. Our point is that no attempt is made to deal with people along these lines, and that is all we are asking for. We are not asking for whisky and soda to be supplied in gaol—that I think is a cheap debating point—nor do we detract from the value of punishment as a deterrent. Here I would refer to what the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) said. If I am going to steal sheep, or fowls, it will certainly not be his stock after the speech he made. I do want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied with the treatment of awaiting trial prisoners. My information is that these people are treated in the same manner as convicted criminals, they have the same food as criminals. I think we ought to have the support of the Labour Party in asking for reform in this matter because these awaiting trial prisoners, just because they cannot afford the money for bail, are not even allowed to interview their lawyers without a warder hanging about in the room. If a man has enough money to put up bail he can interview his attorney in the attorney’s own office. What is the reason for a system under which a man cannot even see his professional adviser without a warder being in the room? Why should he be treated on the same terms as a criminal when he has not been convicted of any crime? The only difference in treatment which I have been able to see is that he does not have to do hard labour. It is a cardinal principle of our law that a man is not guilty of anything until his guilt has been proved before a court of law, and yet those awaiting trial prisoners are treated as criminals except that they do not do hard labour. Now I want to refer to a special case which has come to my notice, and that is, the way they treat awaiting trial juveniles at Kimberley. These youngsters, mostly non-Europeans, are put into gaol and mixed with Hardened criminals, there is no facility for keeping them apart from the old lags in the local gaol. I ask the Minister to put a stop to a practice like that. I know it is the primary responsibility of the Department of Social Welfare, but I do ask the Minister to tell that Department that he will not have these youngsters locked up amongst old lags. I am sure he would rather have them escape punishment altogether, even if they are guilty, rather than have them brought into contact with hardened criminals.

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has asked me to direct my attention to awaiting trial prisoners. I am not satisfied with the treatment of these people and that is one of the matters that Mr. Hoal will deal with. They are a portion of the gaol population at present and we want to get them out. My own view is that where it is clear that a man will answer the summons and will appear he should not be put in gaol. Only those people whom you are afraid will not appear in answer to a summons should be kept in gaol. In this connection I think the bail conditions should be different from what they are today. I don’t want to say too much on that but it is one of the questions which Mr. Hoal will deal with during the recess.

*There are a few other points raised by hon. members opposite. One sees the different points of view which go to show that we have to deal very carefully with this subject. We have the outlook of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and the very opposite of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) who expressed his views very eloquently. One cannot ignore either of them. There are special circumstances and this whole question is going to be investigated thoroughly. I am not, therefore, going to anticipate the result of that investigation. I want to say to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) that the warders who were arrested in Pretoria were not arrested on the mere statement, of Goosen and such people. We have acknowledgments of guilt in many cases, and we also have the evidence of the colleagues of the men who are in trouble. It would not be fair to go any further into that question now. But I thought the hon. member was entitled to the information which I have just given him. Then there are those who are in gaol, whom he calls political prisoners. I do not accept that definition, but we needn’t go into that because I know to whom he is referring. There are a few who have been arrested and who will be charged in court. There are others too whose cases will be heard as soon as possible.

If they have acknowledged their guilt why can they not be tried at once?

We are getting certain information.

Are you afraid of the way you got that information?

No, but important statements have been made and I have to go into them. Let me tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that we are naturally very anxious to look after the health of the prisoners. We do our very best there and we are always giving that question our attention.

I can assure the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Solomon) that Mr. Hoal will have an adequate staff to deal with the very difficult work he has undertaken.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s reply. May I remind him that when the General Laws Amendment Act was under discussion in 1937, we were promised that henceforth offenders sent to gaol would be separated into different classes instead of being herded together. Hon. members have spoken of various grades of criminals.

I mentioned that.

I understood at the time that juvenile delinquents and old criminals would not be allowed to come into contact with each other.

They don’t come into contact with one another.

I am glad to hear the Minister say so, because we want some information on that point. But what does happen is this. The youthful delinquent, before he is tried and sentenced, is treated in the same way as the old gaol-bird. I mentioned a case here the other day and the Minister promised me that he would go into it. It was the case of a man who had no previous convictions, and who was eventually found not guilty, but he was treated in in the same way as the old gaol-bird. I want the Minister to listen to me most carefully. I am flabbergasted to hear that political prisoners are treated like ordinary criminals. Fundamentally, it is wrong. A political offender whether he is a Communist or a Nationalist ….

Don’t mention a Communist and a Nationalist in the same breath.

A political offender is a man who is in gaol for a principle. That I am sorry to hear, that he is treated as an ordinary criminal ; I am sorry to hear that he has to sleep on a cement floor and that he is treated like an ordinary criminal. A political offender should be treated like a gentleman because he is a gentleman. He differs from you politically and he is prepared to sacrifice his freedom for his political convictions. He should be treated in the same way as an officer is treated who is a prisoner of war. [Interjections.] Are the hon. members opposed to that? I contend that a political prisoner— and I said so in 1937 as well— should be treated not like an ordinary criminal but like a prisoner of war. A political prisoner is a man who is gaoled because of his convictions and he would not have done what he has done, he would not have given up his freedom, were it not with his convictions. I associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and I also want to associate myself with the views of the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans). If hon. members would try and understand one another’s points of view a little more they would realise that both sides are right. There are criminals who are entitled to sympathy from the public. There are people in gaol who should be treated sympathetically and every attempt should be made to rehabilitate them; on the other hand there are others who have to be dealt with severely. I speak now of the skilled professional thief who has never done a stroke of work and who never will. You will see him on a hot summer’s day standing on the corner of the street wearing a thick overcoat and a muffler round his neck.

Hasn’t he also got principles?

No, he has no principles at all, and if those people break into hon. members’ houses they will get a very different opinion of them. To them I would give the cat-o’-nine-tails, or I Would keel-haul them. You are dealing with two different types of offenders here. The one breaks the law because it is in his blood. And then you have the others who, forced by circumstances, sometimes by the pangs of hunger, commit crimes. That is the type of man who is entitled to sympathetic consideration. Don’t put him in gaol and turn him into an enemy of society as the hon. member said. Make him feel that society would like to rehabilitate him. The hon. member pleaded the cause of the type of prisoner whom we should like to rehabilitate, but the hon. member for Losberg spoke of a type of criminal against whom anyone, who has to suffer as a result of his actions, has a feeling of vindictiveness. The man who suffers from the depredations of these people is apt to feel vindictive against them. Let us get away from the idea that work is a penalty, a punishment. Work is a pleasure.

Not on a Saturday afternoon.

Only very few people regard it as a hardship to have to work. There is one type of criminal who will always be a criminal and all you can do with him is to make him work. He likes being a criminal. When we debated the General Laws Amendment Act in 1937, it was suggested that the various types of prisoners should be dealt with in different ways. If a man has broken the law as a result of force of circumstances, he should be treated sympathetically. We must be careful what we say in this House, because the professional thief too reads the paper. The newspapers publish only sensational news; they never publish routine news. If the professional thief reads what hon. members say here he will say: “So they now intend improving our conditions in gaol.” We have to be careful of what we say here, because everything containing the germ of public danger is splashed in the newspapers, and the professional thief reads it and jump’s to the conclusion that if he gets into trouble he is not going to be so very badly off. He feels that an attempt is being made to put him into a hotel if he commits a crime. Let us be very careful. If we have to show sympathey, let us choose to show it to those who deserve it. We must be careful not to broadcast anything that will encourage the born criminal to think that his position is going to be easier. If the Minister stated publicly that if organised theft and crime did not stop, he would introduce measures like the old system of keel-hauling, there would be less crime.

I should like to associate myself with the views expressed by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) with those of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and also those of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). We cannot get away from the fact that people are put in gaol on suspicion. At one time, unfortunately, large numbers of people were gaoled on suspicion, and the way those people were treated was not only identical with the way the ordinary criminal was treated, but, in actual fact their treatment was worse. It is all very fine for some members to say that those people would not have been arrested if they had not been guilty. In my own constituency people have been put in gaol, in one instance a man was gaoled for two months, and in another for three, and they had to put up with the grossest insults. Their wives and children were at home and had nothing coming in. These people were treated much worse than ordinary criminals. They were accused of being rebels, of being spies, of being Nazis— all sorts of bogeys were raised. Eventually they were released and no charge was ever brought against them. To this day they don’t know what they were accused of and I don’t believe that even the State knows. There is one instance which happened near Pretoria, where an outstanding medical specialist, an old man in bad health, was arrested between three and four o’clock in the morning. His house was surrounded and the man was removed to the charge office in town where he was detained. He was grossly insulted and he was kept there for interrogation. All sorts of allegations were made against him. One was that he had a transmitting set and the lord knows what not. According to the information available he was arrested on statements made by one single Jew. Eventually the man was released. It was ridiculous to apprehend him on such charges. I must associate myself with the views expressed that these people who are decent orderly individuals should be decently treated. These men are now nursing a grievance, and if one looks into the details of the case I have just mentioned one cannot wonder at a man like that having a grievance. That was the kind of treatment meted out to prominent citizens of this country. In this particular instance, this specialist had to perform some serious operations that day. He was detained the whole night and the whole day for the sole purpose of being asked a few questions. Feel that the time has arrived for us to do the right thing. While we are supposed to be fighting for freedom, this is not the time to go back to Nero’s methods, and I want to urge the Minister most sincerely not to treat these people like criminals—particularly in view of the fact that a number of them have had to be released again.

As the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) knows, this question of housing is a very difficult pne—it is very difficult to get the necessary material for new houses. Military work has had to receive priority for a long time. Efforts have been made to build, but it has not been found possible to do so. We shall give this question our attention as soon as possible. Other factors, of course, also enter into it. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) let me say this to him. I do not intend talking about special cases, but I want to put him right on one point. A great many people have been arrested, and have been released afterwards without a charge having been laid against them, but there have always been good reasons for the steps taken against them. In those cases very important information has been given, and where a man gave important information, that fact was always taken into account and regarded as an extenuating circumstance. A good many of the people were released, but they were the people who gave us evidence which assisted us to get hold of others. So it is wrong to say that there was no case against them and that they were not prosecuted because there was no case against them. I don’t Want to elaborate that aspect of the matter. These people have to be protected. Here and there a guilty person has been released in order to protect these people, so that the public themselves should not know who had given information and who had not.

In the public interests, it is essential to give these people all possible protection. I do not know whether the hon. member for Gezina wants to advise the House that people who have committed acts of sabotage, who have blown up trains etc., should not be punished.

But what about political prisoners?

We have no political prisoners in that sense of the word. Those who are in gaol are there because of offences they have committed— acts of violence, theft, etc. for which they have been punished by a court of law.

Assuming a rebellion breaks out and people land in gaol in the same way as Gen. De Wet did in 1914, would they be treated in the same way today as they were in 1914?

I cannot answer a hypothetical question like that. I would not advise anyone to go into rebellion anticipating lenient treatment. But I should like to give hon. members the assurance that no one is arrested unless the charges against him have been carefully investigated.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 42.—“Police”, £3,717,000,

I am one of those who can speak with the highest praise, generally speaking, of the work of our police in South Africa. We have a police force of a very high standard today. Our police are doing difficult, dangerous and important work, and it is generally felt that they are not receiving sufficent consideration for their difficult task. Often they have to work for days and nights on end in tracking criminals. I am reminded of a case which happened recently in the Free State when a man and women at Petrusburg were foully murdered. The police had to search for the murderer day and night and eventually they got him. The work they did was deserving of the highest praise. The work of the police deserves of the greatest appreciation. I am one of those who feel that the police are paid too little for the work they do and I blame this Government and previous Governments. I want the best type of man to be attracted to the police service. The days when the police were looked down upon are gone. Today they are among the most highly respected members of our community, but the work they do, the responsibility they undertake, and the risks they run are not compensated adequately. I would like to tell the Government that I feel it will have the support of the whole House and the whole country if it shows more consideration to our police. The police are not paid for overtime. A man employed on the Railways, who does an hour overtime, is paid for that hour on a higher scale, and the work of those people is not in any way as difficult as that of the police. A policeman is instructed to go somewhere, and it makes no difference whether he is on the job throughout the day and the night. I think the sooner the position of the police is given serious attention the better for all concerned. The police should be better paid, they should have better facilities and more privileges. We want to attract the best type; the quality is good, but, if possible, we want to improve it even more. We want to attract people who have had a good education. I do not want to elaborate this point unduly but I hope the Minister will take it up. Now, let me refer to the condition which has arisen in the police service, and which was brought to light very prominently in the recent case of De Beer— a very notable case. I said a few moments ago that the police were not paid enough for the difficult and dangerous work they have to do. We have had this De Beer case. After 12 years’ service he applied two years ago for permission to resign from the police service. His application was refused. After wards he was Ordered to go to Pretoria for a fresh course, and he refused to go because, as he stated afterwards in court, he wanted to draw the country’s attention to the fact that they were not free citizens. He had the opportunity of improving himself and of getting a much better position, but he was not allowed to resign. Why must a man be kept on against his will? But what is strange is that the magistrate made these remarks in his, judgment—

In the meantime a hundred other men were released but this man who could improve his position was refused his discharge. Is it not a natural thing for anyone who is able to improve his position to try and do so? This man had a fine chance and he was refused permission to take that chance. And eventually he was driven into doing something in conflict with the disciplinary regulations, which led to disciplinary steps being taken and to his being taken to court. Simply because he wanted to improve his position and because he wanted to create a better future for his family, he was compelled to break the disciplinary regulations. It is an unheard of condition of affairs, and I would like the Minister to assure us that that sort of thing is not going to happen again, and that in future, permission will be granted in such cases. The magistrate says that in the meantime hundreds of others have received their discharge. Why was it refused to him? Now let me say a few words about those members of the police who do parliamentary duty. I have raised their case here repeatedly but there is no improvement, and I feel that the position is most unsatisfactory and unreasonablè. In 1941, there was a notice in the Government Gazette, Notice No. 209 of 7th February, 1941—

1. (4) Police officials who are detailed for service in Cape in connection with the sittings of Parliament, receive a subsistence allowance and enjoy privileges in accordance with the scale, and subject to the conditions equivalent to those applying to public servants.

In other words, there will be no distinction between policemen coming here from outside and ordinary public servants. Two years ago I put the following question to the Minister—

The reply was—

Last session I raised the matter again; I pointed out to the Minister that the ordinary police official who had to stand here day and night did not get the allowance he had been promised. The Minister replied as follows—

After the session I wrote a letter reminding the Minister of his promise. This was in April, last year. Eventually I got the following reply, with the following excuse. It was dated 11th August, 1943—

But they do not get the allowance. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to go into that question again. He told me in that letter that he would go into the matter again and would notify me of any developments. [Time limit.]

I have just a few points I would like to put to the Minister. The first is that we are feeling rather nervous at the fact that the Minister’s department has decided to close some of the outlying posts along the borders of the Transkei Territories. It is a well-known fact that these outposts were placed to control that area and maintain law and order in the area, where you have today a dense population of natives on both sides of the boundary. The removal of those posts is going to create a position whereby you are going to return to that stock running carried out for so many years, thus necessitating an increase in those police posts rather than a decrease. While I appreciate that necessity demands that they should be closed at the present juncture owing to the shortage of men required for active service, I would like to put it to the Minister that these posts be re-established at the earliest possible date. Following upon that, I should like to bring another point to the attention of the Minister, and that is that the congregations of those hundreds of youths varying from 12 to 21 years of age, which have been referred to previously, is still taking place to the same extent in those areas where it was occurring when the matter was brought up previously. These congregations are causing an unsatisfactory state of affairs, as the lads were unruly, disrespectful and absolutely contemptuous of law and order and private property. I would like to see something done to bring about a more satisfactory state of affairs so far as these congregations of natives are concerned. I can assure you they run about in the nude, they confine themselves to the roads, and are absolutely contemptuous of everybody concerned. They realise that with the shortage of police nobody is able to interfere with them, and with their dogs they are a menace to the whole farming community. Lastly I want to mention a point which has been raised by other hon. members and that is the celebration of these native ceremonies at certain times of the year. There again you have greater contempt than was shown before. The kweta ceremony is often celebrated within one or two hundred yards of the road, and when they are going through that ceremony they run about in Nature’s garb and think nothing of standing alongside the road in the nude. I had the pleasure recently of driving the Minister of Lands from East London to King williamstown, and we saw three of these kwetas along the road and the Minister was able to see for himself. We are supposed to be a civilised country and we are supposed to take these people as civilised. We want to do that but we want them also to make their contribution, and if these ceremonies must be carried out, may we not ask that they shall be carried out in the reserves where they do not interfere with other people.

I should like to dispose of this question about the police doing duty in the House of Parliament. I asked the Minister whether this regulation was still in force so that the police could get the privileges mentioned there. The Minister replied—

That is not true. These men are sent here from their ordinary stations to do duty in Parliament House during the Session and when the Session is over they go back. The Minister’s chauffeur comes here and he gets an allowance. The detectives who guard the Prime Minister get an allowance, and it is quite right that they should, but why should these policemen be treated unjustly—why should they not get the allowance if they are sent here for Parliamentary duty? Some of these men are married and they are not transferred to Cape Town. Their families stay behind at, Piketberg, at Clanwilliam, at Robertson or wherever they may be. They know that they come here only temporarily, for the Session, and that after that they have to return. It is an injustice to them to state that they are brought here to strengthen the police generally. When I returned to Parliament three years ago I immediately took up this question. It seems that that regulation is just eye-wash if it is said that these people are not sent there for Parliamentary duty—nothing but a fig-leaf behind which the Police Department is hiding. We demand justice for these people, and we want that regulation to be applied so that they can get that allowance in the same way as other people who are sent here for Parliamentary duty. These officials are sent to Cape Town; they are not sent here to strengthen the department, they come here for the Session and the police are in the same position. They come on duty in the morning and they stay until evening, until they return to their barracks, where they go to sleep. They do no other duty. To my mind the Minister’s department is doing something illegal, something improper when they refuse to give these people the benefits of this regulation, and we on behalf of these people demand justice for them.

I should like to make a plea for the salaries of police officials and detectives to be increased. In the first place, I want to express my appreciation of the work which has been done by the police, especially in these critical times. In the second place, I want to express my appreciation of the work of the Acting Commissioner of Police. We know that if Brig. Baston had retired, he would have led a more comfortable life today, but that he is continuing to do this work, although it means a sacrifice, financially and otherwise. I trust that when he actually retires, the Government will express its appreciation to him in a tangible and in no uncertain way. As far as the salaries are concerned, the time at my disposal is so short that I cannot go into all the details. No one can say that the salary of the policeman is adequate to enable him to maintain the standard of living which is expected of him. Take the ordinary unskilled labourer who starts at the minimum wage of 10s. per day. He gets about £15 per month. The recruit in the police service begins at 6s. 6d. per day. After the first year the labourer gets 11s. per day or £16 10s. per month, while the recruit gets £14 5s. after the first year. So it goes on until we come to the rank of sergeant. When a policeman has had twelve years’ service he gets £335 per annum or £28 per month. If we take his domestic budget on a conservative basis—his rent is £8 per month, vegetables £4, water and light £1, groceries £5, fuel £3, clothing £3, miscellaneous expenditure £3, we find that it amounts to £27 per month. How can we expect the man to make ends meet on £28? A commission of investigation has been announced in connection with the ordinary civil servants, and I want to express the hope that the salaries of policemen will also be investigated. We have not yet received a definite reply on this point. But I want to express the hope that the Minister will be prepared to instruct the commission, which was recently announced, also to investigate the service conditions of the policemen. Some time ago a commission investigated this matter, but owing to a misunderstanding in regard to the recommendations, the police did not benefit. Owing to lack of time, I cannot discuss the question of medical treatment, pensions, etc., and I want to touch on the important question of disciplinary action. The request is that when policemen are tried, they should be tried by the magistrate instead of police officers. There is no body to whom the policemen can direct their complaints. The cannot go to their member of Parliament. The ordinary civil servants have the Public Servants’ Association, but the police have no such association or trade union. I believe during the time of Sir Theodore Truter there was a Grievances Commission, which did very good work. If a body of that nature cannot be instituted again, I want to suggest as an alternative that a welfare officer should be appointed for the police, so that they can openly put their grievances to him without the danger of victimisation. When a charge is made against a man by a subordinate officer, he can appeal and in the majority of cases the appeal succeeds, but he has to bear the costs. Let me give a few examples. “X” was charged because he had allowed someone to pay for his meal; it was regarded as bribery. His appeal succeeded, but it cost him £53 10s. In the other case “B” was charged because he had touched a constable on the shoulder, and that was regarded as being too familiar. His appeal succeeded but it cost him £10. It is unfair to expect those people to bear the costs of such appeal cases. In view of the fact that these people are not allowed to have a trade union, the State ought to see to it, if they cannot have a welfare officer to whom they can complain, that an advocate or attorney is made available to represent them. We should not expect them to bear these costs. I think it is generally accepted that in order to got good work, one must have satisfied workmen. A satisfied workman renders good service. I do not think we can say that our officials and our policemen can be satisfied with the salaries they get. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, therefore, to see whether he cannot improve this position, and whether he will not allow the commission, which has been announced, to investigate the service conditions of the policemen as well.

There are a number of matters which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The area in which I live adjoins the British Protectorate which is inhabited solely by natives, and there is the danger of foot and mouth disease spreading from across the border. There are not enough policemen at the border to prevent natives and their cattle from crossing over into our territory. We are therefore in a dangerous position, and I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible to provide more adequate protection at the border, because today the natives are able to cross the border freely. Even the territory adjoining the native territory is also inhabited by natives. There are very few police officials, and they cannot protect the place. I shall be glad if the Minister coud give us more police protection. Under the foot and mouth disease regulations, we had to endure severe hardships, and members of the public have felt that we should ask the Minister to appoint more police officials. We admit that the police in that area are doing very good work. Their lives are in danger. They are trying to control the position, but their lives are in danger and they are short-staffed. I shall be glad therefore if the Minister will investigate this matter. The whole Union would be in danger if foot and mouth disease spread to the Union. I believe that this is a matter which is under the control of the adjoining territories, but we should prevent the disease from spreading into the Union. There are a few police stations in that area. There is the Swartfontein police station, for example, which has been there for approximately 30 years. The building is very small. There is barely room for two people. Court cases have to be tried there, and there is no more room for the magistrate. I am also told that the building at Derdepoort is very poor. I have not seen it personally. I hope that the Minister will see to it that a better building is erected there. We appreciate the work of the policemen and we know that they sacrifice a great deal, and I agree with the previous speaker that the policemen should receive higher salaries. They cannot live decently cm the low salaries which they get today, and we want to ask the Minister to see to it that the salary scales are improved.

I just want to say , in connection with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said, that the whole question of salary scales will be referred to the commission which is being appointed in connection with the civil service. I do not want to express any opinion at this stage, therefore, but the commission will go into it. It is true that the services of the police officials are used in Cape Town, but they are brought here to strengthen the local police force.

But they always go home again. Is it not a fact that they always go back after the session?

I just want to tell the hon. member what they get. They receive an allowance of 10s. per day while travelling to Cape Town. When they get here, they no longer receive the allowance.

Why not?

They work eight hours per day. They are not called upon to do ordinary police work. They only work eight hours per day. The married men get a free room and food and other facilities like libraries and billiard rooms, etc. They are given free food. The single person pays for his maintenance.

How much?

If they can prove that their expenses were abnormal, they are compensated. We hope in the future to bring the married men here on better conditions.

What do you mean by saying “if their expenses are abnormal”?

If they have to spend more. I am going into this matter again. It is easier to bring these people to Cape Town and to let the ordinary police go, and then to use the services of the Cape Police later.

That was the position even before the war.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is done everywhere. Where there is a shortage, they are taken into the ordinary police force to assist. It has only been done during the war. Before the war this was done by the Cape Town police. In order to meet the police, their hours of duty were reduced.

Do they work shorter hours here?

I just want to say in conclusion that this matter will be specially investigated immediately after the Session.

I want to associate myself with what other hon. members said in connection with the salaries of police officials. They are responsible for the protection of the public, and it is the duty of the State to take care of those people. The hon. Minister has just stated that this matter will be referred to the Commission of Investigation, but it is the duty of the State to see to it that they are able to make a decent living. I do not only want to discuss the salary scale; there are many other things in the service which should be rectified, and which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In the first place, I want to say a few words in regard to the leave of police officials. When the war broke out their leave was completely stopped. Some time later only seven days were granted. Two years after the outbreak of the war, when the position improved, 21 days were granted, but the ordinary leave before the War was 30 days. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for these people to be given their full 30 days’ leave? It is laid down by regulation that leave may accumulate, and that upon the retirement of the official the department will not pay more than four months’ salary in lieu of accumulated leave. If, for example, the leave accumulated to seven or eight months, the department only pays the official in respect of four months’ leave, and he loses the remaining three or four months. The police officials receive a uniform allowance like other officials. They receive a cost-of-living allowance, but there is a greater onus on police officials than on ordinary civil servants, because the police officials are expected always to be neat; their buttons must always shine. The costof-living has increased tremendously. Clothing is very much more expensive today, but the allowance has not been increased. Reference has been made here to the salary scales of the police. I want to draw attention to the fact that we must not forget that since the commencing salary of the police official is so low, he usually marries after he has been in the service for quite a number of years. The police official must have quite a few years’ service before he can marry. The majority of police officials who are on pension live in poverty today. I do not want to discuss the question of pensions, but I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a constable receives an amount of £320 in cash and a sum of £7 per month when he goes on pension. He usually has a family. He has a wife and two or three-children. By the time he retires he is no longer in good health. He sacrificed his health in the service of the State, and one consequently finds that he has to live in poverty because his pension is so low. I am glad that the Minister’s department saw their way clear to make money available this year for the police quarters at Kroonstad. One finds that a large number of policemen in the platteland have to live under unfavourable conditions. We who come into contact with those people know that they sometimes have to live in rondavels with their wives and children. It is extremely uncomfortable. The police official has no choice; if the department transfers him he simply has to go. I hope that when the commission makes investigations, they will also investigate the question of leave with a view to seeing that those people are granted their full quota of leave, and that compensation for accrued leave is not limited to four months only. If a person’s health or other circumstances necessitate his retirement, and if his leave accrued as a result of war circumstances, the Minister ought to see to it that the man concerned is given his full leave.

I want to associate myself with other hon. members who have pleaded for an increase in the salaries of policemen. I think the Minister will appreciate the seriousness of this matter, since such an increase has been urged by all sides. I notice in the estimates that the commencing salary of the policeman is £150. There are certain allowances, but they are hopelessly inadequate. One cannot expect a parent to encourage his son to join the police force at this salary. The police do noble work in this country, but they are inadequately paid for the work they do. Hon. members referred to the fact that after having been in the service for a number of years, these people are still not in the position to put up a home I think the police force will gradually become more and more depleted, unless the Minister increases the wages. Only the other day I spoke to a police official who has been in the service for many years, and he stated that he was looking for another position. He did not know whether to buy his discharge or not, but he said he could not exist on the salary he received. I do not think anyone would object if the Minister increased the salaries. There is already a great shortage of police. I spoke to the heads, and they told me that the limited number of policemen made it impossible for them to send policemen to other places where they were required. If the Government does not take up this matter seriously, the number will continue to decrease. We need the police.

I am very glad to see not only the Minister here but also the Chief of Police. I agree with other hon. members that we should regard the police as people of higher standing generally. They deserve that at least. They protect the nation, and they are not paid the wages to which they are entitled. In my constituency hundreds of natives who are arrested by the police appear before the court every Monday morning. They have to go out almost every night to investigate disturbances, and they are exposed to all sorts of dangers. I saw with my own eyes how policemen were treated by people whom they were obliged to arrest. Natives spit into their faces; they are beaten with sticks, and they have not got the right to defend themselves properly. They have to submit to this treatment, and they are nevertheless expected to do thenduty. I should like more power to be given to the police to act in self-defence when necessary. One only becomes a constable after a period of thorough training. The constables are not people, therefore, who are mentally defective or incapable. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to give the police the right to defend themselves, if they think it necessary. As far as the wages are concerned, these officials, in the majority of cases, have to do twelve hours’ hard and responsible work, and there is hardly any section of officials who earn less. As far as conveyance is concerned too, the position is critical. In the Low veld they have to go out on a bicycle, and sometimes move about amongst natives for fourteen days, and accept shelter from them at night. I think it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the police should be placed in this degrading position and be unable to return to their stations at night. It is the duty of the police to maintain safety and to protect the public. They should be adequately remunerated and enjoy greater facilities. Their dignity should be maintained. I notice many motor cycles in military camps which are hardly used or which can be dispensed with. They should be given to the police to enable them to do better work. If anything happens at night on a farm, it is useless for the farmer to ring up the police. There is usually a shortage of staff, and no means of conveyance. I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to these few points, namely, the question of wages, the powers of the police, and the means of conveyance.

I should like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) in regard to the police who are on duty at the House of Assembly. I know that there are regulations which have to be carried out, but we object to those regulations. Take this Session of Parliament. The House sat for approximately five months. Married policemen are sent here and one cannot expect them to leave their families behind. What is the result? They have to pay for the tickets of their wives and children out of their own pockets, and then have to find boarding for them here. I think the Minister will admit that it is not fair. Moreover, they do not get any allowance. It is imperative, irrespective of the commission of investigation, to increase the salaries without delay. I asked the Minister for certain information by way of questions, and it appears from the replies that there is something radically wrong with the police service. It appears that in 1942 and 1943 respectively, 98 and 115 police officials retired on pension, 23 and 42 buying their discharge, 93 and 65 by resignation, from the service, and 224 and 115 for other reasons. In the two years 785 police officials left the service for some reason or other. I asked how many recruits had joined in these years, and the numbers were given as 128 and 181. In other words, 309 enlisted and nearly 800 left the service for some reason or other. In two years, therefore, the number who left the service exceeded the number who entered the service by 500. Then there are 1,104 on active service. It shows that there is something radically wrong if the number who leave the service exceeds the number of new recruits by 250 per annum. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) stated what a police official’s salary was after twelve years’ service. It is a ridiculous sum. But what does he get when he enlists? When he enlists he gets £120 while he undergoes his training, and as soon as he completes his course of training, he gets £150. How on earth can these people live on that amount? I think we can be proud of our police service, but we cannot expect to attract many recruits if we offer new entrants to the service £10 per month. I think it is a ridiculous salary. Not only that. Hon. members have already referred to the pensions which are paid on retirement. An ordinary police official, when retiring from the service, is unable to live on his pension. While he is in the service he lives from hand to mouth, because his salary does not allow him to save anything for a rainy day. But when he leaves the service he gets a pension of £7 or £8. A pension of £8 is the exception. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. We should protect these people. In the case of burglary, the initiative is taken, not by the owner of the house, but it is the constable who makes investigations. In the event of a disturbance the police are to be found in the dangerous places. Whenever there is trouble the policemen have to be in the forefront. I think they ought to get a very high salary and their pensions should be considerably increased, so that when they have rendered faithful service, their pensions will be so high that they will not have to be concerned about the question as to how their wives and children are going to make ends meet. We find that the retired police officials have to start some sort of business in order to be able to make a living. I made enquiries, and when I learned what their salaries were and pensions were, I realised that these people could not possibly exist on it. I just want to remind the Minister of what he expects from a recruit. I have already explained what the salary of a recruit is. The Minister expects a European recruit to be a British subject—that is easy enough; he must not be younger than 19 years and not older than 30 years. He must be 5 ft. 6 in tall, in his socks. His chest measurement must not be less than 34 inches. He must have a strong constitution and be physically fit. He must be unmarried of a widower without children. He must have at least the Standard VI or an equivalent certificate. That is requiring a great deal for a commencing salary of £10. During the Session I also put a question to the Minister in regard to the number of people who had retired from the service; how many had bought their discharge, how many had resigned, and how many had left the service for other reasons. What struck me particularly about the Minister’s reply was the fact that the number who had left the service “for other reasons” was so big, namely, 224 and 125, in other words, approximately 350 during the two years in question. I should like to know from the Minister what is included amongst “other reasons,” and why the number is so big. Before he became Minister of Justice, we raised the question in this House of the arming of policemen in certain areas like District 6. Policemen were assaulted and they were subsequently armed in certain areas. I want to know whether that is still the case; and then I also want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider the question of arming the policemen in places like Paarl and Stellenbosch, which have almost become cities and where, owing to the shortage of police, members of the force have to go on duty alone. These people are assaulted. The criminals know that there is a shortage of police and they take liberties which they did not take previously. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to consider the question of arming police officials in certain areas of the bigger cities, when they are required to go on duty alone and when they have to protect places like war factories. They have to assist in protecting those places, although they are partially protected by the military, and it is no more than right that those people should be armed.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of associating myself with this very important matter. Having known the police force for a number of years, and known what they have done under very difficult circumstances and with a very depleted force, I think we should be very proud that we have such a force at our disposal. Mr. Chairman, I am going to appeal to the Minister to take into serious consideration the question of police wages. We expect to attract the best type of man to the force, and consequently we must be prepared to pay them a living wage. The wage today is definitely inadequate, and no member of the force can carry on properly with the wage he is receiving. I put the case of a first-class sergeant who retired after 26 or 27 years. He is today receiving a pension of £8 3s. per month. That is definetly inadequate and no man with a family of five, as he has, can possibly live on that. We must therefore appeal to the Minister to take this question of pensions into consideration. I know of a time during 1942 on the Witwatersand when the police were on constant duty for 68 out of 72 hours, and these men received no extra pay for that overtime work. If the Minister cannot allow them any extra pay they might at least get an equal time off. Then with regard to police out-stations, I feel I must appeal to the Minister to represent to the Public Works Department the necessity for improving these men’s living conditions. Then with regard to the question of leave I suggest that if the men cannot get the leave which is due to them they should be granted the equivalent in pay. I know of a case where twelve months’ leave is due and I want the Minister to look into this.

The numerical strength of the police force is a matter in regard to which we constantly hear complaints. In the annual report of the Commissioner of Police, we notice that there is a considerable shortage of trained police officials in the whole of South Africa and South-West Africa. The position has become very serious. When we read this report, we find that out of an ordinary strength of 7,790 there are only 6,761 men in the service. In other words, there are approximately 1,030 vacancies in the service. This shortage exists in a war period when great demands are made on the police officials. Nevertheless we find that during this period the Minister discontinued the promotion examinations. If there are no promotion examinations, and if it becomes known to the public that the men in the lower ranks have no opportunity of passing the promotion examinations, we can understand why it is difficult for the Government to find recruits. I shall appreciate it if the Minister will be kind enough to tell us why no promotion examinations are held during the war, and why the men are not given an opportunity to progress from the ordinary ranks to the higher ranks. Then I want to point out that in a place like Pretoria, burglaries have assumed such proportions that all the Pretoria members of Parliament were approached by the City Council, and I must admit—and I want to thank the Minister for it—that he complied with our request and cleaned up the city by means of a flying squad, as he calls it. The result was that 800 criminals were arrested and stolen goods to the value of thousands of pounds were recovered This great shortage of more than 1,000 policemen reveals an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that no promotion examinations are held, with the result that the service does hot attract new entrants. Another question which in my opinion, deserves serious attention, is the question of theft of motor vehicles. It is pointed out in the report of the Commissioner of Police that no less than 412 cases of theft of motor vehicles were brought before the court in one year. In these days when motor vehicles are almost unobtainable, it is a very serious matter, and it is something to which the department ought to give its attention. Then there is the question of poor housing and quarters for the policemen. It is stated in the annual report of the Commissioner that the position is extremely poor, both on the platteland and in the cities. Since the police render such important services it is absolutely necessary that they should be decently housed. I feel that the State, as a whole, ought to give more attention to this question. Then there is a division of our police service of which the average person knows very little, but which nevertheless renders very important service. I refer to the bloodhounds. Those of us who are acquainted with that service know what excellent services are being rendered by this section. I feel that the time has arrived to enlarge this section. There is no doubt that this division has rendered excellent services to the country. The so-called four-footed policemen have proved that they can be of very great service to the country, and I trust that the numbers will be trebled and quadrupled in the future. The other day the Minister was congratulated on the good services which the police had rendered during the war period. I want to associate myself with the statement that the police have rendered extremely efficient services and that we are very grateful to them. But it does not seem quite correct to me that the Minister should take the credit for it, while the police have not been given any additional compensation for the sacrifices which they have had to make in these difficult times. On the contrary, their leave of absence has practically been discontinued. They receive no special compensation, and in all the circumstances I do not think the police are being compensated as they ought to be compensated. Take the question of pensions; After all, that is part of the compensation which such a person receives. I should like to mention a few examples to indicate what the pensions are. A head constable with 25 years’ service gets a pension of £107 per annum, and a globular sum of £530, and so it comes down to a constable with 25 years’ service; he gets a pension of only £87 and a gratuity of £415. When a man has rendered 25 years’ service and worked hard for the State, and he is then obliged to retire on a pension such as this, a pension which is lower than that of the ordinary old age pensioner and his wife, it is surely unfair. We feel that we cannot attract the best type of person Unless the conditions, as well as the salary scales, are improved. The same applies to the leave question. Since the outbreek of the war, all leave was cancelled at first. At the moment only 10 per cent. of the staff can get leave. We know that these are difficult times, but we can only complement this shortage of police officials if we make the conditions and the remuneration in the police service more attractive; and in these circumstances I fear that there is not much prospect of attracting a better type of man. I have here the case of a very capable young man with eighteen years’ Service in the police force. After ten years he was promoted to the position of head constable. He did important and confidential work, and while he was engaged on this work, he was injured in the course of his duties and he was compelled to retire medically unfit. He received a gratuity of £363 and a pension of £7 9s. 10d. per month. Conditions such as these make the police service absolutely unattractive. If an unusually capable man is injured on duty and he is obliged to go on pension as a result of that injury, it is extremely unfair to give them such a meagre pension. I hope the Government and the hon. Minister will give their attention to it. Then I want to associate myself with the statement of the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) that the hands of the police are practically tied where they have to cope with large numbers of natives. A member of the police force dare not lift his hand against a native, but at the same time he is not protected against assaults by natives. Since the application of the pass laws was discontinued, assaults upon the police have taken place on a very large scale, and I feel that in discontinuing the application of the pass laws we made a very great faux pas. I feel that the time is overripe when the police should also be protected against assaults. A further point was made in connection with the uniform allowance for the police. This allowance has not been increased during the war period. There is a special type of police which is increasing to a great extent and which we feel ought to increase on a much greater scale. I refer to the police who use motor cycles. The police who use motor cycles practically get the same uniform allowance as members of the mounted police force. It stands to reason that a man who uses a motor cycle cannot come out on the same allowance as the other members of the police force. It is important for the continued existence of this service that the Minister should give his attention to this matter. [Time limit.]

It seems to me that we are all in agreement that the members of the police force should get better salaries. Everyone has pleaded their cause and I would like to associate myself with other members. Seeing that the Minister himself said some time ago in this House that he appreciated the services of the police I am convinced that he will give favourable consideration to our requests. When a policeman begins his servoce after six months in the depot, he gets a salary of £12 10s. per month, which, under today’s conditions is a very poor salary on which he cannot make ends meet. After having been in the service for five years he earns £22 4s. Possibly he is married by that time, which means that he is actually getting less than when he joined the service, because that amount now has to be divided between two people, between himself and his wife. His salary, therefore, is totally inadequate. Now let us see what they get. They get a war bonus—which is not even as much as the increased cost of living, so we cannot say that they have had an increase. They do get sick leave, which I understand is quite satisfactory, and they also get holiday leave, but they don’t get as much as other public servants get. They get 30 days’ leave but that leave is given on the express condition that it is a favour; they cannot claim it; it is not a right. I contend that other officials get leave as a right, it is inconsistent in regard to the police to consider it as a favour; in private business concerns the employer is compelled by law to give his employees 14 days leave. An employer can be charged if he fails to do so. Why cannot leave be given to the police as a right? Then there is the question of the accumulation of leave. Their leave can accumulate up to four months. Now I want to make this request, that if through no fault of the policeman he does not take his leave, he should not be held responsible for it, and the full accumulated leave should be given to him. I understand that some police officials have not had leave for three years or more. If their leave accumulates through no fault of their own it is unfair to recognise only four months’ leave at the time of their leaving the service. If they have more than four months’ leave due to them when they leave the service they should be paid but for the difference. The difference between police officials and Government officials is considerable and we ask, therefore, for an improvement in the salary scale of police officials. The public servant works about eight hours a day. If he does more than eight hours he is paid overtime. But the position in regard to the police is different. The police, on occasions, have to work 24 hours per day. The policeman may be investigating a case; he is on the track of a thief, and he cannot stop his work because if he does there is the danger of the thief or the murderer, perhaps, escaping. The policeman has to work 365 days of the year, so to speak. Our contention is that these people are entitled to at least one day a week off. A policeman doesn’t even get his Saturday afternoons off. Nor does he get his Sundays off. He is actually entitled to one day in 14 but he doesn’t often get it. If his officer isn’t well disposed towards him he doesn’t get that day off. He has to stay in uniform, so a policeman’s lot is not a happy one. On the contrary it is a dangerous job. His job is like that of the hare which is always expecting the hound to make a rush at him. He must be ready at all times, to answer the call of duty. If there is danger, he has to face it and he has to risk his life. His life is always in danger. His is by no means an easy job. The policeman sometimes has to enter the meeting places of gangs of criminals, even of robbers and murderers; he has to risk his life in the interests of the security of the State. In view of the fact that our policemen have rendered valuable service during the war—a fact which the hon. the Minister admits—it is no more than right that they should be adequately compensated. The policeman is not allowed, like other officials, to undertake farming, and if he dare go in for farming he runs the risk of being dismissed. He has to confine himself to his job. How can he possibly ever become independent? How can he prepare for his old age if he gets such a small salary and if he is not allowed to add to his income in some other way? I hope this question will be favourably considered and that the policemen will receive justice and not only that their salary scale will be improved, but their service conditions and their leave conditions as well.

A very strong case has been made out for an improvement in the service conditions of the police, and I do not think I need emphasise the necessity for such improvements. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that for about 8,000 European policemen and 4,000 non-European policemen, there are less than 400 positions of over £400 per year. That means that 8,000 white policemen through out their service career have to aspire for fewer than 400 positions. No wonder the Minister cannot keep his police force at full strength. There are no prospects for these men. Surely you want to keep your police force strong and sound and you want to keep your trained men. Those trained men are your best forces. And our police forces are training men for positions outside the police. If an official has been trained in the police service he would prove an asset to any employer, yet the police service doesn’t manage to keep its own trained men simply because it does not offer them a decent livelihood. Now I should like to make a suggestion. Although the Minister has said that he will extend the powers of the Special Commission which is being appointed so as to include the service conditions of the police in its terms of reference, one should remember that the police have not an organised staff organisation. They are not allowed to organise themselves into a staff organisation. They are not permitted to appoint anybody who will submit their case to the commission, or will plead for an improvement in their service conditions. It is true that they can appear as individuals before the commission, but they have no organisation which can represent them there. If they could be organised like the Public Service, and if they could put their case up as an organisation, there would be a fair chance of their getting a good hearing and of their service conditions being improved. I should like, therefore, to make this suggestion. I wish to suggest that the minimum salary of the policeman should be £200, as against £150 at present. I am not allowed to move this, but I merely wish to put this forward for the Minister’s consideration. My suggestion is that the increases which these people will receive will be at the rate of £18 per year, so that the policeman, after 12 years’ service, will get £398 per year. These increases would not be excessive. I also want to suggest that a police officer of higher rank than an ordinary constable should have his salary increased on the same basis. I want to suggest further that more senior posts should be created for the police. Look at the number of sergeants there are. The total number throughout the Union is only 1,300. I hope the Minister will consider the question of increasing the number of sergeants, and I hope also that he will give the police staff the opportunity of getting someone to submit their case to the commission. These people are not organised and unless they are allowed to get someone to speak on their behalf, they will not have the opportunity which they should have. At ţhe moment a policeman only gets £335 after 12 years’ service. That, to our minds, is not a living wage under present conditions. Not only is their salary too small, but their treatment also leaves a lot to be desired. We admit that a police force must be well disciplined, but there is discipline and discipline, and under present conditions if a man makes a mistake he is fined and at the same time he forfeits his next increment. It means a double penalty. He may be a few minutes late when he has to attend court, and, if his officer is unreasonable, he is fined 10s. and in addition to that he loses the right of sitting for the promotion examination. Surely that is unreasonable. One officer will punish him for a certain thing and the next one will not. The man who has jumped up from nothing will perhaps punish him, and then he loses his promotion for a few years. Let these punishments in any case be divided into two groups, that is to say, let them have recorded punishments and unrecorded punishments. If a man has committed a serious breach of the regulations let his punishment be recorded, and in that case his promotion may be held back; but to stop a man’s promotion for every trivial offence is unreasonable and inhuman. The policeman is punished twice over. I want to suggest that if a man is punished for a trivial offence it should not stop him from sitting for his examination. There is a third type of punishment. If he is fined he loses his increment and he is not promoted. The effect of these things is that the service becomes impossible. I would also like to say a few words about the uniforms. Before the war the allowance for the foot police was £8 per year and for the mounted police £9 per year. The cost of clothing has gone up. Hon. members may say that there is a cost of living allowance and a war expense allowance. They all get that. But the uniform allowance has not been increased and I want to urge the Minister to see that it is increased or, otherwise, that they get their uniforms free of charge.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to a matter which has not yet been raised—the subject of lotteries which are being allowed to take place at the moment. The Minister has told me that if a lottery is held for war purposes and for some other purposes, then it is permissible. I ask the Minister now to decide that lotteries will either be allowed or not allowed. It is not fair to allow them in some cases and not in other cases. I have quite a number of extracts here from newspapers. I have one here which reads as follows: “Thousand pounds in prizes. Natal Liquor and Catering Trade. Thanksgiving Cavalcade Effort. Tickets available at all bottle stores and hotels for monster prizes.” This is an advertisement not for the Cavalcade, but to get people into the bars and bottle stores. I have an extract from a letter here which I would like to quote—

The hon. member cannot discuss this here. It comes under “Justice.”

I have really answered fairly fully already, but I may tell the hon. member fór Kingwilliáms town (Mr. C. M. Warren) that I shall go further into the question raised by him. I also appreciate what the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Bekker) has said. That point will also be looked into. I want to express my appreciation of the tribute which all sides of the House have paid to the police. I think the police deserve it and all the points raised will be enquired into. When the Commission sits, the position of the police will also, without doubt, be carefully considered.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Native Affairs,” £1,273,000,

I wish to avail myself of the half-hour rule, and in all modesty I would like to say a few words about some of the factors which influence our policy in regard to the various races in South Africa. We have two policies as far as our native problem in South Africa is concerned. On the one hand we have the policy of separation which in the cultural educational process is indicated by the term of “adaptation,” and on the other hand we have the policy of equality which in the cultural educational process is known by the term of “assimilation.” The policy of equality is in the first place supported by the capitalist interests in general, and particularly by the commercial interests from overseas and to a greater or lesser degree by the commercial interests and capital interests in South Africa. It is perfectly clear that this group gives no heed whatsoever to the future of South Africa, that it has only one object in view, and that is to secure a market in South Africa, to foster a taste for and the need for the manufactured articles of Europe among the non-Europeans and to make South Africa a market for the manufactured articles of Europe. What is more, there are clear signs that this group does not hesitate in a most subtle way and on a scale which astounds one, to promote assimilation in this country. The history of several countries proves that along the road of assimilation one can succeed more easily and more effectively in achieving the materialistic ideal of securing a market for manufactured articles. Let me take Java as an instance, and numerous other territories, and also the areas on the Continent of Africa; a subtle process is going on there. In a less covert way one gets the same process in the Belgian Congo. It is a well-known fact that the industrial magnates of Belgium encourage miscegenation in a less covert way because they derive great benefit from it. We have the fact that if a Belgian marries a native woman in the Belgian Congo she immediately requires pots and pans. She needs clothes and furniture and so on, and it doesn’t take long before her relatives follow her example and after that the whole neighbourhood follows, and the manufacturer gets a market. A Belgian student of native affairs gave me some figures over a period of years. From those figures it appears that for every Belgian marrying a native woman in the Belgian Congo a number of people can be employed in Belgium at a reasonably good salary, apart from the profits which the industrial magnates and capitalists make, as a result of the increase in the need for manufactured articles in this manner. That same process is also in operation in South Africa. In the second place the assimilation tendency is supported by certain political interests, especially from overseas, and to a degree in South Africa itself, as well. The attitude adopted by people is that assimilation, and afterwards miscegenation, will have the effect of minimising the troubles and the worries of the British Empire in days to come. That is the attitude adopted by a group of people overseas. In this connection let me refer to Freetown as an example. When the slaves were liberated a number of street women were sent from London with slaves to Freetown. In the course of years a mixed generation grew up and a few years ago a prominent Englishman paid a visit to Freetown to make an investigation there, and this is what he said—

These are the conclusions of an Englishman a few years ago. In the third place the policy of assimilation is supported by the liberal elements in South Africa. Here we have to distinguish between two schools of thought which express themselves very clearly—the one school of thought deliberately aims at miscegenation. It does not care what the colour of the future race is going to be. It does not concern itself with what is going to happen to the white race in South Africa. The Communist elements are found among this group, and they, as we know, exert every possible effort to wipe out the colour line. Then the Jewish community are also to be found among that group. Particularly of late years it has become very noticeable that the Jewish community has exerted all its efforts to securing key posi tions in every sphere of social and political life where they can use their influence on the country’s racial policy. They do not hesitate actively to foster the policy of assimilation. I want to utter a word of serious warning to the Jewish community to keep their hands off the racial problem in South Africa. They should not forget that their family life is safe in a white community. They live isolated, even in a white community. They are not assimilable. They live isolated and where they are able to look after their families we have this position, that white families are going to be the prey and the victim of this policy of racial assimilation, racial equality, for which the Jews stand. I want to warn them to keep out of this matter because they will incur the hatred of English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners, if they do not keep their hands off the country’s racial problems. There are clear signs—and they are there perhaps for political or economic reasons—but we see clear signs that Jewry in commercial life is more and more looking for contact with the non-Europeans. We have this phenomenon that among the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking Afrikaners feelings are being aroused against the Jews. Nobody can get away from the fact and now we get this phenomenon that Jewry is joining hands with the non-Europeans. I also want to warn the non-Europeans that the attitude of the Jews is not inspired by love of the coloured man. They have an object in view. Then we have the second school of thought. It is the school of thought of this liberal element which takes up the attitude that there must be equality, assimilation for all races in the State. They are not actually in favour of miscegenation— of the races being mixed up, but they are in favour of racial equality because they believe that that will bring the greatest happiness to all races. Most of those people holding these views are theorists who take no account of what happens in practice. They take up the attitude that the supreme happiness of South Africa can be achieved only by equality, by assimilation in the State for all races, irrespective of colour. We cannot get away’ from the fact that those people are honest in their views. They take up the attitude that the preservation of white Christian civilisation is not a duty of the State. It is a personal duty of the individual. The assimilation policy, the assimilation idea, is subtly working its views into South Africa, and may I be allowed to say this: For all the factors I have mentioned we now find that these liberal elements are among the handiest and most powerful levers in the hands of the capitalist and Imperialist interests, to succeed in their objects. And what is more, these powers provide money in South Africa to promote miscegenation. Sums of money from overseas are applied for that purpose and they do not hesitate to use the Press and the pen for their object; they do not even hesitate to use certain religious bodies to propagate the idea of assimilation. They do not hesitate to stir up the non-Europeans against those Europeans who stand for separateness. It is one of the most effective weapons of which they can avail themselves. Now what is the effect of this policy of assimilation? We can already see the fruits of it, and I want to mention a few of those fruits. We have the intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans at the Witwatersrand University, for instance. Look at the results. We have the intermingling of Europeans and non-Europeans at the University of Cape Town. A few days ago 147 students at the University of Cape Town voted in favour of the complete elimination of the colour line in South Africa. It is very significant. What is it all leading to in South Africa? We have the phenomenon of mixed trade unions. It is a phenomenon which, like a cancer, gnaws at the very vitals of our nation, and there is nothing good in it. We have the further fact that non-Europeans have been taken up in our Army. The Prime Minister at one time condemned this very same thing in the strongest possible terms. If we are concerned with the future of South Africa the Prime Minister’s words of those days are just as applicable today. But now we find that the Prime Minister is doing the very things which he used to decry so emphatically in the past. No one can deny that the non-European troops have become fertile soil for the doctrines and foreign teachings which have come here from overseas—and in days to come we shall pick the bitter fruit of these doctrines. We have the fact that mixed marriages are taking place and that the Government refuses to take any action to stop them. We can mention any number of results, and what is going to be the eventual outcome? Evidence has been produced throughout the world that the outcome can be only one of two things—either the white race is going to be completely wiped out by assimilation, so that a half-caste race will arise here, or otherwise the great masses of the white race in South Africa will become tainted with coloured blood and we will keep only a small, white aristocracy here. That is the only result which this policy can have. We have countries like South America before us as a warning. South America and other countries which have followed that policy send us a message of warning against this policy of assimilation, arid that is why it, is the duty of the State to interfere and to prevent this policy from being persisted in. As against the policy of assimilation we have the policy of separateness, the policy of separation. This policy of separateness is supported among the settled white population of the country, both English and Afrikaansspeaking. Let me utter a word of warning to the English-speaking section of the community. Let me tell them that for political or other reasons, although we feel as we do about this matter, our people are not prepared to take up a strong stand, and let me warn them that unless they take up a strong stand now, it may soon be too late for them to do anything. I want to appeal to them to stand up for their views, to state openly what their views are in regard to this matter. It is in the interests of South Africa. The policy of separateness has been built up as a result of the experience of the settled white population of this country. The policy of separateness is founded on this that it will lead to a happy relationship between race and race, and that is the attitude adopted by this side of the House. It has stood the test of years, it has been proved by history, by races all over the world, that it is the only policy which can lead to justice for all races, and at the same time secure the existence of the white race. The policy of separateness is the policy of the Re-united Nationalist Party. We have accepted that policy and I now wish to state a few of the principles of that policy. We stand for separateness socially. Mixed marriages must not be allowed. Let us put an end to all the evils attached to such marriages, and let the State take immediate and active steps to put an end to it. We have had our difficulties here with sailors from overseas calling at our ports, and we dare not allow them to cause miscegenation here with all the tragic results which we have seen of such a condition of affairs. We want political separateness. Give the non-Europeans the right to govern themselves under the guidance of the Europeans. Let the non-European be employed among his own people. Do not allow him to have a say in the State together with the Europeans—do not allow the policy which is so often proclaimed by irresponsible Ministers and other irresponsible individuals. We must also recognise the principle of separateness in the economic life of the State, particularly in our industrial life. We want separateness, separation, in our factories. We want separate residential areas. That is one of the most important principles, and thus we can go on. But there is one thing which we, as a white population, must take up in order to achieve this ideal. We must make an immediate start with the general compulsory registration of our population so that we may know, and the State may know, who is white and who is not—who is a European and who is a non-European. That is the key which we have to use so that we can stop further assimilation in future. We have this fact today, that there is a drop in the birth-rate among the Europeans as compared with the birth-rate of the non-Europeans. We must try and stop that process as far as we possibly can. Side by side with that process we have this fact, that there is an infiltration of non-Europeans into the ranks of the Europeans, and, on the other hand, also, an infiltration of Europeans into the ranks of the non-Europeans. The preservation of the white race is not the task of the white group only, it is not the task only of the group which stands for the maintenance of white civilisation—it is a sacred duty, it is the mighty task of the State. I want to reiterate, and reiterate again, that the most sacred duty resting on the State is to see to it that this process of assimilation does not continue. We must look after, the strengthening of our white population. I have referred to this before, but I want to say a little more about it. South Africa is called upon to build up, to strengthen its own population. I am not much concerned about all these stories about large-scale immigration. It will not take place on the scale which those people expect who have proclaimed that doctrine. They are going to be disappointed. There are 2,200,000,000 people in the world according to one of the greatest experts in this respect, Koezinsky. There are 1,450,000,000 non-Europeans and 720,000,000 Europeans. In Europe there are 520,000,000 whites; in America there are 172,000,000 whites as compared with 93,000,000 non-Europeans. In the Southern Pacific there are 8,000,000 whites, but they are mostly of a mixed race as against 3,000,000 non-Whites; in Africa there are 4,000,000 whites as against 150,000,0000 non-whites, and in Asia thére are 13,000,000 whites as against 1,130,000,000 nonwhites. That is the position we have in this world. And now we come to this important consideration. Those countries from which we have drawn most of our immigrants are in this position that their reproduction rate is dropping year by year. If the reproduction figure of a nation is one, the population is kept steady; if it is more than one, the population increases, and if it is less than one it means that the population decreases. Let me give the House the figures to show what the position is. The following countries have a reproduction figure of .8 and less. In other words, in those countries the population is decreasing tremendously : Austria, Belgium, England, France, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. In the following countries the reproduction figure is from 8 to 1. They only reproduce themselves and the population is not on the increase: Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Scotland, the United States of America, Australia and New Zealand. The following has a reproduction figure of 1.0 to 1.2: Holland, Ireland, Italy, Poland and Spain. The following have a reproduction figure of 1.2 to 1.4: The Balkan States, Portugal, Ukraine, Canada and South Africa. The following have a reproduction figure of 1.4 and more: Russia, Japan, India and China. We should also remember that 100 years ago the average age of the white race was 30 years. As a result of science that age limit has gone up to 60 years. The nonEuropean race has not yet got the advantages of science, although ţhey are getting them now. In other words, their reproduction figure will rise still higher. These countries from which we used to get our immigrants are getting old. Let me give the figures quoted by Dr. Charles in connection with the white population in England. He says that in 1937 England, out of every 100 persons, had 23 children below the age of 15; 64 persons between the ages of 15 and 60, and 13 over the age of 60. In 1960, out of every hundred persons 18 will be below the age of 15 64 between 15 and 60, and 18 over the age of 60. In 1997 out of every 100 persons, 4 will be below the age of 15, 52 between 15 and 60, and 44 over the age of 60, based on present figures. And do not let us forget that these figures are backed up by quite a number of experts on questions of population. It applies to a number of countries. According to Dr. Charles, England reached her highest point in 1943 with a population of 40,000,000. In 1975, according to him, the population will have dropped to 31,000,000, and to 19,000,000 in 2035. Buergdörfer reckons that Germany will reach its highest point in 1960 with a population of 70,000,000. According to his calculations the population will drop to 46,000,000 in the yéar 2000. According to a French expert, Sauvy, France reached its highest point in 1935 with a population of 40,000,000, and in 1980 the population will drop to 29,000,000. These are the phenomena of the times If we get these phenomena it becomes, more especially, the Government’s duty to encourage and protect our own resources of national development. It is the sacred duty of the State. This policy of separateness is not a repressent policy. No section of the population anywhere in the world treats its native race as fairly and justly as the Boers in South Africa. Who stands condemned today before the tribunal of history because of its unjust treatment of its native population, because of its exploitation of the native race? Definitely not the protagonists of the policy of separateness. No, it is mostly those people who in years gone by used to make such a tremendous fuss about the inhuman treatment of the native. We know there is only one country for the natives and that is South Africa. We also know that only by treating them justly and fairly will we be able to build up a happy South Africa. If we are in earnest in our desire to preserve Christian white civilisation in South Africa, there is only one policy to follow, and that is the policy of separateness, and I contend that that has been proved, not only in South Africa but it has been proved in all countries of the world, and we believe that it is in the supreme interests of the non-European as well that Christian white civilisation continues to exist in South Africa. Unless Christian white civilisation uses its powerful influence things will go wrong. Chaos will result, revolutionary spirits will rear their heads. It is also in the interests of the non-European, therefore, that Christian white civilisation shall continue in this country. We have evidence of it in America. In the northern states of America, where there is assimilation, one finds racial conflicts and bitterness, but in the southern states, where the principle of separateness is recognised to a large extent, there is racial peace and order. We have the example of the policy which America used to follow towards the Redskins. In days gone by America used to follow the policy of assimilation in regard to the Redskins, and the result of that policy was racial conflict and bitterness. Under President Roosevelt a policy of separateness was initiated. The result of that policy of separateness was racial peace and order, where bitterness prevailed before. England herself accepts the policy of separateness where her own people in England are concerned. We have excellent instances of that in Plymouth, Liverpool and other places. At one time non-European sailors from West Africa used to land in Plymouth and Liverpool in large numbers. What was the result? They cohabited with white women, and bastardisation took place. There was a grave danger of large scale bastardisation there. England realised the danger, and the Government stepped in and prohibited non-European sailors from West Africa from landing in those towns. That was the policy followed just before the war. I do not know whether it is still the policy today. Even England justifies a policy of separateness where her own people are concerned, and that is what a Government with 40,000,000 white people does. But where you have a small white population of 2,000,000, as against 8,000,000 non-Europeans in South Africa, and you apply that policy of separateness, you are told that it is a repressent policy, that it is a policy under which the natives are oppressed. The policy of separateness is the policy of the people. This is a matter which is deeply rooted in the minds of the people. The people feel that the policy of separateness points the way to a new dawn, to a new life for the nation. That is why we must give effect to this policy of separateness. The policy of separateness is that also of our Afrikaans churches throughout the country, and no one can deny that the Afrikaans churches have up till now always led our people, both European and nonEuropean, to the heights of justice, happiness and peace. The policy of separateness is justified on the highest ethical grounds. We can raise no objection to it. The policy of separateness is justified on historical grounds.

Who denies it?

The policy of separateness to every Afrikaner and to every Englishman, who has made South Africa his home, is a matter of vital importance. On it depends the continuance or the ruin of white South Africa. The policy of separateness is a matter of religion to us. We feel that we must have a policy of separateness in order to ensure the continuance of our white Christian civilisation. It is a matter of vital importance. The policy of separateness is to our nation almost divine. I wish to appeal to the Minister to take this up, and to lay down this principle—it should be the main and determining principle of our racial policy in South Africa. God has a calling and a destiny for every race. An all-wise and divine Providence has implanted in every race its own national character. In order to be able to fulfil its tasks and its destiny every race must grow and develop the root of that which is the country’s own. As far as non-European races are concerned, the greatest measure of peace, happiness and well-being, for both Europeans and nonEuropeans, and for the whole of South Africa can only be secured if white Christian civilisation in South Africa is protected, secured and stabilised, and if the non-Europeans under the principle of guardianship and under the principle of separateness are led to develop and to grow on their own foundations so that they may also develop the root of that which is theirs. No body, be it religious or otherwise, no individual, no doctrine will be allowed to undermine this principle.

May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege. I have to apologise for asking twice in one day for the half-hour privilege but I was not to know that these two important votes would be taken on the same day. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) has raised a number of interesting topics which would keep a debating society going for quite a long time. I could say a good deal about his propositions and contentions but I shall not do so mainly because I do not see any possibility of South Africa ever adopting the policy of equality about which the hon. member had so much to say; and we have no facts on which to base new population trends in this country. So I shall refrain from commenting on that part of his speech also. I do not propose spending my time discussing these matters. I wish instead to spend my time on a number of immediately practical matters. In the course of this Session, as in the course of other Sessions, we on these benches have put up a solid opposition to the policy of closing the entry into towns of our native people who come in search of work. We have based our opposition simply on the grounds that in the economic and social conditions under which the native population live, the people who come to these towns do not come because they wish to do so; they come because they are forced to do so if they are to be able to earn a living. Our contention in that regard has been consistently opposed by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). He has told this House on more than one occasion that it was all nonsense to talk of natives having to come to the towns, that the natives are very well off in the reserves and only come to the towns because they have a fancy for the lights and fun of the cities. Now, our contention in this regard has been completely established recently by four publications—two issues of the “Medical Journal,” one last year and one this year, by the department’s own White Paper which reached us recently, and by the report of the Native Mine Wages Commission. These publications have fully established the contentions which we have tried to make, that the native population is forced by economic circumstances to come to the towns in search of work; and by implication, they fully support our contention that it is unjust to interfere with their right to come to those centres where conditions of work are most attractive. This year in the “Medical Journal,” published in April, Mr. Herbst, an ex-Secretary of the Department of Native Affairs, himself makes a great point of the steady deterioration of the health of the native population in the Transkei, which is admittedly not only the best of our native reserves, but one of the best parts of this country. He has shown that that deterioration of health is due solely to the fact that the land is producing progressively less of what the population needs to maintain efficient existence; and thus the people have got to adjust their standard of living to what is produced and to adjust their means of living to the necessity of the wage earner to go out to earn something extra to keep the family alive. He says that the deterioration of the health of the community is most evident; he shows how the food position of the Transkei is most serious and is exercising a most deleterious effect on the health of the community. Milk, he says, which was plentiful at one time is practically unobtainable today and the children are suffering; fat has also vanished from the people’s diet. Last year the Medical Association issued its first survey of the health of the people of the Transkei. In that survey was an article by an inspector of schools of a part of the area which I represent in this House, that is the Glen Grey district. Now in regard to the Glen Grey district this man, who has an intimate knowledge, acquired over years, of the conditions in the reserves, makes this statement—

As a corollary to that situation he finds the constant movement of the population to urban centres to find a means of livelihood which the native reserve doesn’t provide. The Government’s White Paper just given to us makes the gravest reflection on the state of the native reserves and their inability to meet the demands of that section of the people who have any claim at all to a foothold in them. The Secretary for the Department, who speaks with the greatest authority in this matter, tells us that for many years the Department has been alarmed at the serious deterioration of these reserves and has done its utmost to carry the people with it in its efforts at improvement. But, he goes on—

And then he goes on—

Now the Native Mine Wage Commission comes with evidence which is most valuable on the whole of this situation. Whatever we may have felt about the appointment of this Commission and of the deficiencies of the job which they have done, we must be grateful for a good deal of the information which they have collected, much of which they have given us. Now here is a complete and direct denial of the case which the hon. member for Tembuland has consistently made in this House. I am sorry he is not here because I do not want to contest his views in his absence, but he knows what we feel about his views. Now here is the statement of the Mine Wages Commission. It says this—

The Commission goes on to show us the progressive lengthening of the period of service on the mines of the men particularly of the Transkeian and Ciskeian areas and the corresponding progressive shortening of the period which a mine labourer is able to live at home in the reserves. A few years ago the length of time a man was normally away on contract to the mines was 10.88 months and he had 8.1 months on an average at home. That was in 1931. In 1942 investigation shows that the average length, or rather the time it takes a man to fulfil his contract now is 13.6 months, giving him an average of 7.6 months at home. Incidentally the implication is that since 1931—between 1931 and 1942—the Chamber of Mines has felt strong enough to increase the average contract of service from 270 shifts to 352 shifts. And the basis of this strength is that economic pressure on the native which forces him out to work, which has made it impossible for him to resist the pressure of the mining industry for this lengthening of the contract. The Commission further tells us that of all those who come to the mines 81.3 per cent. have been to the mines before. Of those reaching the W.N.L.A. compound in any year 81.3 per cent. have been on the mines before. Of that 81.3 per cent., they state, 20.66 percent. or 16.8 per cent. of the whole native complement from South African sources of labour, have returned to work after what may regarded as no more than a holiday visit to the reserves. That 21.6 per cent. of those who return at all return again to the mines having not been able to stay at their homes for longer than what would be regarded as a holiday visit, and that 20.8 per cent. of all the natives coming to the mines have only been able to stay at home for a period which would normally be regarded as a holiday visit. These are very serious considerations and they have very grave implications for the whole of our economic situation. Now for a long time we have been anxious that the Government should declare its policy in regard to the use of native reserves. We have never succeeded in getting any statement of that policy. It is true that the Native Affairs Commission has made various statements of policy in this regard. One comprehensive statement was made about three years ago by the present Administrator of Natal, Mr. Heaton Nicholls. He had no doubt whatever as to what the policy of the country was in regard to native reserves and their relationship to the demands of industry. I should remind the House, what it may have forgotten, that something over half our native population has a claim on the native reserves. Mr. Nicholls always contended that it was not the policy of the Government to build up a native peasantry in the reserves; that it was not the intention of the Government to develop the native reserves in such a way that the people of the reserves would be able to live at home as agriculturists. He contended that any policy of that kind would involve an entire reorganisation of the industrial system of this country. In other words he maintained that the foundation of the policy of this country was to maintain a subsidisation of industry by native agriculture. Now, the issue has now become a direct one which we can no longer sidestep. It has been pointed out by two important facts. One is the implication of the findings of this Native Mine Wages Commission. The other is the growing unrest among the native rural population which has flared up in the Transvaal into open outbreaks resulting in a series of criminal actions against natives, and finally, in the course this month, in the deportation by the Government of four men, four natives from the Pietersburg area, on the ground that they had been the instigators of the agitation there. The Government has decided to deport one man called Molepo, and three others whose names I don’t know. Those people are being deported without any trial under the arbitrary powers which rest in the hands of the Government in terms of the Natives’ Administration Act, which enables the Government to move natives from one place to another without even giving any explanation of their reasons for doing this. Now this agitation has flared up not only in the Northern Transvaal; it has also been threatening in Natal, and I see more and more danger signs in the Eastern Province, danger signs which I can assure the Government, and I think the Government knows it, alarm me as much as they alarm it. The agitation in the Northern Transvaal, the progressive agitation in Natal, the danger signals in the Eastern Province all derive from one single source, as far as we know the causes at all. We have urged the Government to appoint a committee of enquiry into the position in the Northern Transvaal which has reached such serious proportions. It has not agreed to do that and therefore we can only take the information which has been given to us. That information is that the causes of agitation there are the policy of the Government on its Trust farms in granting to its tenants there insufficient land on which to earn a living. That is the refusal of the department to give the natives on those Trust lands— many of whom were on the farms before these farms were bought by the Trust—the sort of amounts of land for cultivation which they had enjoyed before and on which they had been able to live as peasants. Throughout the area which I represent I have been met at every turn recently by the statement that holdings are declining in size and that the principle of allowing one man one lot is being progressively and more and more rigidly applied, creating a situation under which it is becoming more and more impossible for the natives of those areas ever to hope to become peasant farmers. Now that is happening in the Eastern Province, and not only in the Glen Grey area where the principle of one man one lot was originally laid down by Cecil Rhodes with the express intention of making people go out to work as was shown by the fact that the Glen Grey Act had in it the famous labour clause specifically designed to that end; but this principle of one man one lot is more and more extensively and rigidly applied to areas which used to be ordinary quit rent areas before the 1927 Act was passed giving the Government power by proclamation to vary the property rights of natives in those areas, powers it has used to limit the rights of acquisition either by purchase or inheritance. Now, I want to make it quite clear that I am not accusing the Native Affairs Department of any direct intention to oppress the natives in this regard. I am certain that a great deal of the trouble which is developing in all the rural areas is due to an attempt of the department to make the land released under the 1936 Land Act go as far as possible to accommodate as many people as possible. But that is where the trouble arises, and I feel it is more and more imperative that we should have a clear-cut conception of what the Government does intend to do with this land. In the report of this committee the evidence put up by the Chamber of Mines was to the effect that the mining industry could only survive if it is allowed to maintain itself on subsidised labour. Is it the policy of the Government to provide cheap native labour as the foundation of the mining industry? If it is, that policy implies that the worker must look to the combination of his land and his period of industrial labour to earn the wherewithal to maintain a decent standard of living. If he is to do this, the Government will have to increase the amount of land available to those workers which is what the mining industry claims it should do, a proposition which the commission apparently supports if we are to judge from its findings. Now what we want to know is whether the Government accepts the proposition that it is fundamentally its policy to provide for the mines, native labour made and kept cheap by subsidisation of the land. Is the Government’s policy one under which our native reserves are nothing more than reservoirs of cheap labour for the mining industry or any other industries? It is of first importance that we should get a reply to that question, the question whether the Government’s intention in its native land policy is not to create land settlements, not to make these areas the foundation of land settlement schemes which will build up a community of native agriculturists but merely to subsidise industry. If that is the case, why did not the Government at least accept the full recommendation of the Mine Wages Commission in respect of the improvement of the native miners’ wages? If the Government is a partner with the mining industry in the exploitation of the native population, why did it not accept the recommendations in this report of the Native Mines Wages Commission and impose upon the mining industry its share of the burden? The Mines Wages Commission pointed out that even its proposals, with the present level of production in the native reserves would not give the native miner and his family a living during the months he is at home. They say quite explicitly that even with the improvements which they propose in his wages on the mines, the present standard of production in native areas would not enable the native to find the cost of even the meagre standard of living which is laid down in this report. This raises the contingent question; since the Government has not imposed these conditions upon the mining industry, how does it propose to fill the gap between the present earning of the native miner from his mining contract of service and the production from his agricultural holding and the basic cost of his living, because that gap has got to be filled. The Commission says this must be done by increasing production from the land, but that is going to take a considerable amount of time, and I should like to know how the Minister suggests the gap is to be filled in the meantime. Then I want to ask the Minister whether he really believes that the native land or the native people can survive if, in fact, they are to be the object of this sort of partnership between the Government and the mining industry. The result of that partnership must inevitably mean the increasing fragmentation of native land. The fragmentation of land has already been absolutely disastrous to the land itself. It is true, its greatest dangers can be countered by organisation, by education, by capitalisation; it can be countered by a system of building up collective farms, but that is going to mean a much greater capital expenditure than we have ever had before, and not only that, but it cannot be done except on the basis of full-time agricultural service. On the evidence of the White Paper issued by the Department, which as we all know, has been putting up an enormous fight even with the limited resources at its disposal against the difficulties With which it is faced, the Department itself would seem to have come to the conclusion that improvement in native use of land is impossible except on the basis of full time agriculturists. There has been one effort after another by the Department to increase the productivity of part of the native areas. One of the most interesting experiments was that of co-operative farming made in the Northern Transvaal, the report of which I ask the House to read carefully for it is extremely interesting. That record shows that the plan was to develop the land by communal effort, each participant having to provide a certain amount of manhours and a certain number of woman-hours in the year. In the first couple of vears this amount of labour was provided but in the third year the men began to fall off. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, having scrutinised the estimates very carefully, I hope the Minister will notice that on page 269 the Director of Native Agriculture gets £1,100 and the Deputy-Director £258 in 1943-’44 and £207 in 1944-’45. I hope that will be rectified or that the Minister will be able to explain it. Now I want to address to the Minister some remarks on the farm labour question. A little While ago a White Paper was placed on the Table from the Native Affairs Department covering the activities of that Department for the years 1932-’34. From this is seems that a circular was directed to the farming community on the subject of native farm labour and setting out suggestions for the purpose of helping the farming industry in its native labour difficulties. This circular asked for suggestions from the farming community on this matter. I would like the Minister to enlighten us in regard to the response to this circular and whether any constructive proposals have been put forward by the Farmers’ Association in this matter which is, of course, of national interest. In my constituency farm labour is causing concern in spite of the fact that we have large native reserves in that area. In the Northern Transvaal there are large tracts of land owned by companies in the released areas, and the farms comprising that land are occupied solely by natives who pay rent for their residential cultivation and grazing rights. These properties are not only overcrowded and overstocked, but are robbing farmers of their labour. It is a well-known fact that the native prefers to live on farms where he need not do farm labour but can pay the rental. Is there not some means by which the number of natives on these different farms can be reduced? May I point out that not only are they ruining these farms but they are ruining the adjoining owners as well. They are cutting down every tree on the property and the soil erosion that takes place there is enormous. I do appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to put a stop to that immediately. Some action should be taken in regard to these company farms, as we call them, which are absolutely overcrowded. I don’t wish to raise a debate on this question, but I would like the Minister to elucidate the matter. I would just like to refer to this circular a little further. You will find in Chapter 4 that these farms can only have a fixed number of squatters and I would like to know from the Minister whether this limitation was ever put into operation and if not, why not? I would like to make the suggestion that these natives be not allowed to go from one farm to another without the consent of the Native Commissioner. I do appeal to the Minister to assist the farmer on these lines and not allow that sort of thing. When the native has completed his contract of three months he should not be allowed to go into the towns without the consent of the Native Affairs Department. If, these people worked their five morgen of ground properly they could produce what they need. From part of it they could produce, if properly worked, from 120 to 160 bags of maize; if they plant monkey-nuts they can get their 50 bags; if they plant beans they can get another 50 bags, so that these people if they work the five morgen properly, can make anything from £200 to £300 a year, and on top of that they have free grazing. If only these people would put into practice the advice of the white man in charge, they could make a proper decent living, but we do object to these people leaving their plots and going all over the country, chopping down the trees and ploughing wherever they like. Some natives don’t go to a station when they want to get away, but they board a train at a siding and get a ticket from the conductor and get away to Johannesburg, and we, as farmers, cannot lay our hands on these natives. We want to give the natives a square deal, but we want in turn a square deal from them. We protest against a maximum wage and minimum hours, and here it is that I quarrel with the Labour Party, for they preach everything else but labour. I appeal to them to help us to get the labour we want, to render us the service to which we are entitled. We find that even the piccanins are leaving their homes and getting away to Johannesburg and thus the home life is being broken up. I don’t blame them because it is natural that they should want to see more of the world, but I do feel that in allowing this we are not rendering a service to the native. This practice is indeed ruining the family life of the native.

Don’t you think the mines are ruining the family life?

That is exactly what I say. These native children are being taken away from their homes and it is ruining family life.

Certain points have been raised, Mr. Chairman, which will—due to misunderstandings— lead to further discussion later on unless I reply to them now. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding raised by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) in regard to native labour, but before I come to that I would like to reply to the query about the case of the Deputy-Director of Native Agriculture. The point is that the Deputy-Director was on military service, and provision was made for his salary from military pay. Now as to farm labour: Ever since I have been in office, and long before that, appeals have been made to the Government by farmers to take steps to improve their labour supplies. The question was referred to in the Economic Commission’s Report of 1932. In view of the national importance of the farming industry upon which so many depend, as well as the feeding of the people as a whole, especially in war time, the situation is one of extreme concern to the Government and we are anxious to explore every avenue to find a solution. The shortage of native labour on farms is largely an economic question and no Government has ever found a ready solution of it. In recent years, more particularly since the war, there has been a very great expansion of industry and a corresponding demand for native labour. The result has been a shortage, not only on the farms, but on the mines and in the industry; and on the mines, in spite of a large body of imported labour, they are today short of some 70,000 workers. Well, Sir, the mines and other industries have endeavoured to so improve conditions as to make labour more attractive, and to a certain extent they have been successful, but today it is largely a question of competition between one employer and another. Let me say here that the native in this country is entitled to sell his labour to the best advantage, and he must be allowed to get as much as he can for that labour. Nobody is going to try and dispute that, and so, whatever measures we take, administrative or legislative, can only be palliatives and do not go to the root of the trouble. Generally speaking the farmers are not in the same financial position to pay high cash wages as industry is, or to compete with employment offering in urban areas. It is also true that the farmer is, in many cases, in a more favourable position to offer other advantages. The native living with his family on a farm where the employer is a fairminded and just employer, with a sense of responsibility towards his workers, is much better off and has much better security than the industrial worker living in the town. The native living in the town is merely a cog in the wheel; the moment he is sick and cannot work he is turned adrift, whereas no decent farmer—and the vast majority of them give the natives a square deal—no decent farmer will ever allow a native to die of starvation on his farm whether he can work or not. The natives know that, but the difficulty is this, that not only the native, but a number of white employees, will not reckon what they get in lieu of wages on farms. Why do hon. members suggest that there are so many bad employers amongst the farmers? There are no more bad employers on the farms than in industry.

It was found necessary to control industrial employers.

The towns certainly give a much larger cash wage, but the actual wage in terms of money is not the only criterion on the farms. Cognisance must be taken of what the native is entitled to in addition, namely, his food, housing and security, as well as what money can buy in the countryside. Most employers on the farms set aside grazing and a portion of land where the natives can grow crops, as well as giving them other amenities, but these things are never taken into consideration when the question of wages arises. We can all understand that when the native wants to get a higher cash wage, he goes into the town to get that and if he can get a job nobody can force him out of the town, or force him to go and work on the farms. The Government feels that with the co-operation of the farmers a great deal can be done to make farm labour more attractive to the native. Hon. members will remember that in 1937 the previous Government was faced with exactly the same problem as that with which we are faced today. A Committee was appointed to ascertain what steps should be taken to improve the amount of native labour offering on the farms. That committee had three members of the Public Service on it, and four prominent farmers. One was then president of the Agricultural Union, as well as the Natal Farmers’ Union, and the others were Mr. Viljoen, Mr. Hockley and Mr. Jooste, who were at the time all members of Parliament for rural constituencies. The Committee net farmers’ representatives and after an exhaustive enquiry over two years, issued a report in 1939. That report contains a number of very useful recommendations, but it was never considered by the Government of that day. It was laid on the Table and nothing was done. When the war broke out the position became more difficult. Since my appointment I have made a careful study of that report, and I must confess I feel concerned about some of its findings. It is a long report and attached to it will be found a Draft Bill in which certain recommendations were made to compel farmers to do certain things. Well, Sir, I was approached to call a conference of farmers to discuss the whole question of farm labour, and I felt it would be useless to call such a conference unless at least we had some agenda upon which we could proceed. I also felt that it was entirely wrong when there was a report such as this in existence which had never been considered or acted on. I said it would have been an entirely wrong principle and so I feel that it would be wrong for the Government with that report in existence to call a conference and at the same time not draw the conference’s attention to it. And therefore a circular was drawn up by my Department and sent to all farming organisations, and they were asked for their opinions with a view to formulating an agenda. And this circular was intended entirely as a basis of discussion only to get some idea of what the agenda should contain. It was based on the recommendations of the report, but where the report suggested compulsion, the circular made it clear that such an idea, to our minds, was unsound, and if anything was done it could only be done with the full approval and co-operation of the farming community. It is clear to me that very few organisations read this circular carefully, and very few could have read it in conjunction with the Committee’s report of 1937-39 as was intended. I do not want to read his circular now, it would take up too much time. It is true that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) raised this matter in an earlier debate to which I did not have an opportunity of replying. The hon. member did not try to make political capital out of it; I know he wanted to be helpful; but he only read the second page of it, and he said this report wanted to introduce force and wanted to create inspectors of labour whereas that was culled from the Committee’s report and it was put forward entirely as a matter for discussion; and it was said quite clearly that the report was wrong in suggesting compulsion and that it could only be done with the co-operation of the farmer. One unsuitable term was used in the circular, viz. the term “labour inspectors,” and the farmers jumped to the conclusion that there were going to be inspectors such as are in existence in the towns, but the idea for our inspectors was that they should.be men with a thorough knowledge of natives and of the countryside and they would only go on to a farm where the farmer invited them after the majority of the farmers had agreed to the system, the idea being that the inspector could say to natives in urban areas, or anywhere else; “You can go on to that farm; the employer has agreed to pay and feed you on a certain basis and scale; the farmers have agreed to my visiting the farm to see you do get what was promised.” If the farmers didn’t want it the inspector could not go there, but then the farmers could not expect the Depart ment to try and get native labour for them as they were prepared to do if allowed to inspect conditions, though such employers were quite entitled to employ whom they liked for themselves. The circular created tremendous trouble. It was not studied by the organisations and the replies I got for the most part were not constructive, in fact most of the replies were extremely critical, and instead of dealing with the merits of the actual points raised they criticised my Department. I am of opinion that to call a large conference of farmers, at great inconvenience and expense to them, without an agenda or some basis of discussion, would not serve any purpose. I was willing at the time to convene a conference, but all our suggestions have failed so far. So I considered that it would be best if the farmers’ organisations were to call their conference under their own chairman and invite me and members of my Department to be there, to listen to what they had to say and make suggestions and carry any of their suggestions to the Government. I am writing to the Agricultural Union asking them to call a conference under their own chairman and then invite me to attend which I shall be only too pleased to do.

Does that still hold good?

Yes. Then the other point raised by the hon. member was Chapter IV. Well that can be left over to be discussed at the conference; I repeat once more that the circular was entirely as a basis of discussion; there was no question of forcing it on the farmers and I do not know how people can read that into it. I am most anxious to help the farmers and also to see that the natives can improve their lot when they go to work on the farms. Most of these other matters can be dealt with at the conference.

†*The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) delivered a kind of lecture. It was very interesting, but it was not really a criticism of my department. He expressed his views and he spoke about assimilation and bastardisation, and he attacked the liberals in this country and also overseas. Well, I really cannot answer him, except to emphasise that the Government’s policy is arid always have been one of opposition to assimilation and social equality. I do not want to say any more about that. The hon. member expressed his opinion but it had little or nothing to do with the vote. I listened very carefully. The Government’s policy is in favour of separate development of the Europeans and non-Europeans each on their own lines. That is our policy and that is what it has always been. But the hon. member did not raise a single point in connection with the vote.

The trouble is that the Prime Minister says that segregation is a failure.

The Prime Minister can answer that himself.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). To start with I think I should touch on the question of land in the reserves. She says that we are closing entry to the natives coming to the towns. We are not doing that. What we are doing is to control the entry of natives in accordance with the work and accommodation available in the towns. That is a very different matter. We see a rising tide of anxiety and resentment even among the most liberal-minded people in the Cape Peninsula. If the hon. member knew how I am faced every day by men and women who say: “You must do something; we cannot stand it any longer” …

We want to know what the “something” is that you are going to do.

The hon. member also asked whether it was the Government’s policy to subsidise the mining industry through the reserves. The mines did consider the position in the reserves in regard to the cost-of-living. But that has nothing to do with the Government. The Government is certainly not going to subsidise the mines through the reserves. The hon. member knows quite well that a large number of the miners are foreign labour, they have no subsidisation in any way. They are paid a wage considered sufficient to live on. She also raised the point— a very important point—about making every native a peasant farmer and she says it is impossible to make every native a peasant farmer. I quite agree. If we bought all the land in South Africa we could not do it. There are places where the natives will be permanent peasants, such as Taungs and elsewhere. But is is quite impossible for us to make every native a peasant farmer, and while they have their homes in the reserves, some will have to go out and seek work to augment their income. But I think I should make a statement here as to what the Government intends to do about the reclamation of the reserves, and therefore I have got up early in this debate because it may avoid a lot of discussion. The deterioration of the native areas due to overstocking and to other abuses has been referred to in numerous departmental reports. The position was investigated fully by the Native Economic Commission in 1930-’32, and that Commission in an able and exhaustive report pointed out that a state of affairs existed which if not tackled was going to create the most appalling problem of native poverty imaginable, and reading parts of this report after 12 years it was almost prophetic. It recommends extensive fencing, paddocking, limitation of stock to the carrying capacity of the land; we all know that you cannot breed above your grass and the Commission recommended far-reaching measures for the reclamation of the soil. Let me refer hon. members to what the Commission says in Paragraph 69, and in Paragraph 72 they refer to the increase of cattle between 1918 and 1930, which is 12 years. The cattle in 1918—and I am talking in round figures, numbered under three-quarters of a million; twelve years later it was nearly 1,750,000: sheep from 2,250,000 to just short of 4,000,000; goats from 1,000,000 to nearly 1,250,000; donkeys from under 5,000 to well over 10,000; horses from 80,000 to 138,000. That gives you an idea of the natural increase there and what must eventually happen unless steps are taken to rehabilitate the position. Since the report was issued the purchase of land under the 1936 Land Act has afforded some relief and useful work has been done in the reclamation of portions of the Reserves, and a substantial sum of money has been spent. I will show you the result we have attained in the Thaba ’Nchu location. There the carrying capacity has been increased from one beast per eight morgen to one beast per five morgen; nearly doüble. But as was emphasised by Paragraph 337 of the Report it was thought essential that the co-operation of the natives should be ensured and therefore the policy of Betterment Areas was brought into being on a voluntary basis although we have the power to make it compulsory. The educational value of the Betterment Areas Scheme has been great and more and more natives have seen the importance of veld-management, stock limitation and sound agricultural methods. This, however, meant a slow advance in relation to the amount of work that had to be done, and was merely touching the fringe of the problem. But there is no doubt that a great advance would have been made, had the War not intervened, which, owing to lack of staff and complete lack of essential materials such as fencing, without which you cannot do anything, the work was practically brought to a standstill. The process of deterioration and overcrowding is continuing and is leading to many evils which must be prevented if the future of the native people is to be preserved. The phenomenal drift of natives to the towns has undoubtedly been accelerated by these conditions. Ever since I became Minister, and particularly since I visited the Reserves, I felt that the policy pursued up to now, though essential in the beginning to get the goodwill and co-operation of the native, and though it has obviously been responsible for good work, is not of sufficient magnitude or bold enough in conception to meet the situation. The Native Economic Commission Report set a period of 10 to 20 years as a limit in which the Reserves could be saved. The War has already cost us five of those precious years. My departmental heads—who must of necessity be better informed and have far greater experience of the technical side of position than I—agree wholeheartedly with my views on this matter. It is admitted that nothing can be done until staff and materials become available, but it is also advised that that the planning on a vast and long-term scale cannot be left until after the War. This aspect was therefore tackled forthwith so that long-term plans could be completed and ready to be put into operation when the War ended and staffs and material became available. The Technical Advisers of my Department were accordingly called together and they hammered out a scheme which is to be spread over a number of years and which will inevitably cost millions of pounds. The good land of the Transkei is lost and it can never be replaced. You cannot buy it back and whatever it cost that land has to be saved before it is too late.

What about the people? How many people do you reckon that land could carry?

Surely when I am concerned with making a statement to the House what plans are being made for the reclamation of the existing land, I do not think the hon. member should keep interrupting by queries as to what number of people it could carry. I have shown that the reclamation of one Reserve has nearly doubled its carrying capacity. We have to limit the number of stock and see that better stock is bred up. Mr. Chairman, the plan includes such matters as fencing, paddocking, limitation and improvement of stock, soil conservation, water supplies, irrigation, tree planting and village settlements, and the education of the people to a change of attitude towards the soil and the whole problem generally. The foundation on which the scheme is to be built is the appointing of professional whole-time Reclamation Committees for each of the four Native Affairs Areas—viz., the Northern Areas, the Transkein Territories, Natal and Ciskei, and these Committees will consist of trained technical and administrative officers who will survey the Native Reserves and draw up a comprehensive scheme for reclaiming and conserving the land. They will work in collaboration with officers entrusted with similar undertakings by other Departments of State. I believe I am right in stating that Mr. Churchill, some time back, when speaking of large-scale forward planning generally, gave as his opinion that a Democratice Government which was only elected for five years, should not put forward a plan covering more than five years. Divided into one year for the investigation and organisation of it, and four years for carrying it out. I think he is right and therefore I asked my Technical Advisers to work out a four-year plan for the reclamation of the Reserves which I am going to lay before this House. They told me that in their opinion it was quite impossible, however much money Parliament might make available for this purpose, to do the whole thing in four years. They gave me sound reasons which I need not go into here—but just one case in point—they said that the training of the technical personnel who were to carry out the work, would take considerable time, and unless these were efficient and of sufficient numbers, the work would be badly done and would prove costly and inefficient. I went into the lists of technical staffs which they considered necessary for each area, and came to the conclusion that they were right and therefore, after careful consideration of their views, I reluctantly had to admit that I could not hope to lay before Parliament a five-year plan for the reclamation of the Reserves. We are going to use the native returned soldiers, many of whom are quite skilled men, having worked on cars and drills and pumps during the war up North. Hon. members will remember that when England decided to spend £400,000,000 to start the rearmament of forces it was stated it would take a year and a half before the first shell could be made, because first the organisation had to be created and then the machine tools made, and therefore my Department said they must first create the whole organisation before they can go ahead. That organisation is being created now. As I have said I went into the list of technical staff which they considered necessary and came to the conclusion that they were right and I had to admit that I could not lay before the House a five-year plan. They considered 12 years would be required. Personally I think they are too pessimistic, and once the organisation is got going—provided it is built on a sound foundation in the first instance—it will go forward with an ever-increasing velocity, gathering momentum as it proceeds. That, however, only time will show but the fact of putting more men on the job and spending more money will not solve the problem. It is a question of organisation, material and particularly trained supervision. If I might give a homely example: because one man can build a wall in a year, it does not follow that if 365 men were put on to it they could build it in one day. To start with, they would probably not all be able to get near the site. The policy will be, however, to push on to the utmost capacity of the technical staffs and to the limit of the money that Parliament sees fit from time to time to vote for the purpose. I hope it will be possible to employ members of discharged native soldiers including skilled and semi-skilled men, on this work and in that way help the Minister of Demobilisation in his reconstruction plans It is anticipated that the purchase of land in the released areas will be continued side by side with this development and I do not want the natives to think that because I am going to do this and spend money we are not going to carry out the promise given by the late Gen. Hertzog to buy more land for them. The future purchases of land will be considered by the Planning Committees in conjunction with the reclamation of the existing Reserves. Where it is necessary to get land here and there in order to secure water supplies, that will be taken into consideration. The possibility of limiting stock to the carrying capacity of the Reserves in the meantime has received consideration. Limitation in accordance with regulations has been carried out in a number of Betterment Areas where fencing has been available, with good results. But it has been found, Sir, that without fencing it is quite impossible to enforce the regulations or to exercise control. I can assure you that these proposals will help us not only to save the land for future generations, but also to make a substantial contribution towards the health and happiness of the native people. That is one of my replies to the hon. member who raised the point of native deterioration and, Sir, I have already said we are not turning people out of towns, we are putting them under control. Then the hon. member also raised one other point. Does the Government accept the recommendations of the Mine Wages Commission ….

She said why haven’t they?

The answer is the Government gave the Commission’s Report careful consideration and came to the conclusion that an increase of 5d. per shift for underground workers and 4d. per shift for surface workers was a fair and reasonable rise in wages. That was carefully considered by the Government and its advisers. Another point is in regard to Pietersburg; I have already made a full and clear statement in Another Place and that statement was published in full in the Press and I do not propose to take up the time of the House to go into the whole question here. I would only like to add that the decision to remove these natives was taken after very mature consideration and, for my own part, great heart searching to make sure that I was doing the right thing and to maintain order and in the interest of the community as a whole. The Government could not allow the state of affairs to develop as they were without taking the powers which Parliament, in its wisdom, has given it to take and if the Minister is not prepared to bear the responsibility and to use these powers he is not fit for his job. I took these powers after making quite certain that I was doing the right thing and I stand by that decision. These matters have been fully dealt with by my colleague on the vote for Public Health, and I won’t take up the time of the House any further on that point. I apologise for the length of time I have taken, but the two points raised were of such importance that I felt that I had to reply to them.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to Report No. 2 of the Social and Economic Planning Council. The Council said, amongst other things, that it considers that in the Native Reserves steps must be taken, as part of the general food subsidy scheme, to subsidise the price of maize in the off-season, to improve the trading system in maize and to reduce transport costs. I notice that the Secretary of Agriculture has stated various reasons why this cannot be proceeded with. He says the Department finds itself unable to support the recommendation of the Council for a general subsidy on the lines suggested. The Council stated in reply to the Secretary for Agriculture, that having made recommendations it was not going to enter into a long correspondence as to how these recommendations were to be carried out. I would like to put one simple little suggestion to the Minister which can then be developed. Seeing that the chief objection to carrying out the recommendations of the Council, according to the Secretary for Agriculture, is that there would be collusion between the buyer, who was to get the subsidy himself, and the trader who was supplying the maize, I would like to suggest, in order to overcome that difficulty, that the buyer pays the full price to the trader and that the trader then gives the buyer a coupon, duly signed by that trader, which the buyer can then take to a Police Station, or to an office of the Native Affairs Department and there get the voucher duly certified. Then it would be quite easy to make arrangements to pay the buyer the subsidy without this collusion taking place. The scheme only wants working out in greater detail, but that is the gist of the suggestion I want to make. I feel that the people in the reserves are definitely in need of this subsidy. Their incomes have not gone up in the same ratio as the cost of their food has gone up. I have here an interesting statement of what it costs to feed a native on certain of the coal mines. These figures are taken from a total number of 252,687 ration shifts. The rations that are there supplied are the following: Mealie meal, 24 oz. per day; meat, 3 lb. per week; soup-meat, ¾ lb. per week; vegetables and fruit, 5 oz. per day; bread, 6 oz. each working day; Coffee or cocoa, onesixth of an ounce per day; sugar, 1 oz. per day; beans, 3 oz. per day; monkey nuts, 2 oz. per day; salt, ½ oz. per day. Flour and salt, by the way, are not compulsory, but they have been given on these mines. This amount of food given to one native now costs 18s. 7.008d. per month per head. The pre-war cost was 12s. 10.566d. These are not estimated figures but actual figures taken from mine records, and they prove most definitely that the cost of food to the mines, on these rations, has gone up by 51 per cent. I therefore would like to have the assurance that these recommendations of the Social and Economic Planning Council will receive immediate consideration and if possible be put into effect.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is not here. The Minister has made a statement to the effect that his Department has under consideration, plans for the development of the Reserves. We, on these Benches, naturally welcome such a statement. Plans on a long-term basis are obviously essential as anybody knows who is aware of the conditions which prevail in most Reserves in this country. Where we were disappointed with the Minister’s statement, was that he has not told us precisely what the Government is going to do, but I shall return to this point later when the Minister is present.

I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Minister and his Department for what they have done as far as my constituency is concerned. We have some rather difficult problems to deal with and the Native Affairs Department under the guidance of the Minister and the Secretary for Native Affairs, have taken those matters in hand, because they have at last realised that these are serious enough to justify the setting up of an Investigation Committee which has reported and indicated what a serious state of affairs exists. The Report reflects a serious state of affairs for both Europeans and natives in that constituency, and should be dealt with at an early date. I want to refer to an article which appeared in one of the recent issues of a paper headed : “Black Maria goes on the Spree.” The article is by Dr. O. D. Wollheim, Principal of the Welsh Primary School, in East London—

Without any further ado the constables put their shoulders to the door and the frail partition crumbles under their weight.

If this article represents anything approaching the truth, then it is a definite reflection on the Europeans of this country to allow such a state of injustice to prevail. I want to ask the Minister if he will order an investigation to be made into this statement which is certified as an authentic description of a typical police raid. I make no apology for bringing this before the House. This Dr. Wollheim is Principal of one of the native schools in East London, and we must take it that he went to the trouble of indicating to the Editor of this paper that these were authentic details of a typical police raid. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, this place is in my constituency because the location of East London is in my constituency. I would like to ask the Minister to take up the matter with Dr. Wollheim, and find out to / what extent there is any truth in these statements. With reference to what the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) said, about permanent employment for the native, I still argue that no native can live on any decent standard when he is employed only nine months out of twenty-four. He is expected to earn sufficient in nine months to carry him over the next twenty-four months. Now I want to ask, arising out of that, if it is not possible for the Minister to consider the establishment of some industries in the Native Reserves or in the Ciskeian Areas which will absorb that labour in the area in which it lives, and thus save them the necessity of having to go so far afield to get employment; and give them some permanent employment and give them a higher standard of living. If they had these industries in their midst, they would be employed for 20 months out of 24 and a better standard of living would be maintained. Secondly I want to ask the Minister if he is keeping in touch with the colonies in the North, keeping in touch with the developments carried out there, with a view to having suitable application of some of the items to this part of the country. The Minister has dealt with a number of points on which I should have liked to have said something, but I want to make one last point, and believe me I am not doing it for the purpose of dropping a bom shell. One has listened with patience to the arguments made here in respect of the natives. We have native representatives here and I from my point of view have a certain amount of interest in the native and his development, and I am interested in whatever can be done for his uplift, but when we have legislation introduced in this House, we have opposition on what I consider distinctly constructive items, items which are designed to improve the lot of the native; you have opposition from the native representatives. With the knowledge I have of the natives and what I have gathered from the natives in my ramblings through my constituency, I want to assure hon. members that we are creating a serious state of affairs in this country. The natives’ reaction to what is said in this House and outside is going to lead to extreme prejudice against the European, and I go so far as to tell you that the native is becoming contemptuous of the European by what is being said here.

Said by whom?

Said by you, among others, and if this state of affairs goes on, if it is allowed to continue, I can tell hon. members that the poor unfortunate native will have the prejudice of the European against him and if he goes into revolution, which he is likely to do, if he goes on in this way, he will have to face what is happening in Europe and he’ll be mown down by rifles. I am in closer touch with the natives than most people are, and I get first hand information as far as they are concerned, and I want to pass this on to hon. members over there, that if we do not carry on along different lines, if we go on in South Africa causing prejudice in the way we are doing, we are in for very serious trouble with the natives, The bulk of the items I want to deal with have been dealt with by the Minister and I shall not hold up the House any longer.

The hon. member who has just spoken has blamed the native representatives for any feeling there may be among the African people against the Europeans. I should like him to give one single example when anything has been said from these benches other than reasoned criticism, based on constructive policy designed to meet the needs of both the European and the non-European population of this country. Apparently not many other members take the grave view which the hon. member opposite is taking judging from the small attendance that is characterising …

This same attendance as is listening to you.

… that is characterising this important debate on native affairs. I am not going to exchange further personalities with the hon. member over there. When the Minister stated that his Department was considering a period plan for the reserves, as I have said at an earlier stage, that is welcomed by us.

The organisation is going ahead now. We are hot considering it merely.

The Minister interrupts me because I said: “is considering.” Well let me alter that and say “has adopted” a period plan. That is welcomed by us on these benches. But what we asked the Minister was: “What is the objective of that plan? What is he planning for?” Is he planning for the development in the reserves of the population that can make a living there, or is he planning on the assumption that the reserves can carry the total population which is there today. That is a vitally important matter because one thing which I believe has been brought out clearly by the Mine Wages Commission is that the state of deterioration into which the reserves have fallen is not only due to lack of funds but to over-population and absenteeism of the people who have to work the land. They refer to the evidence of the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei. I don’t know whether I am stirring up feelings between the races, but this is the sort of speech which we always make here. The Chief Magistrate of the Transkei gave this information to the Mine Wages Commission. According to him about half of the arable land in the Transkei is not being cultivated and that which is being cultivated is producing about half of what the Chief Magistrate considers to be the potential production. Now he gave reasons for that, and these are the reasons quoted by the Commission—

1. (a) Many lands are badly eroded and portions only are capable of being used. It is not possible to arrive at even the approximate estimate of the number of acres involved.
2. (b) Many lands are regarded by the natives are unproductive through exhaustion and other causes.
3. (c) Shortage of draught animals and their low condition when ploughing operations ought to be undertaken.
4. (d) The absence of males at labour centres. The women, children and old men are unable to cope efficiently with the heavy work of ploughing.

Now that is a most significant statement in relation to any plan which is being adopted by the Minister for the development of the reserves. Because it indicates that quite apart from the effects of the migrant system of labour on the economy of the country as a whole, despite that, or rather apart from that factor, the absence of migratory labour from the reserves is militating against the development of the reserves. There are other factors as well. The Minister referred to overstocking. Of course there is overstocking in regard to the capacity of the land, but there is no overstocking in regard to the needs of the population. Overstocking is simply a particular manifestation of overpopulation. That is all it is. And actually in relation to the needs of the population, according to the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei, there are not sufficient animals. And for these reasons, given by the Chief Magistrate of the Transkei to the Native Mine Wages Commission, from the aspect of the development of the reserves, and the aspect of the development of the country as a whole, these reasons fully support the case which we have always made and that is that the objective of policy should always be to limit the population of an area to what that area can support.

Will you tell me how you propose to do it? Do you want to kick them out?

That is so typical of the Minister.

Well, just tell me how you want to do it.

Not kick them out. That is not an easy matter. It is a long-term matter. We have indicated the methods many times. It involves a dynamic policy, it involves, instead of discouragement, encouragement of the urbanisation of that part of the population which desires to seek industrial employment, the removal of restrictions on urbanisation by giving full property rights to them in the urban areas, and by conceding to them—most important of all—conceding to the unskilled native worker a living wage in the urban areas and particularly on the gold mines. It is along those lines, by the stabilisation of the African labour force in the towns, that elbow room can be secured in the reserves to make our land policy a practical one, but it is a policy which has to be conceived in dynamic terms. It cannot be achieved overnight. It is only on the basis of longterm planning that there can be a solution of these problems in the reserves. Now I want to refer to another matter and that is the administration of the Private Locations Act in the Western Province. At present there is rapid industrialisation going on in the Western Province, and there has been a considerable expansion in the demand for labour, more particularly at such centres as Paarl, Worcester, George, etc. In these places there is no accommodation for the native at all. Worcester has just started a location, Paarl has not started one. George has a non-European housing scheme; there are a certain number of natives there but not sufficient accommodation; but the demand for labour is there in these centres. In the case of George, there is considerable demand on the national roads and the aerodrome and in Paarl and Worcester industries are developing rapidly. Now the consequence is that many native people have close to these employment centres rented land from farmers and have put up houses there, or rather huts, and they are employed in the locality. [Time limit.]

In order to develop my point it is necessary to form a background by going into the history of the native population in this country and the position of the natives as knew them many years ago. I am referring of course to the natives of Bechuanaland, the country where I lived and grew up. In the early nineties, 1890, the natives of Bechuanaland were a virile and industrious race. They were rich in cattle, they were well off, they not only produced sufficient food for themselves but they exported quantities year after year. I remember that in 1893, 20,000 bags of kaffir corn were exported to Mesopotamia. I remember that Bechualanland supplied Rhodesia with mealies and other foodstuffs and most of it was produced by the natives. The natives in those days produced those articles in a very primitive way. They didn’t know much about agricultural methods, about deep tilling ploughs and so on, but they actually produced sufficient for themselves and sufficient for export. In 1895 the rinderpest broke out in Bechuanaland and the natives were reduced to absolute poverty. The Government did not repatriate and, assist these natives to remain peasant farmers, it did not help to reinstate them. But it was the policy of the Government of the day to make use of the position by attracting the natives away from their tribal lives to other spheres of employment, they were drawn away to Kimberley and elsewhere and as a matter of fact the first compound system was started in Kimberley after the Rinderpest. It suited the Government at the time to allow these natives to drift and from being a virile and industrious race they have become the wrecks of society as we know them today. And my appeal to the Minister is this. The position of the country and fertility of the soil has not changed very much in those parts—why should we not step in now and make an attempt to reinstate these natives as a peasant class. Under the segregation scheme we have bought no fewer than 1,500,000 morgen of land in addition to the reserves which exist and I should like to know from the Minister whether that land could not be used for the purpose of reinstating these natives as a peasant class— we have these 1½ million morgen in addition to the millions of morgen which we have in Bechuanaland; or is it the intention of the Government to create another reservoir of native labour for the mines? I claim that with sympathetic treatment we can reinstate and must reinstate a large number of these natives and enable them to live there in tribal life as a peasant class. But it requires sympathetic treatment. It requires assistance. You cannot put these natives on the land without boring for water, and without helping them with cattle. I am quite sure that if such an attempt is made we shall achieve results which will prove highly beneficial to the native population and to the country as a whole. There is no reason to believe that these natives who formerly were a productive peasant class could not be reinstated. It requires a determined policy, and it wants sympathetic treatment. And a sincere attempt can only be made if we are prepared to give these natives the same assistance as you give your European farmers here. Not to the same extent perhaps, but at least some attempt should be made to reinstate these people in their holdings and to give them the facilities that are offered to other farmers. When I speak of facilities, I don’t mean to suggest going to the same extent as we have gone in other directions, of irrigation works but they have the land, which is the main item. An enormous amount of land has been bought and if that were linked up with a sincere policy of assistance to the natives in the way I have indicated, the country would get a return of the money that has been spent and will be spent. I know that in former years the policy of this Government and of previous Governments was not one of bringing these people back to an agrarian class because the farmers of this country were afraid of the competition which they might create in their markets. They were afraid that if the natives became self-supporting they would not have a market for their mealies and for other products. Those days have gone. The farmers need no longer be afraid that the additional production by the natives would put them out of business, so I see no reason why we should not make that attempt. I know it is a very difficult matter, particularly in view of the fact that so many of our natives have become detribalised, and I also know that the mines and other industries want that native labour, but those that are still left in the reserves, and those who are prepared to till the land, and those who are prepared to help themselves should be able to get the assistance for which they are crying out, and I should like to know from the Minister whether it is the policy of the Department to re-establish those natiyes as an agrarian class where it can be done, as a peasant class, and so give them the chance of helping the country in a more useful way than they are doing today by being employed on the gold mines to haul out the gold. If they are allowed to produce for themselves they will be better off and I am quite sure that they will be a more useful asset to the country than they are today in the various spheres of employment which are open to them.

I am surprised that the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), usually a very practical man. He talks in the same way as a lot of other people.

I suppose you mean us.

I would point out one or two things which I could not understand. The hon. member says you must re-establish the native to become a peasant again. He visualises a condition of affairs in the reserves under which the natives can be trained to become peasant farmers but on the other hand he says that in the creation of reserves you must not establish a Reservoir from which the mines can draw their workers. On the other hand the native representatives say that you must not prohibit them from coming to the urban areas. What are you going to do? We know that we haven’t got enough land in the country to let all thé natives be peasants. You cannot establish them all on the land …

Nobody has asked for that.

If you use the natives from the native areas for any purpose it is described as slavery. Some people have thought of asking the Minister to consider as part of his future policy the establishment of native towns where people could go if the reserves were full. Let them stay there; give them good housing; such towns would also be reservoirs, of labour. That suggestion has been put forward, and then people who wanted to employ natives could get their labour from these towns. But I am afraid we have come to this point. My friends the native representatives do not always see themselves as we see them. I would put it this way—we haven’t had one scheme yet put up by the Department or by the Minister which has not been criticised most fiercely by them.

What schemes are you referring to.

Take this last Act which went through Parliament which was all for the benefit of the natives. The Minister has pointed out to the House that to have more peasant farmers it is absolutely necessary to impose certain restrictions …

That is not what he said.

You have to have fencing etc. but anything the Government wants to put up, any restriction which the Government thinks necessary for the purpose of protecting the native is at once opposed.

That is not so.

I don’t know what the Native Representatives really want, but what I am certain of is that they are in a very small minority in the views they hold.

Never mind. It is a growing minority.

That may be but we are talking practical politics and at the moment it is a very small minority. I was hoping we might get beyond that, and when the Native Representatives really represent the people they will support the Government instead of always being suspicious of the good intentions of the Government and the Minister. We perhaps see things differently from what hon. members over there do. Let me mention another point. It has been said that hon. members over there always object to any native being taken into the service of a farmer—they always have some objection. They always complain of something. The Minister was excused today because they said he was a good farmer.

Perhaps you are too.

The result of the attitude adopted by hon. members over there has been that right throughout the native population a feeling has grown up that they don’t want to work on the farms and the pity of it is that hon. members representing the natives are encouraging that feeling.

What does the Van Eck Report say?

I am talking about the feeling which hon. members create by their speeches, and I say that creating these feelings is not in the interests of the natives. I say that hon. members over there should be more careful. If they would only take up a different attitude they might produce something good and useful. Their attitude is not doing so at the moment. I have been listening to hon. members when they spoke about the Government’s failure in regard to these land schemes. I have heard their suggestion that the policy of one man one plot would never do any good as far as the native areas are concerned. If we are going to have one man one plot, there will never be land enough. I would ask the hon. members who represent the natives to support the Minister and his Department in the policy they are pursuing of placing the natives on farms and telling them what to do. That is the only hope these people have got. I only hope hon. members, when they talk about native affairs, would at least try and preserve a fairly decent feeling between Europeans and natives. Hon. members over there have told us that they never suggested that this should be a race question. I do not say that they do, but the general impression which they create is a racial one.

Why?

I cannot tell you why but you must be responsible if you create that general impression. Anybody in this House will admit that that is the case. I am hoping that some day we will get past that.

I would like to deal with two points. First of all I would like to object also to the large-scale propaganda which is being conducted by the native representatives in particular, alleging that the natives in South Africa are being very unjustly treated. The result of that propaganda is this, that not only has it developed a complex in the minds of the people conducting the propaganda, but it is actually creating such a complex in the minds of the natives which is not in the interests of the country. My objection is this—and what I am saying is a fact—that the Government is giving the natives too many privileges too quickly. We are not doing the native population a service by that sort of taring. On the contrary we are doing them harm as far as the future is concerned, especially in view of the fact that we are dealing here with undeveloped races. The native should be given an opportunity to develop, but he should not be allowed to do so too quickly. We must adopt a principle, in dealing with the native, that he must grow up through his own labour, through his own effort, and be able to attain to higher spheres of life under white guardianship. Let me give a few instances. In the last few years, between 1939 and 1943, the native soldiers and their dependants have been paid in salaries and allowances something over £16,000,000. During the last few years the Government has bought 4,855 thoroughbred bulls for the natives and about 360 thoroughbred cows at a cost of £78,000. Since 1936, up to date, 1,562,328 morgen of land have been bought for the natives at a cost of £4,753,988. The Planning Council estimates that the pensions for natives by 1946 will amount to £1,500,000. This year £1,900,000 is being spent on native education. The Government recently gave the native mineworkers a subsidy costing £1,800,000. Under the sub-economic housing schemes 31,273 houses have been built for natives. Between 1938 and 1943 the following amounts were spent exclusively in the interests of the natives: Native agriculture £474,000.; water supplies for natives £186,000; amount spent on the combating of cattle diseases £180,000; fencing of locations and camps £102,000; and so we can go on. We know for a fact that there is not a single Dominion in the whole world where the Government spends so much money on the natives. I challenge hon. members here who represent the natives to show me one native territory here in Africa or even in America where such huge sums are spent for the benefit of the native races. The Minister of Native Affairs said that the Government also stood for the policy of separateness. It is a very excellent statement which we heartily welcome. I contend, however, that that policy is not being vigorously carried out today. As a matter of fact I have a very strong suspicion that the policy of segregation is being entirely departed from. It came to my notice that the Minister of Native Affairs not long ago gave permission to the Municipality of Johannesburg to buy a farm, and he gave permission for natives to buy erven on that farm which can become their property. But surely that is not segregation. It is a completely novel principle. It is a departure from the old policy and what is more, if that sort of thing is allowed, we are going to have the natives drifting into the towns and in a few years’ time they will be claiming the same privileges as are now given to the natives in Johannesburg. I have not yet had the opportunity of checking up on this statement, and in the circumstances I do not propose laying too much emphasis on it, but if it is so then it means a departure from the segregation policy. We should not lose sight of the fact that, at the very best, the urban locations should be only temporary abodes of the natives. The urban locations should never be more than temporary homes for the natives coming to work in the towns. That is the right policy. That is the policy which is in the interests not only of the European population, but also of the native population.

I am afraid it is no use trying to explain our policy to the hon. member for Potchef stroom (Mr. Van der Merwe). If the Government decides to continue the Native Affairs Commission, one day, we hope, it will put on that Commission someone who will understand what we are talking about. The point we have been trying to make for a number of years is that we want a stabilised native population in this country. We strongly object to a system under which the native population is kept in a state of perpetual motion between a so-called rural home and an urban place of temporary employment. We consider that to keep a population in a state of flux like that is contrary to every principle on which our whole society is based, that it is impossible to maintain in that way a decent family life in any community. The question I was asking the Minister when the time limit stopped me was, does he accept the conception of the Mine Wages Commission as to the socially satisfactory character of a system which divides the life of the native workers between periods of work on the mines, and periods in the reserves. I pointed out that the mine contract is in the region of 14 months, and the time spent in the reserves is an average of seven to eight months. The Commission offered the opinion that in general that constitutes a healthy system. Does the Minister accept that? I cannot imagine a European society that would remain decent for long on a basis of that kind. We do not believe such a system can be healthy for any population. We want to get a stable population on the land independent of the necessity of going to work on the mines or anywhere else, but we want a statement of policy—the Government’s policy in that regard. The moment the Government decides that that is a sound line of policy, then it will get all the support we can give. We have always been prepared to accept any control which has for its objective the building up of decent family life for the native population. Hon. members have raised this question of native farm labour. Now the real explanation of the feeling of the hon. member for Potchefstroom and others in the House, that we on these benches give a racial twist to all discussions on this subject, is that the bulk of people in this country are employers of labour, and employers show a tendency to resist any attempt to raise the standard of living of their employees so that these employees will no longer be as cheap as they have been in the past. That is really the crux of the whole matter. The hon. Minister, or someone else said that we are always down on the farmers. We are not down on the farmers more than on any other employing class. The whole propaganda which we are carrying on on behalf of the native population is exactly the propaganda that is carried on by the Labour Party, both here and overseas, to get an organisation that will enable the employees to get and maintain a decent standard of living. The farming community has always been most difficult to control but their reaction to criticism is similar to the reaction of other employers. The only difference is that industrial employers have become accustomed to wage legislation and its contingent controls. They have not liked them any more than the farmers like them. The things that have been said in the last four years about the Minister of Labour and his interference with labour conditions are familiar to all of us. There has been considerable grumbling about this. But it is not so vocal as the grumblings of the farmers because the Labour Party has done a job there and established the idea of the rights of employees. That same job has still to be done for the farmers As a matter of fact, the farmers themselves are beginning to move in the matter for we have recently had farmers telling farmers’ associations that they will have to adjust themselves to increased wage conditions, the alternative being either compulsory improvement by Government or the strengthening of native workers’ organisations or both. Now we believe that labour ought to be worthy of its hire and I believe, further, that the farmers of this countrv will never solve their problems even with better wages, until they learn to adjust themselves to new conditions and make better and more efficient use of the labour that they have. We have been told that we never save the Department does anything good. But on the contrary I think the circular issued to farmers on the subject of farm labour was a very good one; and I am disappointed, though not surprised, that it has produced no results. This country is so accustomed to a higer standard of living based on cheap native labour that it will not take very kindly to any change.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think this House is very much interested in personalities and I do not want to indulge in them, but I feel I would not be justified in allowing the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) to get away with what he tried to put up as a defence of his attitude towards what the Government has done. In the first place, I want to point out that when the Government and the Native Affairs Department wanted to control the natives coming into urban areas to find work, instead of allowing them to drift down and live in filthy conditions on the Cape Flats quite uncontrolled, the hon. member opposed it. The Department wanted to move the Makoba community of natives from an unsuitable and worked-out area and put them on land of twice the value of that, which they would leave, and again the hon. member opposed. Sections in a Government measure designed to protect the native from exploitation the hon. member also opposed. The hon. member accused me of personalities. I think the case is just the reverse, but I want to inform him that I gave him a more gentlemanly hearing that he has given me. However, if the cap fits he can wear it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to follow the hon. member over there in what he has said. I gave my reasons at the time for the opposition which I put up to the measures I did oppose. When I was interrupted by the time limit. I was putting to the Minister the situation which has arisen in the Western Province, more particularly in places like Paarl, Worcester and George. Industries have sprung up there and the workers are being accommodated on farms near the towns, but the Divisional Council has to give its consent to this kind of accommodation being supplied. I know it is not good accommodation, it is bad, and anything which can be done to improve it will have my support, but I want to put it to the Minister that his Department should come to some arrangement with the Divisional Councils as to the terms on which they will consent to this type of private location and will not simply prohibit it, since proper accommodation is lacking. There is another matter of administration which I want to call to the attention of the Minister. It is my information that whenever a native goes to the Department on business, the first question put to him is whether he has his tax receipt, and I do want to put it to the Minister that that does militate against sympathetic administration. Complaints have been made to me that when a native wants to take out a summons, its issue by the Clerk of the Court has been refused unless he can produce his poll tax receipt. Now It is a matter of law that if a man wants to sue another he can apply to the Clerk and summons must be issued whether or not the man has paid any tax due from him. It would, of course, be possible for the native to apply to the Supreme Court for a mandamus on the Clerk to issue the summons, but he is hardly in a position to do that. I suggest to the Minister that it would be better if taxes were collected in the ordinary way by demanding them in writing at a particular time of the year, rather than to demand the production of the tax receipt every time the native comes to a Departmental office on business. I also want to know what the policy of the Department is about tax raids. Here in the Cape we have not been having them, I am glad to say. I understood at the time the Native Taxation and Development Act was amended in 1939, the new procedure set up was for the purpose of dispensing with these raids as far as possible. As far as I know they have been dispensed with in the Cape and I want to know why they are taking place in the Transvaal. My information is that they are taking place there. I know of a particular instance at Alexandra Township, where there was a raid during the bus boycott there. I understood that it was a policy of four years’ standing not to have these raids and I was disappointed to find that this is still being done in the Transvaal. With regard to the situation at Pietersburg, the Minister has stated that he made a full statement about that in Another Place as to why these powers under the Native Administration Act were used against these four men. I have read that statement but I cannot find anything specific alleging what those men were supposed to have done.

If you read my statement carefully you will see that I gave my reasons.

The Minister gave the reason that the order might be attacked in court, but I do not know how it could be attacked in court except on technical grounds. The merits could not be enquired into, because under the Native Administration Act the Minister has the right ….

Why was it attacked on previous occasions?

On technical grounds, but the merits of the case could not be enquired into. In any case, assuming that an attack on that order had involved an attack on the merits, if what the Minister states is correct as to what happened, I cannot see why there should be any difficulty at all. If there had been a notice of motion served to set aside this order, then clearly the matter would be sub judice, and the Minister could not refer to it in this House. I understand, however, that there has been no application to court, and in the circumstances I cannot understand what prevents the Minister from stating why the Governor-General has ordered the deportation of those men In the one particular instance the person against whom the order has been made is 50 years of age. My information is that he is a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, a lay preacher of that church. He is an ex-school master, and for four years was the president of the Transvaal African Teachers Association. In addition he owns a house which is valued at £800, as well as a store, and his wife is the only certified registered native midwife in that district. On the face of it, he is a responsible person, and he is having his whole life dislocated by an order against him for certain activities of his for which apparently he has not been brought before the court. If he has committed a crime, by all means bring him before the court. If, however, he was only exercising his right of making representations on behalf of the Pietersburg peasants, then I feel the Minister should not have made this order. There is a situation existing at Pietersburg which has given rise to dissatisfaction over a number of years, a situation of which the hon. the Minister is aware. The essence of it is this, that his Department bought farms there of which natives were tenants, and it is alleged that on the re-settlement by his Department, those natives who had been there previously received less land than they previously had. That is what is alleged. I understand that the Minister’s Department denies that, except in some cases which they say have been enquired into. I have no personal knowledge of this matter. I have never been there myself. Nevertheless the Minister’s Department, despite that situation existing which is alleged, recommended the deportation of certain persons, and 160 people were recently arrested. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) asked what the position was in regard to Suurbekom and what the Government’s policy was in regard to the place. He created the impression that he thought that we had set aside the Hertzog policy of 1936, or at any rate that we had gone beyond it. Well, I would like to point out this. I said in this House last year that I stood by the 1936-’37 legislation, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding I wish to say a few words about the history of that legislation with particular reference to this point. In 1913, the Native Lands Act prohibited the pure chase of land by natives outside the reserves except with the approval of the GovernorGeneral. That provision, however, did not apply to urban areas. In other words, a native could buy land in any part of an urban area, as provided in Section 8 of the Native Lands Act. But when the 1937 Bill was introduced a new provision was inserted, namely 4 (bis); this provision generally forbade the purchase of land by natives in urban areas except with the consent of the Governor-General. Section 4 (bis), however, just as in the case of many other things which have been done since the beginning of this war, this step is also intended to create a sort of war psychosis, to make the people conscious of the fact that there is a war on, so that they can enlist and contribute to war funds, etc. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to furnish the more important figures at this stage. I cannot think that the Minister believes that the publication of such figures will affect the war effort in the least, or be to the advantage of the enemy. Is the Minister in a position, for example, to give us figures in regard to the total imports and exports in respect of the past year? Is he in a position to give the following general figures: the import and export figures between South Africa and Great Britain and between South Africa and other parts of the British Empire; in regard to our trade with the United States? These are figures which we are particularly anxious to have. There has been a considerable increase of imports from South America, especially from the Argentine, and we should like to have those figures. Then we are particularly anxious to know what figures he can give us in regard to the export trade to other African territories. I refer to the last especially. I regard it as a matter of particular importance because, with the development of our own industries in South Africa, we are of opinion—and I am convinced that that is also the Minister’s opinion—that the territories north of the Union represent an important future potential market for the export of our manufactured articles. We should like to know what the position is. I shall be glad if the Minister can tell us to what extent we are making use of the exceptional opportunity which is provided by the war to extend our export trade to the north and to make full use of it. We must bear in mind that after the conclusion of the war there will again be intensive competition from other countries which have not been in a position, during the war period, to expand or to develop their markets in the continent of Africa. We should like to know, therefore, whether there is any prospect of our retaining the markets which were obtained by us during the war years. As I have said, it is very difficult to discuss trade relations. We have not got the figures, and I am compelled therefore to leave it at that, in the hope that the hon. Minister will be able to enlighten us when he replies to this debate. I come back to the question of trade relations in the general sense of trade policy, and I want to ask whether the Minister can give use any information in connection with the post-war plans of expansion. And then I also want to touch upon a question which we have already discussed in the House during this Session, i.e. the tendency which is revealed in the speeches which we have had, including a speech by our own Prime Minister, in connection with the plans to make an economic unit of the British Commonwealth after the conclusion of the war. An important conference of Prime Ministers of the British Commonwealth was recently held. A statement was issued at the conclusion of that conference, but it is difficult to find a more meaningless statement. There is the usual statement in regard to everyone’s determination to prosecute the war until victory is won, etc. The only part of the statement which is of importance is towards the end, and that is in connection with the proposal to form a sort of super League of Nations which will have the final say. We know, however, from statements which were made before the commencement of the conference by Lord Halifax, by the Prime Minister in South Africa and also in London, that England is seriously concerned about her own economic position after the conclusion of this war, and in view of that it is sought to bring about a sort of economic unit of the British Empire. I say that we do not know what is going on. The statement which was issued does not give us the least information. I take it for granted that the Prime Ministers would not have held a conference for two or three weeks merely for the purpose of issuing that insignificant statement. We can take it for granted that much more serious matters were discussed than appears from the statements. We can take it that relations between England and the rest of the British Commonwealth of Nations were fully discussed by this conference. We do not know what undertakings were given by the Prime Minister of South Africa, but it is necessary to state very clearly today that this Party and this side of the House will not regard ourselves as bound by any undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister on behalf of South Africa. Our attitude is that we are not going to allow ourselves to be bound, that we will oppose any scheme to build an economic protective wall around the British Empire and to draw South Africa within such an economic wall. We want to state very clearly that this side of the House will not allow South Africa’s interests, its economic and trade interests, to be made subservient to the interests of any part of the rest of the British Empire or of England. We want to state that very clearly. The reproach is often levelled against us that we want to follow an isolationist policy. We have always said that we have no objection to the development of trade relations with England or Australia or Canada or any other country, but our attitude has always been that those trade relations must be based on the foundation of sound economic principles, that we are not prepared to make our trade relations subservient to the interests of any other country, and that we are opposed, as we have already said on a previous occasion, to the system of preference which has been in force up to the present; that South Africa’s future trade relations, including her relations with England, must take place on the basis and on the foundation of reciprocity, and that those trade relations should be based on the principles of trade balances, and especially on the principles of quid pro quo. That is the attitude of this party; that is our attitude on this side of the House. We want to trade, whomsoever it may be; but on business lines and not on sentiment. Unfortunately in the past there has been too much sentiment as far as our trade relations with England and other parts of the Empire have been concerned. It is not only South Africa which adopts that attitude. In Canada, too, that is apparently fully realised, as appears from recent speeches. I do not know whether the hon. Minister and hon. members on the other side read the speech which was made some time ago by Mr. J. A. MacKinnon, the Canadian Minister of Trade, in which he stated clearly that Canada would not take part in any system of closer union which might prejudice Canada’s interests. On the 17th of last month this statement was made by the Canadian Minister of Trade, Mr. MacKinnon. This statement appeared in “Die Burger” of the 18th May, but for some reason or other the “Cape Times” did not publish this report. The same applies to two other reports which also appeared in May, of the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party in England, Col. Harold Mitchell, and another report of Sir James Grigg, the Minister of War. The “Cape Times” could not find space for these important statements either. I want to deal, first of all, with the statement in which the ideas which prevail in England in regard to future trade relations are clearly set out. I refer to the statement of Col. Harold Mitchell, the vice-chairman of the Conservative Party. I take it that he is qualified to speak on behalf of the party which is practically in power today. He is reported as follows—

It is interesting to note the following statement which was made on the same day, i.e. on the 15th May, by the Minister of War. I think the other side will agree that it emantes from an authoritative source, and this statement of Sir James Grigg is intended to paint a picture of England’s economic position after the conclusion of the war. He stated, inter alia—

Here the prospect is held out of one of two things; either to issue Uncovered paper money, or to resort to some system or other of inflation; then follow these words—

That is a Sapa-Reuter message. It will be seen from these messages that serious anxiety is felt in England in regard to the position after the conclusion of the war. We also know—we can see it from the statements which are made from time to time in America and in England—that preparatory steps are already being taken for intensive competition between America and Great Britain on the termination of hostilities. I know hon. members and others would like to close their eyes to such a possibility, but it is not only a possibility. It is very clear from the statements which are made in America and in England that there will be serious economic competition after the conclusion of the war, not only as far as exports are concerned, but also in the sphere of shipping, in the sphere of aviation and in the financial sphere. That competition will come as sure as we are sitting in this House today, and it is because of that possibility that there is anxiety in England today. For that reason, too, this conference of Prime Ministers was convened, in order to build an economic protective barrier around the Empire—to make an economic unit of the British Commonwealth—as a counter-measure to the competition which will come after the war. But now we get this statement from Mr. MacKinnon in Canada. He is the Minister of Trade. Unfortunately, the other side has not had an opportunity of seeing this statement, because the “Cape Times” would not publish it, but the whole tendency of this statement of Mr. MacKinnon is in conflict with the tendencies revealed in England. He also states that Canada wants to expand her export trade at all costs; that there is anxiety in Canada, because of the fact that Canada’s export trade to England may perhaps be prejudiced by the fact that England is going to make other arrangements with other countries, and, he makes this statement, inter alia—

It will be seen that there is serious anxiety in Canada as well as in regard to the whole position, and we on this side want to make use of this opportunity today to raise this question and to put the attitude of the Nationalist Party very clearly. I do not know whether the hon. Minister is in a position to give us any information in regard to what happened at the Imperial Conference. We will probably have to wait until the Prime Minister returns, but it is necessary to issue a serious warning and to explain our attitude. I now come to the question of industrial development. In that connection the policy of the Nationalist Party is well-known. I go so far as to say that the Nationalist Party is the father of industrial development in South Africa. A few days ago I happened to look through old newspapers, and I found that the late Mr. J. W. Jagger resigned in 1925 as member of the Cabinet because (so he stated) there was a tendency on the part of the then South African Party to move in the direction of industrial development in South Africa. It was the Nationalist Party which instituted a protective policy, and that was followed by the industrial development which we have in South Africa today. Our standpoint in this respect remains the same. We advocate the expansion and development of industries, but we advocate the expansion and development of our industries on a sound basis. We stand for the development of industries which have a right to exist. We are in favour of assistance being given to industries, but that assistance must not be abused at the expense of the employees in the industries or at the expense of the consumers. The war has offered us a golden opportunity for industrial development. During the past four years industries sprung up in South Africa and manufactured articles which we had never dreamed of manufacturing here, and there is every hope that these industries will continue to exist after the conclusion of the war. I pointed out the possibilities of developing a market in the Northern parts of Africa, but the point which I want to mention here is that we must take into account the fact that after the conclusion of the war our own manufactured products will have to contend with serious and keen competition—in the North as well. Successful competition demands, in the first place, that we should be able to sell the articles at a reasonable price, that we give good service, that there will be a regular supply; in other words, that the consumers will not be in this position that they will be able to buy an article today and not tomorrow. But above all, it is necessary that our industries should manufacture goods of a high quality. I am afraid there has already been a tendency in South Africa, judging by the articles which have come on the market during the past few years, not to comply with the requisite of good quality. I do not know whether the hon. Minister has seen any of these articles. I am thinking of toys, for example, which were manufactured here. I do not know whether that is intended as a temporary industry. Then there is certain clothing. Last week I bought a shirt—not manufactured by the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet)—a shirt which was made in South Africa—made in such a slipshod fashion that I cannot wear it, and my wife will have to try to make it fit for wear. To use an English term, we are now getting manufactured articles which one can only describe as “shoddy.”

Was the material bad, or was it badly made?

It was shoddy work. Then I want to ask the Minister why our matches are so bad. I am not referring to the fact that they do not light properly. That is due to lack of chemicals. But why does every second or third match break? What has that got to do with war? We have the wood here, and I want to ask whether the position is not that some factories are exploiting the war situation and using inferior wood? Only recently a child was burnt to death as the result of a match which broke. Every second or third match breaks in half. If we want to complete in the Northern Territories, we shall have to guard against our factories getting a bad reputation. Hon. members know what the position was before the war. It became almost proverbial in South Africa to say: “This is Japanese stuff,” because it was of such poor quality. The same thing happened in connection with a certain type of article from Czechoslovakia, and we notice what the position is today in connection with the articles which come from the Argentine. When one buys Argentinian stockings one can see right through them. They are of poor quality and they fall to pieces the first time they come out of the wash. The Argentinian exporters had an opportunity of building up a market in this country, but they threw away their chances by delivering goods of poor quality. I mention this as an example. That is something against which we shall have to guard in connection with the development of our own industries, and for that reason—and I now come to a question of policy, and I know that there are some of our industrialists who share this view—it is desirable to create a system of licensing, whereby every industrialist will first have to get a licence from the Government and from the Minister’s department before such an industry can be established. Such a licence should be subject to the condition that good conditions will be maintained in the industry as far as wages, the colour bar and other matters are concerned, and more especially that articles of good quality will be delivered and that the name of South Africa will not be brought into discredit. During the past year or two the wrong type of people have come into our industries. Some time ago I saw an article in a trade journal—I think it was “Trade and Industry”—where the writer makes the same point, namely, that there are some of these people whose policy is to “get rich quick.” They want to make use of the war situation to make as much profit as possible, as rapidly as possible, and they do not care what type of article they deliver. That type of thing should be prohibited, and it will only be possible if a proper system of licensing is called into being, and if the necessary conditions are incorporated into the licence to prohibit it. Then I should like to say a few words in regard to the question of import permits. [Time limit.]

I want to say a few words about control measures and I want to mention two specific cases. The first one is in regard to the sale of second-hand military clothing, and my second point is to suggest an investigation into the sale of kraal manure. There is a shortage today of phosphates, and farmers are using kraal manure extensively; I want to ask the Minister to instruct his control officials to look into this matter. In regard to military clothing, we know that after every war there are mountains of second-hand clothing sold in the country and we know how these things are sold. They are sold by tender and a number of people—maybe six, seven, perhaps eleven or twelve—come together and form a ring and one man makes an offer and the clothes are sold to these people for next to nothing. We have had experience after previous wars, and these things must not happen again. What we want is this—we want the Defence Department, the Quartermaster Stores, to get reasonable prices for these things, but we want these goods to be distributed among the poor and also among the natives. Many of us have no conception of what the natives go through in the winter months; they are practically bare, they sleep without blankets and it is time we did something and allowed the natives to have some of these clothes. Some municipalities also want clothes for their natives, and so do other institutions and what we want to see is that these people get these clothes at the lowest possible prices. We do not want a recurrence of what happened in the past. Even on this occasion it has been happening, because something like £164,000 worth of clothing has already been sold by tender and these organisations to which I am referring have received practically nothing. Let me quote a few figures to show the prices at which Quartermaster Stores have sold clothing and the prices at which these same articles have afterwards been advertised for resale by business firms. Quartermaster Stores have sold trousers at 1s. 7d. and I have seen them advertised in “The Farmers’ Weekly” by private firms at 6s. 3d. Bushshirts are sold by the Quartermaster Stores at 1s. 9d. and advertised by private firms at 6s. 6d.; tunics sold by Quartermaster Stores at 1s. 11½d. are advertised for sale at 9s. 6d.; greatcoats at 12s. advertised for sale at 36s. 3d.; boots at 2s. 7d. advertised at 12s. 6d.; shirts at 9½d. advertised at 4s. 6d.; overalls at 2s. 1d., advertised at 13s. 6d. Recently the control officials have been at these people and they have brought them down to lower figures, but those firms are still making big profits. What I want to suggest is that the various organisations who want these clothes should get them at prices at which the Quartermaster Stores sell them, and I want to suggest to the Minister that he should bring into being a depot where a municipality or anyone who wants these articles can be supplied. The organisation could state the number of articles it requires, say 100 pairs of trousers or boots as a minimum. The organisation or person who wants these articles must be able to go to the depot, or send in a cheque in payment and get the goods. As things are now, the goods are sold at Pretoria and a person or an organisation wanting £20 or £30 worth of goods has to go to Pretoria—it does not pay to do so. We want a depot where a man can send his cheque and can get these goods at the Quartermaster Stores’ prices. The next point I want to make is in regard to the shortage of phosphates and it seems to me that there is another “ramp” on here. On account of the shortage of phosphates, farmers from the Western Province and elsewhere are geting kraal manure from the Karoo and I know that that manure can be had for practically nothing. I know also it is sold here for 12s. 6d. or 15s. per ton loose. I know also that when it is bagged (and the bags cost 10½d.) and eleven bags go to the ton, something like 35s. per ton is charged. I am not quite sure of this last figure, but I am sure of the figures 12s. 6d. and 15s. for truckloads. I think there is a “ramp” on. These gentlemen, six or seven firms in this country, are buying this kraal manure at 4d. per ton. For a 3-ton lorry they pay 1s. That is 4d. per ton. And it is taken to the railhead by Government lorries. They are given every facility—they get military lorries, military drivers and they get all the petrol they want. It costs them from the farm to the railhead 2s. a ton. They get advantages from the Railway Administration— the railage for several hundred miles from the Karoo to the Cape is 1s. per ton. When you put these figures together it does not come to very much. These people of course have to hire their own boys and they insure their boys, but the insurance is a bagatelle and a boy’s wage is 4s. a day. When you put all these items together you are still very far short of 12s. 6d. and 15s. I want an investigation to be made. The position today is that sheep farmers are giving away their kraal manure practically for nothing—and we are prepared to give it away for nothing—and the Railway Administration is helping in the railage by a 90 per cent. rebate and the military authorities are helping with lorries and drivers. I feel that an investigation must be made. We all want to help the farmers and the public but we don’t want these few people to take all the cream and enrich themselves. I hope the Minister will put this matter before his control board so that an investigation may be undertaken, and I hope that there will be no dilly-dallying about it. To sum up my remarks, I want, first of all, the establishment of a depot in regard to second-hand clothing where people can get these clothes in certain quantities at reasonable prices, where they can send their cheques and be supplied with their needs direct, and secondly, I want this whole position of kraal manure investigated.

I want to ask the Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the Government’s industrial policy. If this Session is going to end without the Government making a definite announcement with regard to its industrial policy, the country will be very much disappointed. We have on various occasions during this Session tried to get an answer from the Minister on this point, but so far we have had no definite statement from the Minister or any of his colleagues as to the extent to which the Government is going to encourage the development of industries. Why I believe I am entitled at this eleventh hour of the Session once more to ask the Minister for a statement is because the investor, the business man, the industrialist is very much concerned about this. The farmer, the worker and everyone in South Africa expects a definite statement from the Government as to what it is prepared to do, to what extent it is prepared to start and to support industries in South Africa. Recently, one of the Minister’s colleagues, the Minister of Mines, made a statement here to the effect that the Government was not going in for industrial development where it might undermine the mining policy of the Government. The Government will be confronted with a serious problem when this war is over. First of all there will be the question of employment and it is only through the development of industries that the Government will be able to handle the position. Without industrial development it will be impossible. The Government will simply rely on the mining industry and on the few industries which exist, and by killing industrial development in this country the Government will make it impossible for itself to cope with the potential problem of unemployment. I hope the Government will not neglect this opportunity of making an announcement telling the country where we stand. If the Government has no industrial policy, let them say so. But if they have a policy, let the country know what it is. Without this announcement I am very sorry to say that the farmer, the industrialist and the worker will be very much disappointed. So I ask the Minister, in all sincerity, to avail himself of this opportunity of telling the country what the Government’s policy is. I want to ask the Government to consider the position of South Africa first.

Are you a convert?

Recently the Minister of Finance said that no barbed wire fence was going to be put up round South Africa. We are very pleased to hear that, but I want to point out that the big countries of the world, America, Great Britain and all other countries are only concerned with their own interests, and if South Africa is going to be concerned with the interests of those other countries, it will mean that our own problems will not be looked after. It is Priority No. 1, when the war is over, to see that South Africa safeguards its own interests. There are a lot of things which can be manufactured in South Africa in competition with any other country in the world. The main thing is to keep your people employed. I want to know on what basis the Government is going to cope with the potential unemployment after the war. One more point is this—that we have learned recently that other countries oversea are preparing— and as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has said, there is a potential conflict between the big powers; South Africa can play a very important part in bringing those countries together, so that instead of having a conflict we may have harmony between the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Nations of which we are a member. In the circumstances, it is a matter of great importance that our Government should try to prevent a conflict, because if there is going to be a conflict of interests between these countries, whether it is about shipping or about industrial expansion, it may have serious results. I feel that if they all belong to one unit, and all co-operate, they can prevent competition and conflict, because competition of the kind to which I am referring, is bound to bring about depression in one country and that is not what we want because the repercussions of depression, whether it is in America or in Great Britain, always recoil on the rest of the world. It is by international agriment by trade cooperation that you can prevent that, but Priority Number 1 should always be that the Government of a country must protect its own interests, and up to now the Government has not indicated that it is going to safeguard South Africa’s interests enough, although vague statements have been made. But still we are waiting for a definite answer. Recently during the debate on Social Security the Prime Minister made a statement which gave the country hope, and the statement was to this effect, that the time had come when the Government would have to give a definite lead with regard to industrial development; and I am sorry to say that so far it seems to me that the Government is listening too much to other considerations. The hon. member for Beaufort West referred to the action of a prominent man many years ago, who threatened to resign from the Cabinet because the South African Party Government was lending its ear too much to industrial development in South Africa.

He did resign.

Of course it suits private business interests in South Africa to have no industries here because their private interests lie in imports, and do not let us forget that that is also the policy of the Chamber of Mines—the Chamber of Mines do not want anything to be manufactured in South Africa; they want to import anything and everything that is required, and they only want gold to be produced here. But the production of gold does not solve our problems to such an extent that we need produce nothing else; we must produce other things, and I therefore ask the Minister to make a statement so that the country may know where it stands.

May I avail myself of the privilege to speak for half an hour? I think the industrialists in general and everyone who takes an interest in the development of our industries is very anxious and concerned about the future of our industries. There are various reasons for their anxiety, some of which were mentioned in the House this morning. In the first place, there is the Atlantic Charter, i.e. Section 4 of that Charter. In addition to that there is now the Master Agreement in regard to lease-lend between America and Britain. I know that the hon. Minister of Economic Development has made a statement in connection with Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter, but his interpretation is a little far-fetched. When one looks at the wording and one gives the English language its ordinary meaning, it is difficult to appreciate the interpretation of the hon. Minister. In spite of his explanation, the industrialists themselves are not reassured. I notice that on Thursday last the Secretary of the Federated Chambers of Industry made the following statement— [Re-translation ]—

That is one of the reasons for the anxiety and uncertainty which exists today. The people do not know what the Government’s industrial policy is. I have been trying for the past two years to ascertain from the Minister what is really the industrial policy of the Government. All we get is a mass of inconsistencies. That is one reason, namely, the existence of Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter. A further reason is the policy of the Minister of Mines. I notice that he is in the House at the moment. He made a statement of the Government’s policy in connection with the gold mines, namely, that the gold mines should be exhausted to the utmost at present, so that profits can be made before increased wages hit the gold mining industry. A third reason for the anxiety and uncertainty is the fact that it is felt in other countries, such as America and Britain, as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) indicated this morning, and also in Canada, that an intensive campaign of export should be set in motion after the war. We feel that they should take steps in that direction at the present time, and, in fact, steps have already been taken. All those countries feel that as far as the postwar economic position which now faces them is concerned, they will have to export or perish. Today the motto in all those countries is: “Export or perish.” To which countries must they export? Take Britain. The South American States which have absorbed a great portion of its export trade in the past, is now regarded as a sort of trade reserve of the United States of America.

By whom?

By the United States themselves; and if one looks at the “good neighbour” policy which is laid down, and which is apparently accepted by a large section of the South American States, it would seem that the scales will be turned, not in favour of England but in favour of the United States. The trade bonds between the South American States and the United States have been drawn much closer during the war. The fact remains that the export trade of the United States to the South American States has increased considerably, while that of Britain has decreased considerably. If the South American States are excluded, Britain will have to concentrate on the Commonwealth and on other parts of the British Empire. That will mean that we will have to offer a market for Britain in this country; it means that the development of our own industries will have to be put in the background, because it stands to reason that this country cannot be a market for Britain’s industries and at the same time develop her own industries, and that is why industrialists in this country are concerned. They know that if there is a Government in power which is át all indifferent to the policy of developing our own industries, it will mean that preference will be given to imports from other countries instead of building up our own industries in this country. But there is a fourth reason for the concern of the industries today, and that is the taxation policy which is being followed by this Government. The taxation policy, if one understands it at all, is such that one can only say that it is a policy which is calculated to retard and to restrict the industrial development of South Africa. Big industrialists have complained. I can mention the name of Dr. H. J. van der Bijl who said that this taxation policy—and I am thinking of the excess profits tax especially—is calculated to make the establishment of new industries particularly difficult in the future. The taxation policy should be such that it will encourage the establishment of new industries in the future, but does it encourage the establishment of industries in the future? If one takes the joint effect of these four causes, one cannot blame the industrialists for asking what the industrial policy of the Government is, for being concerned about the industrial future of South Africa. I want to enlarge somewhat on a few of these points. If it will become necessary for the United States, and especially for Britain, to concentrate on expanding their export trade with South Africa, one asks oneself how that can be done. They can only do so if the industrial policy in the Dominions is held in check. In certain Dominions they will no longer be able to do so. We have seen that it was stated in Canada that any import trade should rather be encouraged with the United States. In addition to that, we have this declared policy, or rather the support for this policy, which is now accepted by the Minister of Mines, that we should exhaust our gold mines in this country as soon as possible so that profits can be collected while the gold price is high, and before the increased wage scales hit the mining industry. It stands to reason that this policy is in agreement with the policy of England to increase its export trade with South Africa. It means that with the gold which you export you will have money to pay for the goods which you import from Britain and other countries. The first point which I mentioned, the policy of England, which is also the policy of the Imperialist, agrees in this respect with the interests of the mining magnates in South Africa, and in the Present Minister of Mines we have a person today who is an Imperialist. He is a member of the Dominion Party. As far as his political feelings are concerned, therefore, he is going in the same direction as Britain as far as the expansion of her trade in South Africa is concerned; in other words, the position is that he is reconciling his ideals as an Imperialist, who places the interests of the Empire first and foremost, with the interests of the mining magnates who are intent on taking out the gold in the shortest possible manner, and to sell it while the price is high and while the wage scales are low. That is something which gives one cause for great concern, this statement of policy of the Minister of Mines. In the journal, “Trek,” which cannot be described as a Nationalist journal, it is stated in the edition of the 2nd June—

If there is no import trade with overseas countries, we will be compelled to build up credit balances overseas. The export of gold is paid by the import of goods. But if we go on at this rate the Government will have to ration the export of gold or it will have to build up credit balances overseas. The industrialists appreciate the implications of the policy of the Minister of Mines. They appreciate this danger to the industry and they are very concerned about it; and in addition to these things which I have mentioned, Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter and Clause 7 of the Master Agreement in connection with Lease-Lend hangs over them like a black shadow. In spite of the reassuring statement of the Minister of Economic Development, these two things make it very difficult to believe that they can have the meaning which he attaches to them, since he is practically the only person who puts this interpretation on them. Are we going to maintain the protective policy which has been followed up to the present, after the war, or are we not going to do so? And when we read Clause 4 of the Atlantic Charter that is a question which gives us cause for concern. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) said that the Minister should make a statement of his industrial policy, that he should definitely tell the country what the Government’s industrial policy is. I agree, but I say that is not enough. I say that industry and the people who want to invest their money in industry, will only be reassured if two things take place; the first is a clear statement of policy by the Minister in this House—not outside before a gathering of industrialists—but in this House. This is the place where the Minister should lay down his policy. That is the first requisite. And that policy should embody a statement that all statements of other Ministers which are in conflict with that policy are repudiated. We must still accept the principle of joint responsibility of the Cabinet, and one cannot have this fast and loose talk in regard to matter of policy, which has become a habit of this Government. What we want, therefore, what industry wants, is that there should be a statement of policy, and that that statement of policy should include a repudiation of all conflicting statements which have been made by other Ministers; and that statement of policy should deal with the following points especially. I have already mentioned the first one, namely a protective policy, so that we shall have clarity in that connection. The second is this; we want to know what the Government’s policy is in respect of Empire preference. We know that that question was discussed at the conference of Prime Ministers which was held in England. What decisions were arrived at? What is the attitude of the Minister; what is the attitude of the Government in respect of Empire preference? What is the Minister’s attitude in respect of discrimination in general, discrimination in the sense that privileges will be given to a certain country which can never be given to another country? This whole question of discrimination has become a very important matter of late, and it is stated in Clause 7 of the Lease-Lend Agreement, the Master Agreement between Britain and America—the agreement is that they bind themselves—

If that is accepted by Great Britain and if we continue to cling to Empire preference, it means that we cannot get any quid pro quo for the preference which we give, because the preference which we get from Endland is a preference which she has to give to any other country, not only to South Africa; and the value of that counter-preference which we get is reduced if it is a privilege which is shared by other countries of the world. In those circumstances, can we adhere to the policy of giving an advantage to England which no other country in the world may share, no other country outside that circular wall of the Empire? It is said that this side of the House are isolationists; on the contrary, we want to remove that protective barrier. We do not want to put a protective barrier around South Africa, but nor do we want to put a protective barrier around the Empire. The only protective barrier which we recognise is a barrier around the world. That is our policy. I notice that recently there were discussions between America and England in connection with Clause 7 of the Master Agreement, because it is visualised in that clause—and it is stated in “The Economist” which is a fairly well-informed journal—that there were two American conditions particularly; and the journal states—

Then it goes on to say that the most important of the two is the second one, of course, and it adds that in America the Dominions are regarded as separate countries and that in all probability the agreement will have a serious effect on Empire preference. If no discrimination can be applied, it is probable that Empire preference will be completely eliminated as far as England is concerned. For that reason I want to know what the position is in South Africa. Are we also prepared to do what England is prepared to do and to say that there will be no tariff provisions in our Customs Act, which will only be at the disposal of England and the Empire? If we do not do that we shall not be following the example of England, and we shall be prepared to do something for England which England is not prepared to do for us. In the second place, therefore, we ask for a clear statement of policy from the Minister in respect of Empire preference. The third question I want to ask is what the policy of the Government is in respect of industries, or rather whether there is any intention to alter the existing taxation policy, because we have seen that there is not the slightest doubt that that policy is calculated to retard and to prejudice industrial development. We should like to know whether this is the policy of the Government or is it merely the policy of the Minister of Finance as taxing master of our country? Must we take it that that is the policy? I want to ask the Minister of Economic Development whether he has protested against this policy? Has he done anything to obtain relief? The industries, especially the new industries which are now being built up, and which should be in a position of building up reserves which will enable them to withstand the depression which may come after the war, are heavily hit by this taxation policy. But we do not only want a statement of policy; we want action to be taken. We want to know what the Minister is prepared to do, not only what he is prepared to say. What has he done in connection with the question of taxation? Is he going to give us any information; will there be any relief as far as the taxation policy is concerned, especially in respect of new industries? Not what he says, but what he does is of importance. We want something more than just a statement of policy. We want to know what steps the Minister has already taken or is still going to take for the economic development of this country. There is the question of assistance in connection with industrial research, for example. In other countries enormous sums are expended on industrial research. It is realised that industrial research is necessary in order to make headway. It is true that in many countries a large portion of those costs are borne by private industries, but is it not possible for our Government to subsidise industrial research to a certain extent, or to render direct assistance, or failing that, cannot the Government, to an unlimited extent, exempt from taxation moneys which are expended by industries in connection with industrial research? It would be a farsighted policy and it would increase the efficiency of the industries, if they were allowed to deduct from their taxable income the money which they expend on research and which will yield profits in the future. We should do everything in our power to enable them to make their organisation more efficient, and these amounts, at any rate, should be exempted from taxation—it should not, as the Minister is doing in connection with improvements on farms, be restricted to 30 per cent. of the gross income, but it should go up to 100 per cent. in respect of approved research. Then there is the other question of technical training. If we want to increase the efficiency of our industries, we must see to it that we have the manpower for it. Not only do we need men for the every-day work, but also the technicians required by the industries. We know that as far as technicians are concerned, the position in our country still leaves a great deal to be desired. Is the Government doing anything to encourage the development of our industries by the promotion of technical training? I want to quote again from the “Economist” of the 15th April, the latest issue which arrived here. There it is stated—

So much for the Government’s part. What is this Government prepared to do in that connection? The third point is in connection with the rationalisation of industries. We know that here again his Department clashes with the taxation policy of the Minister of Finance. We know what was said by Dr. Van der Bijl in his address from the chair on the occasion of the annual meeting of the Industrial Development Corporation; we know that he complained that in certain cases rationalisation, that is to say, the union of two industries in order to make the industry more efficient, was impossible, because whereas the two old industries each had a pre-war standard, if they unite for rationalisation purposes and established a new industry, the new industry is not allowed the prewar standard of the two old industries. That has a retarding influence. For that reason I am asking that something should be done in this matter. What steps has the Minister taken in this connection? What has he done in order to place industrial development on a sound footing, so that when the gold industry disappears and we are faced with a big gap in our national income in the future, secondary industries will have been created which can take its place? With the exalted title of “Minister of Economic Development,” which the Minister now bears, I think we can expect more from him than we got from the Minister of Commerce and Industries in the past.

I wish to say a few words about control and in the first place I want to talk about price control. It is absolutely essential to have gross profits; they are essential to pay wages, rents and other charges. The necessary profit, however, depends on a large number of factors such as handling charges, turnover, original cost, availability whether or not the goods can be sold at the same price, or whether a large number of goods or a small number, whichever the case may be, have to be sold at cut prices. There are a great number of other factors, but my time is limited and I think that the factors which I have given are sufficient for the moment. The Price Controller has adopted different methods of control over different articles. For example, on many grocery lines he has fixed a definite maximum price at which these lines may be sold, on other lines he has given us a percentage basis on the cost, showing the profit which the merchants are allowed to make; but unfortunately, in my opinion unfortunately at all events, we are still sticking to that alternate method which is popularly known as the “factor system.” This factor system is based upon the standard—upon the percentage of profit—which any concern made before the war. Under this factor system the trader who operated on a small percentage of profit before the war now finds he has to trade on a still smaller profit. But the trader who was profiteering even before the war, who was making a big profit is permitted to trade on a much larger percentage of profit than the other man. True, he cannot trade at the same percentage of profit that he traded at before the war, but he is still reduced by the same percentage factor as a smaller man is with the result that we get such absurd things, or rather that such absurd things as this can happen. A and B buy the same thing at the same cost to themselves, with A selling the article at say 10 per cent. below B’s selling price, and under the law, under the regulations, A may be found guilty of profiteering whereas B who is selling at 10 per cent. above As price is not guilty of profiteering. Surely that is absurd. The factor system seems to me to be based on the motto that “to him who hath shall be given and from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.” Once more I wish to raise my hardy annual protest to this Committee against this factor system. In its place I suggest that the retail selling price must be fixed by the Price Controller at the factories where the goods are manufactured, and with regard to imported articles, that the retail selling price should be fixed at the warehouse of the original importer. In addition I would also like to suggest that wherever possible and reasonable, the retail selling price should be stamped or printed on the actual articles at the factory where these articles are manufactured. I would, however, sound a little note of warning, and that is that we should not ask for all sorts of unnecessary printing to be put on the articles. Just to give an instance—on blankets—we get this sort of regulation: You must print M.E.B.; S.A.N.W.; M.A.N.; 17s. 6d., 40 by 90, or something of that sort. No, it won’t be 40 by 90 it will be 60 by 80.

No ordinary person going into a store seeing M.E.B. will know that that means Military Export Blanket, and that S.A.N.W. means South African National Wool. What we require is the price, 17s. 6d., to be clearly printed and that will be quite enough. In addition the size 60 by 80 may be shown with advantage, but any unnecessary printing should be abolished. Where it is not reasonable or possible to mark the goods, I would suggest that on invoices whenever such goods are sold, for re-selling purposes, the original fixed maximum retail price should be stated. When these details are clearly marked on the actual articles we will find that the public will automatically become unpaid inspectors for the Price Controller. I was very pleased to notice that last year we did adopt this particular system as regards tea. Today if you buy a packet of tea you know the price at which it has to be sold. I am thankful for small mercies, but I should like to see that principle extended still further and all honest traders I am sure will agree that this would be an excellent method of control. Today there is a great tendency throughout the country to call the distributors, the middlemen, “those parasites who somehow or other interpose themselves between the producers and the consumers, taking a colossal reward for no services rendered.” Much of this is based on ignorance and is based on an incomplete knowledge of what the distributor has to do. Commerce today stands between the producer and the consumer, and commerce should, via the Distribution Commission which has been appointed, now prove to the country what essential services are rendered by the middleman and prove what services distribution is really rendering to the country and also prove what those services cost. Commerce should also once more take stock, and where necessary it should put its house in order. Evils such as the hire purchase system for clothing …. [Time limit.]

I think I might reply to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and the hon. member for Faur esmith (Dr. Dönges) who have raised the question of industrial policy generally from that side of the House. The hon. member for Beaufort West inquired about the publication of trade figures. Well it has been a matter of general policy among the allied countries not to make any general publication of trade figures since the war began and up to now there have been very good reasons for that. I know we should have been very glad to have had trade figures from the enemy during the war, and I can only assume that they would have been glad to have had ours as well, but I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West that the time is approaching, if it, has not already arrived, when, if any useful purpose can be served by making figures available, it should be done. My Department is not responsible for the publication of these figures, they are controlled by the Department of Customs and Excise, and the question of policy is a matter for External Affairs, but I am quite ready to take it up with the Department and see if we cannot arrive at some system of publication of figures. Of course, there is this, that the object of publishing these figures is for comparative purposes, to see how one’s international trade is going, and today international trade is suspended. The things which we are importing, we are importing from countries from which we would possibly not import before, and we are exporting goods to where normally we do not export them. So the figures which would be available today are of doubtful value in showing the prospects of our import and export trade. The hon. member asked me whether I Could give him the total import and export figures between the Union and certain other countries; but if he will look at the White Paper on the Budget statement he will find all these figures given on page 2; the total value of imports and export figures between the Union and the United Kingdom, the United States and a number of other countries are tabulated there.

Are the total figures given too?

Yes, the total value of our exports for 1943 except gold specie was £33 million, and the total value of our imports was £8,000,000. The hon. member also asked me about the possibility of developing trade with North Africa. There again the future is uncertain. There again trade at the moment is very closely regulated by purchasing committees which have been set up in London and Washington, both for the distribution of raw materials which these countries have available and for the supply of their essential needs. There is no free market in Northern Africa today but we have done all we can to prepare ourselves. As the House is aware we have set up a consular office in Madagascar. We have now in the Belgian Congo a consular agent and a consul and we have recently appointed a Trade Commissioner for the Belgian Congo to make a proper survey for the future. I sent Mr. Dickman up, and I think he will do very well. The hon. member expressed anxiety as to what had taken place in London. I am afraid I am not in a position to enlighten the hon. member as to what has taken place, but when he suggests that any binding decisions or agreements were arrived at at this Prime Ministers’ Conference, I can assure him that he is wrong.

What about a “gentlemen’s agreement”?

It was a meeting of Prime Ministers of the Dominions with the Prime Minister of Great Britain for personal exchange of views, to hear what each Dominion was thinking and how their minds were working and beyond that there is no reason to suppose that any decisions were taken—and further than that I am not in a position to give any information. The hon. member put in a few short words what the industrial policy of his side of the House was, and I was glad to hear him make that statement because as far as I can see there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House about the development of our industrial life in the Union, and that to my mind is possibly the most important news which the industrialists of this country can have, because unless we can evolve between us a national basis for industrial development, nothing I can conceive of would be more upsetting to the industrialists than the idea that as between one party, or one Government and another there is a fundamental difference …

The hon. member for Fauresmith said that you had no policy at all.

Well, he should not say that. On broad lines there is no diversion of policy between us. We are determined that our industrial development shall take place and that it shall be given a fair opportunity to develop unhampered and unchecked by uneconomic competition from elsewhere. The hon. member for Fauresmith quoted me as having said that my interpretation of the Atlantic Charter and our view was that existing industry should be protected.

No, Mr. White said that.

He was quoting Mr. White. That is not strictly correct. My view is that industries should be protected, not only existing ones, but new ones as well.

I don’t think it is fair to say that he interprets you in that way. He said the result of your statement was …

The only thing I want to make clear is that what I said was intended to cover industrial development generally. The hon. member for Beaufort West referred to the quality of one or two of our textile products, and to our matches. That is only a sign of the times. A good deal of our textile manufacture today is done with inferior materials imported from oversea.

I was referring to the work.

A good deal of the work is also inferior. There are a number of highly efficient clothing factories, but there are also a large number of very small ones, some of which can scarcely be described as factories, and their work is inferior, but I hope that that work will not be taken as a fair standard of the industrial production of the country. There is a great deal of good clothing produced and that is the standard which we are aiming at.

I only mentioned clothing as an example. Other inferior things are also produced.

There is no doubt that a great deal has to be done to improve our standard. As hon. members know I had hoped to introduce during this Session a Bill to promote standardisation, but unfortunately that has had to be left over, but I have every hope of introducing it next year. The hon. member also has difficulty in lighting his matches. I sympathise with him but that is due to the material. You cannot make matches from just any wood. We have had a shortage of wood and they have had to cut the wood more thinly than in peace time. If the hon. member will look at his matches he will see that the wood is thinner.

Is not the wood produced locally?

Yes, but poplar wood is the wood that is usually used …

Well, is there not a sufficient supply locally?

Yes, but the demand for matches has increased so tremendously that we have had difficulty in producing the wood. The hon. member also said that it was part of his party’s policy to institute a licensing system for factories. I do not know whether his party has fully investigated that question. The Board of Trade has it as one of its terms of reference now to report to me on the whole question as to whether or not it is desirable that any such system should be introduced in the country. Having asked them to investigate it, it is premature for me to express an opinion before I have their report. The hon. member for Fauresmith, following on the hon. member for Beaufort West, brought up the question of the Atlantic Charter. I am afraid there is nothing more I can say about it beyond what I have already said. If my interpretation is not accepted by the hon. member for Fauresmith ….

Is it accepted by anyone beyond the Government?

To the best of my belief, the interpretation I have put on it is shared by people overseas.

Mr. Gillis, the chairman of the British Wool Commission, does not accept it.

I am not responsible for the chairman of the British Wool Commission, but since I have made this statement, the British Prime Minister has made a statement and I am quite sure that my interpretation will prove to be the only reasonable one which can be applied to it, and moreover the hon. member for Fauresmith based his whole speech on the assumption that the industrialists throughout the country were seething with unrest and uncertainty. I very much doubt if that is not an exaggeration. There is a doubt in the minds of everyone as to what will happen. We are sailing into uncharted seas, and to that extent there is uncertainty in’ everyone’s minds but the number of industrialists in this country who to my knowledge are making concrete and definite plans for development just as soon as conditions permit, is very considerable.

Perhaps they are hoping for a change of Government.

They may be, but they have asked me for this Government’s assistance and advice as to what they should do, and on the whole, among the responsible industrialists in the country, and among those who are planning to develop, I do not find that extreme apprehension which the hon. member indicates exists. But there are worries—of course, there are worries—but the industrialist has to remember this. If there were absolute complete certainty and security in his venture there would not be much need for him. The great task of the industrialist in any country is to undertake a venture, a well-thought-out venture which he is prepared to back with his capital.

He must have certainty as to the Government’s attitude.

Yes, they must know the Government’s attitude. I have said repeatedly here and in the Other Place what the Government’s attitude is. The Government has declared for private enterprise; the Government has declared that increased Government supervision and control can best be brought about by co-operation between private enterprise and the Government, and have invited industry—a year ago I invited industry to prepare their plans and their difficulties and to come to the Government to tell us what assistance they would need, and as the hon. member knows we established this Board of Trade investigation, which has gone on for months and is making good progress. Industry is co-operating in the support they are giving the Board of Trade and they are giving me, but before I can finalise any industrial policy I must have that Board of Trade report. But in the meantime the Government is doing all it can to indicate to industry that it is sympathetic to their troubles and anxious to assist them and anxious to meet every approach they make to it, and that is generally accepted by industry today. The hon. member went on to make two points; he invited me to repudiate the Minister of Mines for the views he has expressed on the subject of industrial development. Apart from the personal grief it would cause me to do such thing I can see no sound reason for doing so. The Minister expressed his views very properly and rightly on the importance of the gold mining industry to the Union, and it is a fact which needs to be borne in mind that the whole economy of this country has depended in the past, does depend now and will, to a large extent, depend in the future, as far as we can see, on the gold mining industry.

For how long?

No one can say, but we hope it will be for some time.

Your Planning Council can tell you.

No, the Planning Council can express a view, but there is no authentic view as to the life of the gold mines, and surely the hon. member for Fauresmith will agree with me that it is desirable that the life of the gold mines should be extended, as long as possible.

Very desirable.

That is what the Minister of Mines said. My colleague, the Minister of Mines, made that point, and in making the point he stated what his main problems were in connection with the economic development, and that is the need, the essentiality of reconciling the different activities of the country on a reasonable basis, and he put forward the view that the supply of labour to the mines was of paramount importance to the country. That is so. I also say that the supply of labour for the development of industry is also of paramount importance, and it will be a question of reconciling those interests, such as the interests of agriculture, for example, to see that the available labour force of the country, both European and non-European, is used in the most profitable way for the benefit of the country as a whole. My colleague stated the case of the mining industry, which he is perfectly correct in doing, and I agree fully with him in what he said.

According to “Trek” he also said that the development of secondary industry is undermining the foundation of the gold mining industry.

I doubt that.

He did say that; ask him and he will tell you.

It is merely a quotation from “Trek.” I cannot vouch for it.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said exactly the same thing on the subject of the gold mines, and he did say in connection with the preference of selling our gold overseas, and the necessity of importing goods to pay for it, that that would of necessity mean putting our own industries in the background.

If you follow the policy of the Minister of Mines.

I do not agree with you. The whole history of our economic development has been just the reverse. The more our industrial development increases, and the hon. member will agree it is increasing, the more our imports are increasing.

You forget we are becoming a creditor country.

We may be becoming a creditor country, but as soon as we are free to use our oversea credits for obtaining the essential supplies which we need, it will not compete with our own industries, and I think our balance of trade will become normal soon. We are compelled to build up credits simply because we cannot spend the money.

That is the policy of the Minister of Mines.

No, it is not. The hon. member then asked me a question on the subject of the taxation policy. Obviously I cannot reply to that. It is the policy of the Minister of Finance. He made it clear that these measures of taxation which are clearly restrictive to the development of industries, are purely war-time taxes, and as soon as the war is over they will be relaxed, and other means of raising revenue will have to be found.

Will it not be too late then?,

No, I do not think it will be too late. The hon. member referred to the question of rationalisation, and of it being impossible to amalgamate two companies because of the profit rate they both lose from 1939 onwards. That is true. But it is also true that there is a perfectly good way out of that difficulty, which has already been taken by people who want to amalgamate, and whilst I do not want to minimise the effect that that particular aspect of taxation does make it difficult for existing companies to amalgamate, I do not think the way it is administered at present—provided it is known that it is a purely war-time measure and not intended to be a permanent form of our fiscal policy—will have that retarding effect on industrial developement that some people think it will have.

I do not think you are very helpful to the industry.

I am sorry if I cannot be helpful in regard to that particular aspect, but there are good reasons for this interference. That particular aspect cannot be dealt with during war time, while we have to find money for war purposes. The hon. member for Fauresmith raised two more points. One was the question of research. I agree with him that the question of national research is an important one, and in that respect he is aware that we are establishing a national research organisation, which will for the first time place research in this country on a national basis. He also suggested that money spent by industrialists on research work should be free from taxation. In the past there have not been facilities for research work, and the idea of the establishment of the national research organisation will be to have an authoritative body speaking in the name of research to the country and to the Government, and matters, such as the one he has referred to, as well as others, will be centralised there, and I am looking forward to considerable development in industrial research.

What about private research?

Private research will be linked up with it, because the idea of the national research bureau is not for that body to do all the research work itself, but to encourage private bodies aş well, and where necessary to assist them with finance.

What about taxation?

Obviously that will be a point which this body will be able to take up, and in that regard it will put forward suggestions to the Government. It will give advice in that respect.

Won’t you take it up, seeing that I have mentioned it?

I am prepared to take it up, but I think it would be better if it was taken up by the responsibility representing all our research workers in the country, and if they were to make recommendations in that regard they will have my support.

Why wait so long?

The last point the hon. member for Fauresmith raised was the question of technical training. In that regard I should like to say we have done a great deal during the war, in technical training of the operatives and skilled factory types. We have many thousands in the factories today who were trained during war time and through their C.O.T.T. scheme. There are many thousands of young men in technical and mechanical work of all kinds who are now serving to a large extent in factories or in the armed forces of the Union. But arising out of that, I think it would be necessary to continue in some form or other with that training scheme after the war in order to give our young men the training they require. The senior trained men will have to continue going overseas, as they have been doing in the past. As the hon. member probably knows, before the war, especially through Iscor, there was a steady stream of young men qualified in this country sent overseas to countries like America and Germany to study further some particular aspect of the industry, and that has borne very valuable fruit, and I think that particular type of training will continue to take place largely through private people themselves. Private firms will send their young men whenever they can, overseas to get that specialised training. Mr. Chairman, I think I have now dealt with all the points made by the hon. member for Fauresmith. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) raised the question of the sale of military clothing. That has already been death with. The price of second-hand military clothing has been fixed. It was fixed on the 17th March of this year. If he will give me the figures he quoted this morning, I will go into them, and if it is found that the figures are in excess of the figures fixed, then we will get the Price Controller to go into the matter and to see if there has been any undue profiteering. The question of the establishment of a depot is apropos of the whole question of the sale of second-hand clothing. The hon. member did not make it quite clear that the clothing sold so far is all clothing which is declared to be unfit, and it is supposed to be so bad that it takes three old garments to make two new ones. In any case, it is all part of the question of war disposal goods, and as the Committee knows, I have appointed a gentleman to take charge of the whole question of war disposals, and he will be armed with the necessary powers within a very short time, and the whole question of this clothing will be dealt with and the best means of disposing of it. The question of kraal manure is one which has been taken over by the Department of Agriculture, but I should like to say that we have instituted an enquiry into the whole matter. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) raised the question of our policy in regard to the protection of industries. I should like to refer the hon. member to the speech I made on the 25th March, which gave a clear explanation of the Government’s policy in that regard. If he is not satisfied with that statement, he can read the statements I made in the Other Place quite recently, and from that he will agree that it is not correct to say that no indication has been given in this House or anywhere else as to what the Government’s policy is.

Industrialists say they do not know where they stand. Surely they ought to know.

Industrialists in this country know where they stand, and they are very much better off with me than with the hon. member for Fauresmith. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) raised the question of price control, and he said he made what he described as his hardy annual protest. Mr. Chairman, I can only make my hardy annual reply to that and say that we cannot change it. I may say that this policy which he condemned, was not so long ago taken over by the Southern Rhodesian Government. After investigating our system with their own, they decided to take over the system we have here, which indicates that it is not as bad as the hon. member for Newcastle suggests. I think I have dealt with all the points raised.

I am glad that both tne Minister of Railways and the Minister of Economic Development are present. I raised this matter bv means of a question which I think, affects both of them. On the 8th February I nut the following question to the Minister of Economic Development—

The Minister’s reply was—

I think the hon. Minister did not perhaps fully understand the question, because otherwise he would have acceded to our request, I think. We know that there is so much traffic on the railways today that the Minister of Railways sometimes experiences great difficulty, especially during holidays, in providing conveyance for the people. I think this is a matter which should be considered by the two Ministers. It is a matter of give and take between them. The Minister of Economic Development may say that it will be difficult to control. I just want to suggest that it will not be difficult if, for example, the procedure were adopted of making an endorsement on the card which every person has as to the quantity of petrol which he takes and how much he has left. I am referring now to the basic petrol ration, not the supplementary petrol which one can get. If there is a balance, it can remain to his credit. We know that civil servants and teachers who have to work the whole year, need a holiday for health reasons. It means a great deal to them to have a short change. They should be allowed to conserve their petrol for that purpose. In that way the pressure on the railways would eased, and, at the same time, no more petrol would be used. It will not cost the State any more. Then there is another matter which I want to mention, and that is the question of locally manufactured articles. It is felt that young businesses which have come into existence after 1933, sometimes experience difficulty in getting hold of supplies. Take locally manufactured blankets, for example. The manufacturers confine themselves more to the established firms and it is apparently felt that there is not the slightest necessity to allow the new businesses a small quota as well. Then there is the question of hats. I am afraid that there is a great shortage of hats, especially on the platteland, and the people run the risk of getting sunstroke if they cannot get hats. I believe it is difficult to obtain hats, but there is a factory in Johannesburg which manufactures hats. I believe these hats are manufactured principally for military purposes, but perhaps the Minister can make some plan or other to have a certain number made for the civilian population as well. I lost my hat in the House of Parliament and I struggled for three weeks to get another hat, and I happened to be particularly fortunate. The farmer finds himself in a very difficult position. He cannot go without a hat in sun and rain. Then there is another matter which, I think, deserves the attention of the Minister and that is the question of weaving in our country—the spinning and weaving industry. At present there is a shortage of blankets and material for clothing, and we have capable persons who can give us a lead in this respect. I believe it will only cost approximately £15,000 to establish a factory to do the combing and spinning. There are thousands of women who are anxious to have woven grass chairs. I believe the experts say that woven grass chairs can also be made in this country if a small factory is established. The South African woman is not lazy; she is always occupied; and if tables can be provided, it will meet a great need. I think this is an important point. The women of South Africa would then do a great deal of weaving and make good material.

I rise to raise a matter on this vote, a matter on which I have had the powerful support of the Minister himself. Speaking in Another Place, he referred—I am quoting his own words—to the ramp in women’s clothes. I want to assure him that in my opinion a ramp is undoubtedly going on in regard to women’s clothes, a state of affairs to which the attention of his Department is long overdue. Hon. members on both sides of the House have, I am sure, heard complaints from their wives, daughters, sisters or mothers as to the cost of women’s clothing today. That cost has been steadily rising, and is now entirely out of proportion to the general rise in the cost of other articles. So what I want to know from the hon. the Minister is what his Department is doing in connection with a matter which he has himself described as a ramp? The general cost of living, the index of the rise in the cost of living, is 26 per cent. approximately, but the cost of women’s clothing has risen by far more than 26 per cent. The Research Department of the South African Trades and Labour Council estimated that in some cases there had been a 200 per cent. increase in the cost of women’s clothing—now as compared with pre-war prices. A glance at any shop window today will show that 200 per cent. is a conservative estimate. I imagine, like most women, that I do know something about the cost of clothes, and if you look at the shop windows it is quite obvious that a dress that used to cost 10s. 6d. to 15s. is today priced at 30s. to 35s. A frock that cost £1 1s. to 25s. before the war is today priced at 59s. 6d. to £3 3s., and the ordinary frock that the middleclass woman wore at from £3 3s. to £4 4s. is today priced at from £12s. 12s. to £15 15s. Naturally there I want to know from the Minister’s Department why that should be the case. As far as I understand the Minister, the shops and manufacturers are allowed the same percentage of profit as the pre-war standard of profit, or where there is no pre-war standard a profit factor increase of 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. It is quite clear that many of the shops and some of the manufacturers had a pre-war standard of profit of over 100 per cent. Some of the shops certainly made 100 per cent., 200 per cent. and even 300 per cent. profit on clothes, and I understand the Minister’s Department allows that percentage of profit to continue. Now obviously, if in pre-war times a shop bought a frock for £1 and sold it for £2 or £3, and they are still allowed that same percentage of profit, then it is obviously an inducement to the shops and to the manufacturers, but mainly to the shops, to buy as dearly as possible because as they are allowed a similar percentage of profit, that would make an enormous increase in their cash profit. The same applies to the manufacturers. It seems to me that if the Minister has set down a factor of 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. where there is no pre-war standard of profit, then it should apply all round, because he must think it an adequate profit, that undoubtedly would bring down the cost of clothing, and let me say, Sir, that it is a most important item in the budget of every household, and every increase in women’s clothing means an added burden on the shoulders especially of the low paid workers. We now find a position that women can buy their clothes, i.e. necessaries, on the hire purchase system, and the unfortunate girls who work in factories have often at present prices no other means of buying clothes than on the hire purchase system. Now the House is just as aware as I am of the enormous profits people make by selling anything on the hire purchase system, and I want the hon. the Minister to put an end to this ever-increasing exploitation in women’s clothes. He has described it as a ramp, and I am perfectly convinced that it is a ramp, a ramp to which the Minister’s Department should pay attention. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to an article appearing in a publication called “The Buyer.” This paper deals with the question of clothes which are manufactured for sale on the South African market, and before I go any further I want to make it quite clear that the aspersions I am making on the clothing manufacturers of this country do not apply to those manufacturers who were established before the war. They established a legitimate market in competition with imported clothes, and they are making a good type of article; and there is all the more credit due to them, because they are continuing to make a good type of article, notwithstanding war conditions and difficulties and despite the lack of the importation of clothes from overseas. On the other hand, however, there has grown up a number of mushroom manufacturers whom I cannot describe in too strong words. In the words of “The Buyer”—

Now if that is the view which the trade takes of the kind of clothes manufactured in this country, if the trade takes the view that the manufacturers, with certain notable exceptions existing before the war, produce that type of clothing—if that is the kind of thing which the manufacturers of women’s clothing are doing to exploit the South African market then I say it is high time the Minister’s Department put a stop to it. The war made a perfect market here for the local manufacturer. It gave him the kind of protected and closed market that manufacturers dream of. And what has been the result? Mainly an exploitation of that market to produce large profits for individuals. The general public interest has gone to the wall. One of the obvious ways out is to lift the ban on the importation of clothes. I know the Minister will say it is not possible, but I do know—and my information on this point is very sound—that if essentiality permits were granted to certain classes of clothes, they could be obtained from overseas sources, and I ask the Minister to see to it that his Department goes into this possibility and also this whole question of the exploitation of the local market under our system of enforced protection whereby unscrupulous traders are able to exploit the public. It seems to me that the Minister owes it to the people of this country to have this question enquired into. Clothes are as much an essential in our civilised communities as food, and if the Department allows a state of things to develop where profits of 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. are made on essentials, then the public has the right to appeal to the Minister and to expect immediate action.

There is a great deal in what the hon. member who last spoke (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) said. In the absence of any pre-war factor the Price Controller laid down a profit on frocks of 45 and 50 per cent., and I see no reason at all why that 45 or 50 per cent. should not be sufficient all round, and why we should not be able to do away with the option which the merchant has of charging a price according to his prewar profits; and if you are doing away with all these conditions and if you let the Price Controller say, as far as women’s frocks are concerned, the maximum profit shall be 50 per cent., you will do away with all this profiteering which is going on. I am sorry the Price Controller is not in attendance, but I hope the Minister will convey these matters to him.

Did you say 50 per cent.?

Yes, 50 per cent. I am sure that industry as a whole will be relieved at the renewed declaration of the Minister that our protective policy for industries is going to be continued, because without that protection no industry would last here any time. Our present industries, with protection withdrawn, would perish, and there would be no prospect of any new industries being established. That must remain the policy of this country—protection of secondary industries, otherwise our unemployment problem will be greater than ever. So I am very pleased at this renewed declaration of the Minister. But I want to refer to a matter of great importance, of great importance to me and to the country—that is the question of food control. Two years ago I raised this question of food control ….

I point out that food control falls under the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member MENT: No, it doesn’t cover food control.

Might I point out that there is an amount of £371,000 on the estimates which covers all control.

No, it doesn’t cover food control.

Then it should. I want to say this, that food control is impossible unless you introduce a system of rationing with it. To me to have control without controlling the article to the consumer makes no sense; it is without foundation and here in this country it would be the easiest thing, it would be easier than anywhere else, to establish control of foodstuffs ….

Food control ….

I am speaking of tea which plays a very big part in this country today. You know that this announcement of a threatened shortage of tea caused great consternation in this country, and tea is an article which is controlled by the Government, by your commercial department.

But the Food Controller is a separate department under the Department of Agriculture.

I crave the indulgence of the Chairman because this is rather important.

The hon. member can address his remarks to the question of Price Control.

Well, I address them to Price Control then. As I say, vou have here in this town queues, not only for food, but for women’s clothing, and the people who really want the goods, who are entitled to them are not getting their supplies. In other words, there is a law here, under our price regulations, for the rich and the poor. The poor cannot get the goods and I want to urge on the Minister to consider this question of establishing a coupon system, not alone for food but for clothing as well. You have it in England and everywhere else; so that if clothing becomes scarce the position can be met. I would have liked to refer to other things, more important than clothing, but as you tell me that that is a matter which should be raised on another vote, I shall confine myself to clothing control, and say that even in regard to clothing it is impossible for people to get the clothing they require. We have to deal with the matter in the same way as they do in other countries and that is by the coupon system, because today a rich woman will buy a dozen dresses, and the poorer woman, who really is in need of clothing, cannot get any. I am sorry I cannot go on with that subject, because I would like to have dealt with it more extensively. I would now refer to the question of research, more particularly in connection with the amount shown on the vote for research in our fishing industry, and research in other industries. There is no doubt that the Department has been hampered in spending more money on research in the fishing industry on account of the Africana, the survey vessel, being commandeered, but with the new life given to the fishing industry, I think the Minister will realise that more money has to be provided in future for research in respect of our fishing grounds and research generally. I have no doubt that he has that in mind. But when the Minister spoke of research, it struck me that one of the most important matters that should be gone into is our clay deposits in this country. We find that with our heavy housing scheme, very little provision is made for the manufacture of tiles, for the manufacture of sanitary requirements and all these things, which could be made here. In fact, we should have been ready for it, but the difficulty is that the manufacturers here, those who are established, have no information about the clay deposits, and a regional survey should be made in this country regarding these clay deposits so that they can be used for the manufacture of sanitary ware, for floor tiles, roof tiles and other materials irrespective of crockery, pottery, etc. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind and see that this important industry gets more encouragement and that proper research is undertaken. There are other matters to which I want to refer. I feel that the money we are spending today on the administration of war measures, amounting to £371,000 is far too great. Complaints are made that the community is not getting service from these various control boards. [Time limit.]

I just want to say to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), who began by saying that she, as a woman‚ knew what the price of women’s clothing was, that the men also know what the price of women’s clothing is, and not only do they know that, but they also know what the price of men’s clothing and of children’s clothing is. I want to endorse what she said. Then I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister, where I think he can make it easier for himself as Minister, and at the same time help the public a great deal. When we open the newspapers in the morning, we often see announcements that there will be a shortage of this, that or the other article in the near future. It is announced that there may be a shortage of hats, coats, other items of clothing, or a shortage of tea, etc. We find advertisements in the newspapers that there is a shortage in the market, and that the price of the article is this, that or the other. The result is that the people flock to the shops to buy the articles which are mentioned in the newspapers, with the result that a greater shortage is systematically created, because every housewife then tries to buy as great a quantity of the article in question as possible. She buys more than she would have bought normally. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot use his influence by issuing a war regulation to prevent the newspapers from publishing a single advertisement in which reference is made to a shortage of some article or other. He will then discover that there will not be such a great shortage of a number of articles which are in short supply at present. On different days one finds that different items are advertised in the newspapers and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to prohibit this. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister in connection with hotel prices, and the Minister replied to it. I do not think I can do better than to read to the House one of the letters which I received in regard to this question. This letter reads as follows—

It is indisputably true that the hotels in Cape Town and in other places are charging enormous prices for service during the war. Certain hotels charge a daily tariff, not a weekly or monthly tariff. What they do is this. They fix their price; if there are eggs on the menu, for example, and you ask for two eggs, you are told that you can only get one egg. There is a shortage of houses and the people are flocking to hotels. Whether the food is good or bad, whether one’s room is clean or not, one has no alternative but to go to an hotel. The person who wrote this letter said that more than 10,000 people are resident in hotels and boarding houses in Cape Town, and I think the Minister ought to appoint such a committee. Let me say at once that I do not live in a hotel; I am speaking on behalf of others. There is not one member in this House who will say that the treatment in the hotels justifies the prices. I should like to read to the Minister a few suggestions which are made in this letter. It is suggested here—

1. (1) That books be issued by the Information or Travel Bureau containing (a) name of hotel and address; (b) type, i.e. de luxe, first, second, third, fourth, fifth grades; (c) charge per day, week or month and for permanent guests; (d) number of guests received; (e) number of bathrooms and lavatories; (f) type of heating in bedrooms; (g) number of lounges; card-rooms, writing-rooms, billiard-rooms, etc.; (h) if special diet for invalids be provided, etc., etc.
2. (2) That regulations be drafted controlling the adulteration of food.
3. (3) Medical inspection of coloured staff, with special tests for V.D. and T.B.
4. (4) Abolition of tips.
5. (5) Provision for adequate bathrooms and lavatories and cleaning thereof;
6. (6) Definite regulations controlling size of single and double bedrooms.
7. (7) Reduction in charges for all guests doing their own bedrooms.
8. (8) All bedrooms to be finished before 10 a.m.
9. (9) Shebeens in backyards for coloured servants absolutely prohibited.

I think these are small points which deserve the attention of the Minister. As far as shebeens in hotel backyards are concerned, I just want to say that when one sits in one’s room, one has to be blind not to see what goes on in the rooms of the servants—

1. (10) Compulsory turning-out of bedrooms with window-cleaning at least once a month.
2. (11) Servants’ quarters to be a reasonable distance from guests’ rooms.

Some nights one is awakened by undesirable visitors in one’s bed, and I think it is high time for the Minister to see to it that these places are cleaned—

1. (12) Lounge accommodation sufficient for the number of guests.
2. (13) Dining-room accommodation sufficient for the number of guests.
3. (14) A suggestion book for the mutual benefit of guest and host.

I do not want to bore the Minister bv mentioning all the questions which are put to one when one goes to a hotel. We have telephoned from this building and asked hotels whether they had accommodation, and we have been told that there is no accommodation. But as soon as one gives one’s name and mentions the place from which one is telephoning, one is immediately told that there is accommodation. Those people are today adopting an attitude of outright rudeness towards the people who live there. One has to be satisfied with what one gets, and I hope the Minister will make a statement with regard to the position of hotels in the Cape Peninsula, which will reassure the public.

I wish to say a few words in support of what the hon. member who has just spoken (Dr. Van Nierop) has said about boarding houses. In Pretoria Price Control has been quite inconsiderate in fixing the tariff for boarding houses. A large boarding house in my particular area consisting of something like 28 bedrooms, which was run very efficiently, had its tariff fixed on such a basis that over a period of three months a profit of only £6 was shown. When my constituents came to see me on the matter, I induced the Price Controller to have the matter further investigated and a better tariff was imposed. I do not know whether it was a satisfactory tariff, but where a boarding house is satisfactorily run and the boarders are satisfied with the price they are called upon to pay, the Price Controller should hesitate very much before he interferes with the conditions, because if a price is cut down the proprietor is obliged to reduce the quality of the food, or to save in some direction which must affect the health and comfort of his customers. There are other cases in Pretoria where exactly the same complaint was made. I feel that discretion should be exercised in appointing the Advisory Committee advising the Controller, and it should be recognised that where there is an increase in the price of commodities, that increase must be reflected in the price of board of the boarding house proprietor, otherwise the condition will arise which has arisen in Cape Town where it is stated that one boarding house at Sea Point and three or four at Rondebosch have closed down because the proprietors claimed that they could not make the business pay. It is a very trying business, and it should be sympathetically handled by the Price Controller. There is another matter I want to refer to, but before doing so I want to say that it seems to me that the Minister is placed in a very difficult position. The fact that the Director-General of Supplies, who has the whole organisation under his control, is answerable only to the Prime Minister seems to create a very difficult position as far as the Minister is concerned, and the time has come when the whole question of price control should be reviewed in such a manner that it can be co-ordinated under one Minister, and members should be able to know that if they are going to raise questions of price control they must do so on a particular Minister’s vote. I sympathise with the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) who was prevented from raising the question of food control. It seems to me that if the Vote of the Director-General of Supplies were brought under this Vote, and a large proportion of the expenditure of the Director-General of Supplies does come under this Vote, then the Director-General should be answerable also to this Minister. A peculiar case has come to my notice in connection with the sale of motor vehicles. Some time ago in Pretoria a garage proprietor was approached in connection with the sale of his motor car, and the customer wanted the particular car which this garage proprietor was driving personally, and as he was a dealer and had a number of other cars in his garage for sale, he agreed to sell this car and it was sold under permit from the Controller. The garage proprietor then applied for another car in his garage to be transferred to him so that he could get the necessary petrol for it. He lived nine miles out of town. Without any reason being given he was informed that the transfer had been refused. He then came to me and I wrote to the Controller in Johannesburg, and the Controller admitted that no reason had been given for refusal to transfer the car, but, he added: “I have today advised this gentleman that his application would be considered for the transfer of a 1937 car.’’

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When I was interrupted by the adjournment I was dealing with the case of a garage proprietor who had sold his personal car and wished to replace it by a car from the garage which was for sale, and he was refused the right to do so. He lived nine miles out of town, and it was essential for him to have a car to get to and from his place of business. There may have been very good reasons for the refusal. I don’t know what the reasons were, but what I do suggest to the Minister is that he should instruct those in control, when they refuse, to give the reasons for the refusal, so that the applicant can have an opportunity of putting the matter right. If there is no reason for the refusal, then obviously the refusal should not have been made, but if on the other hand, there is a reason, let the reason be stated and let the applicant renew his application and if possible comply with the conditions which the Controller wishes to have imposed. I am sure it would be good if the Minister would give instructions to that effect. Now the last point I want to ask the Minister is this. Some years ago we were able to purchase South African woollen socks of very good quality, for something like 5s. 6d., but in the last two years they have been off the market, and now if you want woollen socks you have to buy Argentine socks at 8s. 6d. and not quite such good quality. I don’t know the reasons for the disappearance of the South African socks. Perhaps it is that the price fixed by the Controller is so low that it does not pay to continue the manufacture, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he knows why these socks have left the market, because it does seem to me that if South African socks of good quality can be sold here at 5s. 6d. per pair, it is a shame that the manufacture of a commodity of that nature has not been continued.

I should like to say something in regard to the Distributive Commission. Some time ago I put the following question in regard to this commission: (1) Who the members are; (2) which of them are bilingual, and (3) whether the commission is requesting business firms to draft their written evidence in any particular language; if so, what language, and whether that meets with the approval of the Minister. The Minister’s reply was that of the nine members of the Distributive Commission, three were members of Parliament, and that out of the nine there were only three who were bilingual. So far, so good, although it is an altogether wrong policy. But in reply to the question as to whether the commission had asked business houses to give their evidence in any particular language, his reply was in the negative. I want to say that here we are dealing with an attempt, not on the part of the Minister, because he gets his information from other people, but a clear attempt to mislead this House by giving the Minister an untrue reply.

Can the hon. member say whether the Minister concerned appointed the commission?

He gave the reply.

I understand the commission was appointed by the Prime Minister.

I am dealing with the reply which the Minister gave. I am not accusing him of having deliberately given me incorrect information, but the information which was given to him was not correct. They asked business firms to submit their evidence in one language. I have a letter here which was written by the secretary of the Commission to a business firm, and apparently it was also sent to other firms—

I disapprove of this most strongly, but I disapprove even more of the fact that the official concerned, or whoever it may have been, furnished the Minister with untrue information, with the result that the Minister was placed in the position of having to give information to the House which is not correct. According to the Chairman’s ruling, I believe that I cannot at this stage discuss the appointment of the commission, because it was appointed by the Prime Minister, but the fact is that out of nine members only three are bilingual. That is wrong. But what is even more serious is that the Minister was placed in the position by the secretary or members of the commission of having to give incorrect information to this House. What value can we attach to the replies of a responsible Minister if the information which he believes to be true is not correct? What I have read here proves that the opposite is the truth. I disapprove most strongly of anything of this kind. I cannot blame the Minister, because I believe that he would not have said anything of this kind if he had known it to be untrue. I should like the Minister, however, to go into this. Then I want to discuss another matter, namely, the provision of petrol. Some time ago people in the Free State found that almost immediately after buying petrol, as soon as they were a few miles out of town, their cars stopped. As someone told me, it was then found that the petrol was defective. I put a question to the Minister, and it appears that with the permission of the Department of Commerce and Industries, only in parts of the Free State, petrol containing 18 per cent. alcohol was provided to the retailers, a sort of sugar alcohol. This alcohol was 99.7 per cent. pure alcohol, made of sugar cane, and 18 per cent. of the petrol which the people got consisted of that alcohol. The motor cars of the people were damaged, and it appears that the experiment was confined to a number of Free State districts. The people say that this petrol damaged their cars very seriously. The Minister stated in reply to my question that he had received representations to the effect that this mixture resulted in damage only to certain parts of the motor car, namely, the tappets and the diaphragm connection. The fact is that the little pipe through which the petrol is sucked is damaged to such an extent that the car cannot go. I want to ask the Minister why this experiment was confined to a few districts of the Free State. I must say that when I approached the Minister he immediately put a stop to it, and he stated that the matter was being investigated but that the investigation would take three or four months. It will be realised that there is a great measure of dissatisfaction amongst the people who had to buy this petrol and whose cars were damaged. Will the Minister tell us why only a few districts had to suffer this damage, and who is responsible for the fact that this petrol was provided without proper investigations having been instituted beforehand to ascertain whether the cars would be damaged. I want to give the Minister the assurance that there were serious reasons for dissatisfaction. Then I also want to say a few words in regard to the question of petrol permits. I have been urged very strongly in certain parts of the country to ask the Minister and his Department to introduce a different system this year. We saw last year how much confusion arose on the railways when the people wanted to go on holiday in December. Unpleasant scenes took place at the railway stations, and the request is that the Minister should allow people like teachers and other classes who have to go on holiday, to save up their petrol coupons during the last three months of the year—in September, October and November—so that they can go on holiday in December. That is the only time of the year when they can enjoy a well-earned rest, and it would also assist the Minister of Railways. If these people are not in a position to use their motor cars, the position becomes impossible, because we know how difficult it was to obtain accommodation on the trains. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to allow these people to save up their coupons during the last three months of the year, and to exchange their coupons in December. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to comply with the request of these people, which will not only be in their interests but also in the interests of the railways, and, moreover, it will prevent the rush for accommodation which we had last year.

Under this particular vote I want to raise the question with the Minister of Economic Development what steps are being taken regarding research work in connection with the utilisation of molasses for the manufacture of yeast mould known as Torula Utilis. About eight months ago the Minister made a public announcement on the subject. It is quite obvious that if something can be done in that connection it will go a long way to improve our economic position as far as food is concerned for the low income groups in this country. As far as the production of protein is concerned in this country we are only producing, in terms of the population, enough milk to feed 3.2 million people; enough cheese to feed 1.2 million people; enough butter to feed 2.5 million and enough meat and fish to feed 4.2 million people. When the Minister made that announcement eight months ago, we thought probably we were getting on to the advent of something which would go a long way to supply the deficiencies in our food supplies. But nothing more has been done about it. I know a certain amount of research work has been carried out and I would like to know how far that research work has gone, and if there is a possibility of this particular commodity being manufactured in the future. I think it is very necessary that we, as a young country, should obviate waste and at the same time do everything from the research point of view to see what we can get out of our carbohydrate series. In other countries a tremendous amount of work has been done in this regard and in this connection I would like to read out a cutting I got out of the “Cape Times” eight weeks ago regarding what is being done in America in connection with plant life. The extract reads as follows—

That seems rather fantastic, but at the same time, I am a little bit of a chemist and I know what can be produced from carbohydrates. It is possible to manufacture from molasses and other surplus by-products glycol used in the radiators of aeroplanes, ethylalcohol, acetone and glycerine. Before the war ethyl-alcohol was made in Germany and France, and was a very important adjunct to their fuel supply. It was so valuable that when the war broke out the Germans very soon discovered, and so did France, that ethylalcohol was a solvent of cordite and was useful in the production of munitions. In the post-war period which we are looking forward to, we, in South Africa, should do everything we possibly can to investigate these by-products. We should improve our research work and train scientists as they are doing in other countries. We are very behind in this country. As a young country we cannot afford to have waste and I sincerely hope the Minister will give us some assurance that the Government will take steps in this matter. When I look at the estimates I see that £13,000 is put down for fuel research, and apart from that, for other development work, only £5,000 is provided. I would be far happier if I saw that vote increased to from £50,000 to £100,000 and then we might make some progress in the future. I consider anything we can develop in the way of by-products, and particularly from our carbo-hydrates series, would be most important to this country. I want the Fuel Research Committee or any other committee that may be appointed to take this into serious consideration, for the future of this country, to my mind, does lie in getting rid of our surpluses and turning them into some other useful products which may be useful in the economic development of the country.

The Minister this morning, in reply to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), stated that the policy of the Government in relation to any conflict of interests between the mining industry on the one side, and other industries on the other, was to adjust that conflict on a reasonable basis. I don’t suppose there is a single member of this House who would dispute the desirability of that proposition, but what we would like to know is what is a reasonable basis. An important factor in regard to both mining and other industries is the unskilled labour resources of this country. And I want to ask the Minister whether the Government accepts the policy of the Van Eck Commission and the Social and Economic Planning Council. The Van Eck Commission has stressed the importance of the life of the mining industry being prolonged as long as possible, but it also says, in relation to industrialisation, that industrial progress should be exploited. The Council in their second report says—

And here again—

In other words, Mr. Chairman, if that does not mean the stabilisation of the native labour force and the elimination as far as possible of this casual coming to and fro between the over-populated reserves and the centres of industrial employment, then I don’t know what it does mean. Now the Lansdowne Commission has made it perfectly clear that the mining industry’s life in its opinion depends not on stabilised labour but on casual labour drifting to and from, and on what must be regarded as not a living wage. The implications on the other hand of the Planning Council and the Van Eck Commission are that the stabilisation of labour, is necessary—and that it is necessary to provide permanent employment for migratory labour in the industrial areas, and that such labour should be paid a living wage. And I mean by a living wage, literally a living wage, not a wage dependent upon other sources of employment. I hope I make my meaning clear in this connection. The Planning Council has reported that it is only by these means that the national income of the country can be raised, and it is upon that that the social security of the country depends. Dr. van der Byl, the Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation has underlined the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission, more particularly in regard to his question raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) about the relationship between industrial and mining development. He said this: in December, 1941, in his address to the Industrial Development Corporation—

And on the subject of wages the same gentleman, who speaks with authority on these matters, says—

He further emphasises that on the present basis of wages industry cannot develop, because it must develop on the basis of a local market, and at present under present wage conditions that market is not available. All I wish to ask the Minister is whether the Government substantially accepts the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission as to the necessity of industrialisation. The Chamber of Mines has already said that its development is restricted by the shortage of unskilled labour and it has blamed secondary industry for that because of the wages it pays. If the Van Eck Commission policy is accepted to have further industrialisation then the position will become acute. It is only on that basis that the national income can be increased. In conclusion, I want to ask the Minister what has become of the Van Eck Commission? It has issued three Interim Reports. I have not seen the final report and I should like to ask the Minister whether the Van Eck Commission is still pursuing its investigation because there are still a number of matters requiring further investigation. The report itself is too full of generalities. But I want to know from the Minister whether the Commission has issued a final report.

I raised the question this morning of the unsatisfactory quality of goods which are delivered by the factories and industries which have come into existence in South Africa during the past year or two. In his reply the Minister did not apparently attach particular importance to these representations, and as far as the proposal which came from this side of the House is concerned, that there should be a certain measure of control of these new industries, the Minister apparently did not attach much importance to that either. May I just remind the Minister of a speech which he made in Durban on the 19th October last. The Minister then stated—I am quoting from the report of the “Cape Times”—

That is precisely the attitude which we on this side of the House adopt. You cannot give these people a blank cheque. We say that there must be control of the industries in South Africa. The opinion which was expressed at that time by the hon. Minister aroused a considerable amount of sympathy on this side of the House. We also feel that there should be control, but it seems to me that the Minister has departed from the opinion which he expressed in Durban. When my time expired, I was discussing the question of overseas import permits. There is undoubtedly a considerable amount of dissatisfaction amongst business men in regard to this matter. The excuse which is advanced is that there is no shipping space. It is difficult to accept that reason, because the Minister will remember that I put a question to him at the beginning of this session in regard to a consignment of whisky which arrived in this country, and to my astonishment I read last week in one of the Cape Town newspapers that another consignment of whisky had arrived. I think the Minister will agree that whisky cannot be regarded as an absolute necessity for the people of South Africa. At the beginning of this year or towards the end of last year I believe 1,000 cases or more arrived, and since that time two more consignment of whisky arrived.

Who says it is not necessary?

I am not interested. If I want to drink anything I drink my own country’s products. But the fact is that shipping space could be found for a consignment of whisky while there is no shipping space for other essential commodities. When we look at the windows in Cape Town and Johannesburg, we find that many articles of luxury are allowed to come in, while there is no room for articles which are absolutely essential. The other excuse which is given is that there are not sufficient stocks. That is possible, but then I want to point out to the Minister that according to the stories which one reads in overseas newspapers, especially in American newspapers, it would seem that England is not really concerned about the question of shipping space when it concerns England’s exports to the South American States; in that case her own interests are involved, but when it comes to a dominion, a member of the British Commonwealth, there is no objection to its being neglected. Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to something which is of great importance. I have discussed it with the Minister personally, and also with officials of his department. I must say that his department was very sympathetic, and I was given all possible information. But I am obliged to raise the matter again. I refer to the question of the importation of the necessary blades and combs for sheep shearing machines. My district went in for these sheep shearing machines on a particularly large scale. Today the farmers are in this position that labour is practically unobtainable. The days when one could get sheep shearers are past. Today the position is that those who have not enlisted for military service remain at home because their relatives are all drawing military allowances, and the position is that one cannot get labourers. The people who have these machines are in a very difficult position. I discussed this matter with members of the Minister’s department, including the Secretary for Commerce and Industries. It is alleged—I do not know whether it is correct—but it is alleged that the firm which is the agent for these combs and blades is Stewart and Lloyds; that preference is given to farmers who bought new machines recently, and that they are guaranteed against any shortage of the necessary spare parts. In my district it is necessary to have approximately 3,000 blades and combs of these sheep-shearing machines annually. The farmers find it difficult today to shear their sheep. An official of the Minister’s department had an interview with Stewart and Lloyds, and they stated that the shortage was possibly due to the fact that the farmers also sheared the sheep of their neighbours. I immediately wrote to the secretary of the Beaufort West Shearing Association, and he emphatically denied it. He states, inter alia, that every farmer who is a member of the association is prohibited from using the machine for the shearing of any other farmer’s sheep, and that the shortage is only due to the fact that no new stocks have arrived. These combs and blades are also obtainable in Australia. That was submitted to the agents, and the reply was that the Australian blades and combs could not be used for the Lister machine which is used in the Beaufort West district. I conveyed this to the Agricultural Association, and I received a very clear denial. Their contention is that the combs and blades are of standard size, and there are many machines in that district which were imported before the war, and that we can use the Australian spare parts for the Lister machine. It is a very serious matter therefore. I want to express my appreciation to the Minister’s department for the assistance which they have already given me in connection with this matter, but at the same time I want to bring the matter to the Minister’s notice again and say that apparently there is something wrong somewhere. The Minister’s department sent a cablegram to London and asked that the available stocks should be shipped as soon as possible. But I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give his personal attention to this matter. Another matter which I want to touch upon is this. The Minister recently made a statement in connection with the question of the disposal of post-war stocks, i.e., articles which are used by the military authorities: wire, galvanised iron sheets, pipes and clothing, etc. The Minister made a statement which, in my opinion, should rather have been made in the House. The Minister stated, inter alia, that a porition of the military clothing which was left would possibly go to Unrra. The Minister is not responsible for Unrra. It falls under the department of the Prime Minister, but nevertheless he made a statement to that effect. I want to point out, as far as this statement is concerned, that there is a saying that charity begins at home, and that we should help our own people first. We know that there are many of our own people who live in misery in the slums, and if clothes are available for distribution, let us first look after our own people in our own country. Then I want to suggest that when the war is over, the Government should exercise strict control of all military stocks. There is a certain section in this country, the junk traders, who are keenly looking forward to the prospect of trading with the goods which will become available after the war. [Time limit.]

There are a few more points which I wish to reply to at this stage. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) asked: “What about import permits?” The point in regard to import permits is that it is not merely a question of shipping. There is practically no “back-log” of goods waiting to be shipped. We have to keep a certain “back-log” there, but I do not think the shortage of shipping is the reason for our not getting goods now. As far as whisky is concerned, the arrangement is that if a ship is leaving with any space, and there are no goods waiting, a few hundred cases can be put on board. The whole amount of whisky totals 200 tons so it is not so very much.

Why whisky at all?

Were there no other goods waiting when whisky was shipped?

I understand not. We have to try always to build up a certain stock of goods for shipment so that the ships will not be leaving empty, and the more efficient our building up, the less likelihood there is of whisky coming in.

You should not allow whisky to come in at all. We have our own national drink.

Then the suggestion that Great Britain is finding it possible to supply textile goods to the United States and to Southern America at our expense is not correct. Great Britain has placed a complete embargo on the export of textiles to the United States and to South America in order to supply the Dominions and the Colonies with the result that South America is getting no textiles. With regard to shearing machines the firm in question denies that it is withholding spare parts. It says that there are only 12 new machines in the country. We have cabled to London and we have a reply that certain stocks are on the way. Australia has placed an embargo on the export of these machines, so we could not get them from there. With regard to war disposals I refer to Unrra in general terms because we shall have to send contributions which we are making in the country on buying goods or whatever we can supply. It is possible that out of the Defence Force stocks we should probably find it useful to buy some for Unrra, but in our undertaking we made it clear that any supplies we made would be dependent on the state of affairs in our own country first. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised the question of the distribution of the Costs Commission. If I gave the hon. member wrong information I am extremely sorry. If I did so, I did so unwittingly, and I shall certainly look into the question of how that came about. If he will let me have the letter I shall look into it. In regard to petrol supplies the hon. member asked whether it was not possible to allow people to save up their monthly petrol supplies for holidays.

Only those people who are compelled to take their holidays in December or January.

Teachers.

Yes, hon. members are just beginning to point out how difficult the job is. It would be impossible to say that any particular section could save up coupons and another section could not. If we were to say that during October, November and December everyone could do that it would increase the travelling tremendously, but at any rate the allowance of petrol given today is not given for taking holidays, it is given to enable people to maintain their ordinary civil lives. It is assumed that most people who had a car in peace time kept it on to maintain their ordinary civilian life. If it could be said that people found it convenient not to use their cars for three or four months, then the need for their using petrol would fall away altogether. At any rate the general position is so unsatisfactory that we could not consider such a proposition, quite apart from this that the amount of clerical work involved would be immense. The keeping of these records would be tremendous. It would mean keeping a record of everyone who saved a few gallons, one month, and the next month and so on, and we haven’t got the staff to do it. We haven’t got sufficient staff now even.

The person would just save his coupons, that is all.

The hon. member also raised the question of petrol in the Northern Free State. That was a very unfortunate business for which my Deparment was not to blame. I don’t think anyone was to blame. We had a surplus of cane spirit from a factory which had been used for war purposes and the D.G.S. was getting this cane spirit, as it was not required for war purposes, and the question arose what we could do with it. We were very short of petrol at the time. It was exactly the same spirit which had been blended for years with petrol in Natal—natalite. It is used very largely there. We were advised by all the experts that this blend was perfectly all right and we therefore decided to use it. The carburettors required certain adjustments and the quantity we had was the quantity usually consumed by that particular district. It was unfortunate for the Free State that that particular area happened to be a convenient area for that particular purpose.

You should have taken Natal.

Natal is already using it. Unfortunately, so we were told, the altitude was wrong—in any case as soon as I discovered what was happening I put an end to it—and no more is issued now. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) asked me what I could tell him about the research work in carbo-hydrates. The position is that the Industrial Development Corporation in conjunction with the sugar industry has been working very hard for the past 8 months on this germ—this yeast. We have now got to the stage of erecting a private plant in Natal in conjunction with the sugar industry. I should point out that nowhere in the world has this process got into production. They are still experimenting in Jamaica— where they started first on a large scale— and it is possible that we may be in production before Jamaica. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) wanted to know what had happened to the Van Eck Agricultural and Industrial Commission. They have not submitted a final report yet but they did see me some time ago and intimated that they thought they had completed their task and their work had largely been taken over by the Social and Economic Planning Council and that they should wind up and submit a final report. I have not yet received that but they are going out of business. The hon. member also asked me whether the Government accepted the general findings of that Commission and of the Social and Economic Planning Council, and my answer is “Yes, we do.” But it is not a thing which you can do overnight. The adjusting of the labour force, and the developing of the labour source must be a slow balancing one. The hon. member knows the difficulties, and all I can say is that in principle we have accepted the conclusions of that report. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Davis) asked me some questions about boarding-houses and hotels. Well, the position is that any boarding-house which feels that it should have its tariff increased can submit its figures to the Price Controller, who is quite prepared to allow an increase if it is justified, and any establishment which proves that, can increase its charges. I think that is fair. In some instances people have been rather diffident about it. But where they have made out a case, increases have been allowed. In regard to the sale of motor vehicles, I cannot deal with individual cases, but if the hon. member will give me the details I shall have the matter looked into. On the general question, the question of letting the applicants have explanations as to why they are refused permits, the Controller says that he has not the necessary staff to do so. It is easy in a standard case for anyone who wants an explanation to query a decision, but the Controller tells me that he cannot write long explanations with the staff he has. In regard to South African socks, the South African Sock Factory is busy making socks, but they have been largely engaged on war contracts, but I can tell the hon. member where he can get some if he wants them. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) also raised the question of the price of hotels. I think I told him before that hotels and boarding-houses are obliged to give weekly and monthly terms to anyone who has been in the hotel longer than six days. With regard to the other question and the suggestions he made, I am not quite sure whether it comes under my Department. I am referring to the suggestions the hon. member read out. As a matter of fact I am sure it doesn’t come under my Department. I am not sure whether agriculture should not look after the livestock part of it, and Public Health after the rest. If he will let me have the letter I will look into it. The list of suggestions the hon. member read out struck me as rather interesting, but there are various departments concerned. I dare say hon. members have seen that two boarding establishments were prosecuted in the last two weeks and fined for the same sort of thing as the hon. member referred to. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) asked me about clay deposits. I shall have the matter looked into, although I think the Industrial Corporation has already made an enquiry. The question of the cost of administering war measures was also raised. Well, I cannot agree with the hon. member there, because we are short-staffed as it is and we find extreme difficulty in getting adequate staff at the wages which we are paying, and if we really had all the staff we require the figure would be likely to be much higher. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) asked about textile machinery. The difficulty is that you cannot get the machinery from overseas and the cost of making it here would be extremely high, and even if we could make it here it would require a lot of steel, which is in short supply, and there is no likelihood of establishing a textile industry until the war is over. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon), with the moral assistance of other members, has called attention to the cost of women’s clothing. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the price of clothing is extremely high, particularly women’s clothing, but it is a most difficult thing to control. It sounds delightfully simple when the hon. member for Jeppes says: “Why don’t you do this, or why don’t you do that,” but when you actually come to examine the position you find that it is an extremely difficult thing to do. We have been busy for months past endeavouring to control or rather trying to come to some reasonable arrangement for controlling the price of women’s clothing. I think we have made some progress, and we are hoping that as soon as we get back to Pretoria plans will be concluded to control it. We have a long way to go yet. The position in regard to women’s clothing has always been a complicated one. [Laughter.] Mr. Chairman, it takes a bachelor to see such a joke. I do not see anything to laugh about in regard to women’s clothing. The present high cost of clothing is due to the high cost of textiles, and let me tell the Committee that they are very high indeed. I have figures here showing some of the British costs. The pre-war cost of all worsted flannel was 5s. 3d. per yard, whereas the price now is 11s. 6d. It has gone up 125 per cent. Saxony clothes have gone up 133 per cent. and ordinary tweeds 95 per cent. I have got six different lines here and the average increase in cost is no less than 116 per cent. That is in respect of British cloth. South American cloth is even more expensive than that. Hon. members will therefore see that the high cost of the material itself has a strong contributory factor in the price. The use of unsuitable materials is naturally due to the existing shortage. We have today what is known as a seller’s market. There is such a shortage that people will buy anything. The increase in cost is also due to the high rate of wages paid in the clothing industry. There has been an increase of 100 per cent. in the rate of wages paid to clothing workers and it is due to the shortage of skilled workers. I am reliably informed that owing to that shortage there is a black market in the clothing industries, so that the employers today are actually paying well above the standard rate of wages laid down, which all naturally adds to the cost. I now come again to the question of the low state of efficiency. Hon. members are perfectly right when they say that a large number of small establishments have sprung up during the war, which are not efficent. Their output is not what it ought to be, and their general inefficiency and expensive methods all contribute towards the high cost. Those are all factors that add to the high cost of women’s clothing which the hon. member for Jeppes referred to. It is true that there are a number of factories making women’s clothing at prices which are reasonable, but to fix prices one naturally has to know costs, and it is only in a comparatively small number of cases that we have been able to find a proper system of costing in factories. We have had endless difficulty in establishing that. Comparatively speaking, this is a war-time difficulty. If the market is supplied with good stuff, the inferior stuff will fall away, but at the present moment the women’s clothing market is practically non-existent in the ordinary sense of the word. There is no doubt about it that in peace-time we got the end of the season’s clothes from all over the world, but that has all stopped now, and we have to manage on what we can produce locally, and to be perfectly frank I do not think we are in a position to get anything like the stage of efficiency that we would like, and I am afraid that we will have to suffer to a certain extent. That is no reason why we should not endeavour to become as efficient as we can. The price controller has his job to do, and I hope that in a short time we will have a plan working which will enable us to do away with what is going on today. I think those are all the points that were referred to.

Mr. Chairman, a question which I think deserves the attention of this House and which long should have received the attention of this House, is an industry which is today about 100 years old, and which is administered and protected by the Minister of Economic Development, and that is the South African sugar industry. This is an industry which since 1903 has had a protection of 3s. 6d. per 100 lbs. and under that protection that industry expanded from a production of 24,000 tons in 1902 to 1904, to no less than 239,000 tons in 1925 to 1926. Now as world prices were slumping at the time, sugar prices were also slumping, and the Government found it was necessary to institute an investigation into that industry by the Board of Trade and Industries, and as a result of that investigation the duty on sugar was increased by another 3s. 6d., which was really 8s. less 1s. excise duty. Now, Sir, this expansion which the industry had undergone under the protection of 3s. 6d., was not due to war conditions, because during the last war the sugar price in South Africa was so effectively controlled by the Government, it was so effectively controlled, that when the price of Mauritius sugar was £100 in 1920 the price of South African sugar was only £25 8s., which showed that the protection which the industry had at that time was ample, and therefore that enormous expansion in the industry which is nearly tenfold itself in a period of twenty years. As a result of that investigation in 1926, a new agreement was also signed between the planters and the millers, an agreement known as the Fahey Agreement. Under that agreement the industry again expanded, but sugar prices all over the world continued slumping. The result was that the world price—or rather the price in London, which means the world price— dropped from 22s. per ton in 1923 to 11s. 3d. per ton in 1926, to 7s. 11d. in 1929 and to as low as 5s. 9d. in 1930-’31. In consequence of this drop in world prices, fairly large importations of sugar took place into the Union during the period 1929 to 1931. Consequently the Board of Trade and Industries once again made an investigation into the matter, and reported in 1930, recommending a further increase in the duty to 12s. 6d. per 100 lbs. At the same time, and may I emphasise this, therefore, that the Board of Trade and Industries recommended and actually drafted a draft Bill, by which an increase of the production in South Africa should be controlled. Local production had actually increased from 1926 to 1931 from no less than 242,000 to 390,000 tons. It was no wonder, therefore, that the Board of Trade and Industries felt that it was necessary that the abnormal expansion of this highly protected industry should be curbed, and the particular reason why the Board of Trade and Industries felt that the industry should not be expanded further, was because 39 per cent. of the output in South African sugar was exported, and dumped on the world markets at an enormous loss. And in order to make up for this loss sugar had to be sold on the South African market at a very much higher price than it otherwise could have been sold at. As I said before, the Board of Trade and Industries stated that protection should be curtailed and further expansion should be prohibited. The Board at the same time pointed out that if the price of sugar was lower in South Africa, there would be an enormous expansion in the consumption of sugar in South Africa itself, particularly having in view that there is such an enlarged poor population in this country. World prices still slumped further and further, and another investigation was made in 1932, and the Board recommended a further increase of duty up to 16s., and at the same time recommended a slight reduction of a farthing per lb. in the price of sugar. A further investigation was made in 1934, when it was recommended that the protective duty of 16s. per 100 lbs. should be maintained. In 1936, ten years after the Fahey Agreement, a new agreement was entered into between the millers and the planters, and the Government got control under Act 28 of 1936, and it fixed the maximum production of all millers at 476,000 tons. At that figure a very large percentage of South African sugar was being dumped at a ridiculous low price overseas. Since that time I may mention that the last figures for 1941 show that the South African output of sugar has increased to 596,000 tons, or nearly 600,000 tons. Now it has often been maintained in defence of the South African sugar industry, that prices in South Africa have not increased in spite of the fact that the rate of protective duty has been increased so considerably. That is no argument at all, when we consider that world prices have been slumping and going down continually. Since 1924 the world price of sugar has been 21s. 6d. per 112 lbs.

What about wheat?

It has dropped as low as 4s. 7d. in 1935, and to 5s. 9d. in 1938. During all that period the fixed price in South Africa was £22 15s. per ton, which works out at 22s. 9d. per 100 lbs. It is no wonder that an outstanding economist like Prof. Richards expressed the view some time ago as follows on this point—

He goes on further to say—

In 1921 there were 196,000 acres of sugar cane under cultivation. It increased to 232,000 acres in 1926, to 306,000 acres in 1932, and to 610,000 acres in 1936. At the same time, for the same years, the output by the industry itself increased from 144,000 tons in 1921 to 242,000 tons in 1926, nearly double, to 359,000 tons in 1932-’33, and as I have already said before, to 596,000 tons in 1941. Now as this enormous increase in the South African sugar industry production has been taking place, it has always been taking place at the expense of the local consumer, because an enormous percentage of this sugar, has for the last twenty years been exported out of South Africa, and dumped on to the overseas market at a considerable loss which the South African consumer has continually had to pay for. After a very careful examination which I made, and which was checked, and may I say very carefully checked, by one of the most eminent men in commerce and in economics in this industry, I calculated that just before the war the protection to the South African sugar industry cost the public of South Africa £3,275,000 per annum.

How much does wheat cost South Africa?

We are not talking about wheat.

And what about mealies?

A careful investigation made by the Board of Trade and Industries in 1935 estimated that the planter employed a capital of £4,000,000 and that all the sugar mills employed a capital of £6,000,000. It therefore means that this country was paying £3,272,000 per annum in order to keep a capital of £10,000,000 employed. [Time limit]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer very briefly to something which I regard as very important, I shall not detain the Committee very long. In October, 1942, two permits and certificates of essentality were issued to a company known as the Union Exportation and Import (Pty.), Ltd., to import the following articles: 100,000 doz. cups and saucers; 50,000 doz. assorted plates; 100,000 doz. glassware of assorted sizes; 150 sets of tea services; 150 sets of dinner services. The authority to import was granted on behalf of the then Controller of Imports and on the recommendation of the former Controller of Glassware, and there was no limit fixed on the period of the availability of the permits issued. I understand that these permits precluded other importers from getting permission to import the same class of goods. Now the Union Exportation and Import (Pty.), Ltd., is a one-man company owned by an Alien, a Belgian by the name of Louis Palache. There are only two points in regard to this matter which I want to raise. I understand that the value of that large amount of crockery—and hon. members will remember that the country was flooded with this inferior stuff which was put on to the market during last year at excessively high prices—was something in the vicinity of £1,000,000. It will also be remembered that that stuff sold very readily at the time, because it was in short supply in the country, and the people were only too anxious to get it, notwithstanding the poor quality of the crockery and the very high prices they had to pay. The two points I wish to make in regard to this matter are: I presume that this one-man company, having been formed after the war started, has not got a pre-war standard. It is probably one of those companies with a nominal capital of £100. The first point I wish to make is that I presume an excessive profit was made on this transaction, and I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister will give this Committee an undertaking that that aspect of the matter will be enquired into, and that the Union Treasury will collect its share of the excess profits made by the Company concerned. The other point on which I should like the Minister to give the Committee an undertaking is in regard to the circumstances under which these permits were issued, and that the matter will be fully enquired into. I understand that records were not kept at the time, but that is no excuse at all. In my view the department should be able to trace the official who was responsible for the issuing of the two permits. A very large amount is involved, and the person who signed the permits should be traceable. I should just like to repeat, in conclusion, that I hope the hon. the Minister will take up these two aspects of the matter. The one is that if the person mentioned has been allowed to make excessive profits he will make his contribution in respect thereof by way of the excessive profits tax to the Treasury, and secondly, that the department will enquire fully into the matter so as to ascertain under what circumstances these permits were issued, and that the officials concerned, if they acted without proper authority, will be severely reprimanded.

Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the hon. Minister I should like to say that this morning I referred to a certain statement made by the hon. the Minister of Mines. I have tried to trace the actual quotation which we referred to this morning, and this is what I have found. In fairness to the Minister of Mines, I will just quote what he said, then sit down and leave it to the House to form its own opinion. The hon. the Minister of Mines said this when he declared his policy in the Senate—

Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the actual quotation on which I based my statement this morning, and I am only doing it in fairness to the hon. the Minister, and leave it to the House to decide which interest of the two is paramount in the opinion of the Minister, the mining industry or the secondary industries.

Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, the South African consumer just before the war, was paying over £3,250,000 on the high price of sugar consumed in order to keep a capital of £10,000,000 employed. In other words, the position has actually developed to such a stage that if the Government decided to buy up the whole South African sugar industry, and prohibited the manufacture of sugar altogether in this country, it would have saved, within a period of four years, the whole amount of capital that is invested in the sugar industry in this country.

What about other farm products?

The position is this, that although this side of the House is in favour of industrial development, and although we feel that industries in this country should be reasonably protected, I should like to stress the point that this particular industry, as the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has said, we feel should be developed, as well as other industries, on sound lines only. This duty on sugar has been so high and the protection has been so effective, that as early as 1926 the Board of Trade and Industries pointed out that a reduction in the amount of sugar produced in the country need not increase the cost of production. On the contrary, production costs may be reduced in this way, as the continual tariff increases, have undoubtedly expanded cane growing to less productive areas. As early as 1926 the Board of Trade and Industries also pointed out that large quantities of sugar cane had in the preceding years been planted on land which had previously been considered as suitable only for general farming. If we take the survey made by the Agro Economical Survey of the Union, made some years ago by the Division of Economics and Markets, we also find that the output of sugar farmers varies very considerably. Twenty-five per cent. of the planters obtained less than 40 tons of cane per morgen, while 23 per cent. of the planters obtained more than 56 tons per morgen. According to the Division of Economics and Markets, these large variations are due mainly to variations in the size of farming units, and in the quality of the soil. It is therefore not in the interests of this country that industry should be protected to such an extent, especially when everybody points out, i.e., the Board of Trade and Industries, the Division of Economics and Markets, and the people who are in a position to express an opinion that sugar cane should not have been planted all these years.

What does the Wheat Commission’s report say?

According to the report of the Board of Trade and Industries for 1935, the following profits were made by sugar factories in the period 1933 to 1934—

If the manufacturing side of the industry is making such a large profit, and if the protection is so high that the cane can be planted on soil which is not suitable for cane growing, that is no argument that the protection which the industry is receiving is not too high. Another point is that there is an enormous variation in the output of the various sugar mills. The average output of the sugar mills was 22,000 tons in 1937-’38 season, and that thirteen of the twenty-three local mills are producing less than the average quantity, and five of these mills have an output of less than 3,500 tons per annum. If the protection is so high that these uneconomic units can be kept going and showing a profit, that is another indication that the position needs to be rectified. Just before the war, i.e., in 1938, first grade sugar was sold as follows: 215,000 tons odd at an average of £19 17s. 7d. in this country; 229,400 tons were exported at an average price of £11 4s. 6d. A further quotation for 28,000 tons was £10 14s. 3d. Now, the average price for all the sugar sold in that year was £15 4s. 10d. per ton. The average price of sugar in this country was £26 per ton, so that the South African price was not far from twice the average obtained from the whole crop that year. It is absolutely clear that if the position were reversed and the local price were allowed to be decreased—I admit it will have to be a gradual decrease— the consumer would be very much beetter off. If it is possible to produce and sell sugar at an average price which is only about half what is charged to the consumer in this country, then I say there is something seriously wrong, and I would like to see an investigation into an industry conducted on such an uneconomic scale. The new type of cane which is taking the place of the old type produces a considerably higher tonnage per morgen than the old type, and if that is the case the consumer in South Africa is faced with the prospect of having to pay for that higher production, because the enormously increased surplus has to be thrown overseas for practically nothing. We have every sympathy with the farming community in this country, but an investigation made by the Division of Economics and Markets just before the war showed that there were over 30 per cent. of the South African sugar farmers who had no liabilities on their farms or their businesses at all. That investigation showed that the sugar farmer is in a very much better position than the average farmer in South Africa, in fact, there is no comparison whatever between them. It is quite clear that if we continue to allow the industry to continue in the way this one has been doing, to such an extent that it is capable of throwing away more than half of its output overseas at a price less than half of what it charges people in this country, there is something very wrong and unsound. The Government should do something to stop the development of this industry in the way it is going on What is actually taking place? Some time ago the Government announced that it was doing away with the control of the output of sugar, but the local consumption has gone up very considerably since the war. In the first war year the consumption increased from 286,000 tons to 339,000 tons. During the same period the export decreased, although it still reached the figure of 234,000 tons. It is quite clear that the sugar industry must, under present world conditions, be getting very much more for the sugar which it exports overseas; there is no argument about that. Unfortunately we have not got the details but we know that prices overseas have increased considerably. Admittedly production costs must have gone up but nothing like to the extent that the price has gone up overseas. The South African sugar industry has two advantages. First it is selling nearly 50 per cent. or more of its sugar at high prices in the local market and secondly, the overseas market has gone up, and the time has arrived when the local consumer should get some consideration and the price of sugar should be brought down. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, to the obvious relief of the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) I don’t want to go further into the economies of the sugar industry.

I have not said a word yet.

You have been growling away over there. One question I want to raise with the Minister is the granting of extra petrol to the public. It seems to me that the Department has a rather queer and arbitrary method of granting these extra petrol coupons. I am not in disagreement with the system which we have at present of curtailing the petrol supply to the public. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves that is inevitable, but at the same time the manner in which extra petrol is granted is, to say the least, rather arbitrary. The applicant for petrol goes to the Petrol Controller and informs him that he requires extra petrol in the ordinary course of his business and he generally manages to get a certain amount, generally insufficient for his requirements, but still sufficient for him to carry on his activities in the ordinary course of his business.

He has to make an affidavit.

I am talking about the people who make affidavits. But if anybody comes to the Petrol Controller who is a director of an agricultural co-operative society and says that in the course of his activities as a director he wants extra petrol to go to a meeting of his society, he is immediately refused. He is not asked what difficulties are put in his way by this refusal, but merely because he asks for extra petrol to attend a directors’ meeting he is refused. I don’t want to quarrel with any general line of action which is laid down by the Department, but there are cases where this refusal causes an enormous amount of difficulty to the people concerned. I will quote a case in point. There is a co-operative wheat association, the Langkloof Wheat Corporation, and they have a directors’ meeting probably once in two months. The directors live anywhere up to 100 miles from the place where the meeting is held in the Langkloof area. The Humansdorp district is represented by two members on the board, and they are not there for reasons of health or for profit, because they are not paid anything. They live about 100 to 110 miles from the place of meeting, and they applied for extra petrol to attend these meetings and it was refused. They were told to take a train. The position is this. If they go by car to the meeting, which is held on a Saturday, they leave their homes on Saturday morning, attend the meeting and return in the evening. If they go by train they have to leave Humansdorp on Thursday evening and they only return on the next Tuesday morning, which means that they are away from their homes, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and the best part of Tuesday. In other words they are away from their homes for five days to attend a meeting for which they get paid nothing and which they attend in the interests of the people whom they represent. I thought in a case like that the Minister would grant them extra petrol. But no, he cannot, no one who attends an agricultural co-operative meeting is allowed extra petrol. That seems very silly to me. These are people who are producing food and it is the Government’s policy to encourage the production of as much food as possible. These are people busy producing food and they help their fellow farmers to dispose of that food, and they are penalised by the Minister to the extent of four days every two months by being kept away from the production of food. I think that is an extremely short-sighted policy. On the other hand you find people travelling all round the country on extra petrol. I was visiting Plettenberg Bay in January and saw a man arrive there with a lorry and trailer attached, he had a wife and two children with him and two coloured servants, and he had come from Johannesburg. He seemed to have enough petrol to get away for a three weeks’ holiday. I don’t know how he got the petrol, probably in an irregular fashion, I will grant that, but if it is possible for people to travel from Johannesburg to Plettenberg Bay with a lorry and trailer attached for a three weeks’ holiday, then I say those people who ask for 200 miles once every two months, to carry out duties in the interests of their fellow farmers and the country, ought not to be penalised to the extent of five days’ absence from their homes. The Minister should treat these cases on their merits. These people aren’t travelling on their own business even, but in the interests of the public and their fellow farmers who elected them to look after their interests. I think that their demands for petrol should be treated much more reasonably.

I am a little dissatisfied with the Minister because he did not reply to the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) and my own in regard to the fixation of the cost of living index figure. There is a general feeling in the country that the retail cost of living index figure is wrong, and I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us how it is fixed. Today it is fixed at 29.2; in other words, the cost of living is 29.2 per cent. higher, generally speaking, than it was before the war, but everyone realises that it is wrong, and that the cost of living has risen to a much greater extent. I think the Minister forgot to reply to this point. But there is another matter which I want to bring to his notice, and that is the salt position in this country. I should like to have a statement in that connection. I notice that the price of salt was fixed recently. I discussed this matter with the Minister and he stated that he thought there would be an improvement because the pans were drying up, especially in the Free State and in other parts, and that we would get sufficient salt in the near future. It would seem that that hope has not materialised, because it has started to rain again, especially in the western parts of the Cape Province, and the pans are already under water. Then I should like to hear from the hon. Minister why he cannot persuade the Minister of Transport to provide sufficient transport facilities in those parts of my constituency where salt is to be found, so that that salt can be transported. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement in connection with the position in those areas. There are people who are interested in this matter, and they feel aggrieved, firstly, because salt was imported from across the borders of the Union, and because more transport facilities were not provided to the people in those parts where layers of salt are to be found. I notice that the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) is here. I take it he has brought to the notice of the Minister the representations which were made at the conference which was held in the North-West. A conference was held in Kimberley in November. We who represent those parts were all asked to be present, and the opinion was expressed that something should be done for the North-West as far as industrial development is concerned. It is felt that there are natural sources which can be developed. As the Minister knows, a scheme was proposed in connection with the establishment of an iron and steel industry. I am given to understand that that is out of the question, because the Minister if of the opinion that the coal will cost too much. But I should point out to the Minister that there are four other things which are required, namely, manganese, manganese ore, lime and water. There are adequate supplies of that in those parts. The people will not feel that they are being wronged if the Minister instructs his department to into this matter thoroughly during the recess and to make a survey of those parts. We are far removed from the market, and we feel that the surplus population cannot all be absorbed in the farming industry. We feel that an industry should be developed for those parts. The people feel that once attention had been given to the diamond industry, they were neglected by the Government in the past, because no steps were taken to develop the other resources of those parts. If an industry can be developed there, a better market would be available for these people, and the general opinion is that all the facilities will be provided by the City Council of Kimberley. I am very anxious to have a statement from the Minister in regard to the representations which were made to him when he attended that conference. The following petition was submitted to the Minister— [ Re-translation ]—

That is in connection with the iron and steel industry. If the Minister makes a statement to the effect that it is altogether impossible, that the facilities are not available, those people will know what to expect and they would then give their attention to development in other directions. But they feel that a start should be made with some industry or other which will be an asset to a certain section of the population.

When my time expired, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out that there had been a considerable increase in the consumption of sugar in the first year of the war, an increase up to 53,000 tons. It is regrettable that our figures, which I understand are being taken out, are not published. I cannot see why the figures about imports and exports, and particularly the figures relating to the production of a South African industry, cannot be published. It is in the interests of industrialists that this should be done. In any case, the local consumption of sugar has been much greater than the figures we have available indicate. As I pointed out three has been a drop in export, a very considerable drop, but the sugar industry must be financially very much better off today on the price it can get for its products. If the industry is allowed to develop in this uneconomic way that I have described, what is the Government going to do at the end of the war? It has been admitted that every additional ton of cane that has been produced and every additional ton of sugar has cost more to produce, and if the Government allows the industry to develop in this abnormal war period in an uneconomic fashion, what is the Government going to do after this war when prices may again drop to about 5s. per 100 lbs.? It is in the interests of the consumers of this country that the Government should make a thorough enquiry into this industry, and it is in the interests of the industry itself that its house should be put in order. It should not be allowed to develop to a stage when the inevitable result will be that the industry will be in a hopelessly uneconomic position at the end of the war. The industry should be investigated by independent people, people who stand outside, people who have no interest in whether the Government wants more sugar at the moment or not.

I just want to say a few words in pursuance of a reply which the Minister gave in reply to a question of mine in connection with the system of lease-lend. I asked—

1. (1) For what amount have goods or services for war purposes been obtained by the Union under the lease-lend system during 1942 and 1943, respectively; and
2. (2) For what amount have goods or services under the lease-lend reverse system been supplied by the Union for war purposes to the United Nations during 1942 and 1943, respectively.

The Minister gave a very evasive reply. It amounted to this, that it could not be fixed at the moment. And then he was kind enough to continue as follows—

He used those words on the occasion of the institution of the system of lease-lend. Since that time we have no longer heard those words. A second edition has now appeared. Nowadays the dollar sign is referred to. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the later position. But I think it was very unreasonable on his part to reply to my question in that form. His reply reminds me of the couplet—

There has been a second edition. If I know of it, the Minister ought to know of it, too. Now I want to come to the evasive reply that the figures cannot be determined. The Minister goes on to say in his reply—

The United States keeps books, but we do not. The Minister cannot tell me what the amount is. It is one-sided bookkeeping which will mean in the long run that someone will suffer. In the Minister’s own journal, the journal of the Department of Commerce and Industries, an article appeared in January, 1943, apparently an official article which was written by one of the members of his Department. In that article they were not so uncertain and so vague in regard to the lease lend arrangement with the United States. In this article the writer says—[Re-translation.]—

He goes on to say—

It was someone in the Minister’s own Department who wrote this in January, 1943. But when I put this question to the Minister in March, 1944, he stated that it could not be determined. But that is not where the matter ends. Recently the representative of America in this country in connection with lease-lend, Dr. J. G. Leyburn, made a statement in regard to this matter. As far as he is concerned, there is no uncertainty, as there is in the case of the Minister. He stated very definitely—

And now I have to be told that our Government does not keep books and does not know what the amount is. It is very interesting, if one looks at the Master Agreement which was entered into, not between us and the United States but between the United States and Britain, to find that it is definitely laid down there that there will be compensation. In Clause 7 of that agreement it is very clearly stated—

It is therefore assumed that certain benefits will be given under the Master Agreement, and if one refers to a recent journal in which there are fairly outspoken comments in regard to the uncertainty which exists in connection with Clause 7, and the claims which are made in that connection, one sees that one of the claims which is now being made is that those bases which were leased for 99 years, should now be permanently transferred to the United States. That is another very shocking state of affairs. It is disquieting that the country does not know what its obligations are under this agreement or this lack of agreement. Here we find that the lease-land representative of the United States of America says, in spite of the statement of the Prime Minister, that £25,000,000 is the amount which we got from the United States in terms of lease-land. The reason why I raise this question is to discuss the unsatisfactory manner in which questions are replied to. Here is a question which bona fide seeks information, and one is put off in this way by being referred to an out-of-date statement by President Roosevelt. This is not the way to reply to questions. When questions are replied to, it is not a reply to the hon. member concerned but to the House as a whole, and an evasive reply of this nature is not the way in which to give information to the House. I do not regard this as a personal matter. I think it is high time that the Government should tell the House very clearly in matters of this kind—there are many similar questions—what the obligations of the Union Government are. But the most important question which I want to raise is the manner in which questions are replied to, and the disquieting fact that we do not know what the value is of the goods we are getting, but the United States does know it. I say that that one-sided method of book-keeping is not calculated to promote the financial interests of South Africa.

I shall be very brief. When my time expired I had raised the question of what would happen to the large quantities of war supplies which would be over at the end of the war, and I pointed out that the Minister, in a speech he made recently, had referred to that question. There is a great deal of interest in this matter throughout the country. I asked the Minister to see to it that the junk companies—those organisations which specialise in second-hand goods—did not get control over the supplies and secondhand goods which will be available after the war, and what I want to suggest is this: That such supplies as wire, machinery, lorries and piping should be placed at the disposal of the agricultural co-operative societies and the farmers, and that none of these goods should be sold by public auction or otherwise before the needs of agriculture have been met. In the second place, in regard to the tremendous quantities of building materials which will be on our hands—we heard in Select Committee on Public Accounts about the tremendous supplies of corrugated iron which have arrived in South Africa—I want to ask that these stores should, in the first place, be put at the disposal of municipalities which have to build economic and sub-economic houses. Then in regard to clothes and such things I should like to ask that we should, in the first place, look after, not the suffering masses in Europe, but those in need in our own country. In view of the fact that the Minister has made a statement outside the House I shall be glad if he can give us some information regarding the Government’s policy on the disposal of war materials after the war.

In regard to the query of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Louw) on the subject of war disposals, I agree with the hon. member that those interests most in need of a particular material should be given the fullest opportunity of obtaining it, whether it is a farmer getting corrugated iron, or the poor section of the community getting clothing. We are in the course of drafting a war measure setting out the powers and responsibilities of the Director-General of War Disposals. I hope to get that done in the course of the next few weeks and then we shall set up machinery to deal with the various aspects of it, and it will be necessary to draw into consultation the different bodies representing different interests in the country including Agricultural Unions, Social Welfare people and so on. But that will have to be done in conjunction with the Director-General of War Disposals once we have him set up with his staff and organisation.

The stuff will not be put on the market?

As far as the danger is concerned of these syndicates being formed, the Price Controller is keeping a close eye on what the stock may be sold for retail, but we shall take steps to see that syndicates are not formed, and that whatever is sold we shall control the ultimate retail price to the public if it is put on the market. Of course if it is bought for giving away it is a different matter. I am sorry the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) was dissatisfied with the statement I made on Lease-Lend, but I am afraid I cannot add to it. We are not aware of the total amount of goods which we may have received under lease-lend. For one thing a great deal of what we have received has come from the British pool and America doesn’t know whether we have got it or the British. It is difficult to assess, and I cannot give’ any further information except that which was in my answer, but I want to emphasise that it was not intended to be evasive. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) asked me a question about salt. Owing to the general shortage of salt I appointed this Committee some months ago to investigate the whole salt position of the Union. They have done it, and I have their report—a very full one. They have visited every salt-pan and they have put in a full report with recommendations as to what should be done. I am considering that report. I cannot hand out the full report because there are references to individual firms, but a summary of the report will be placed in the hands of the salt producers and then we shall get them together and go into the whole matter.

What did they find? Is there sufficient salt in the country?

Yes, if it is properly handled. The fact is that there are exceedingly primitive methods of salt recovery in various parts which make it difficult to procure salt and to handle it. The present shortage is due to unprecedented rains at the beginning of the year when all the saltpans were flooded at a time when we did not expect it. That was why we had to make an expedition to Cape Cross to get salt there. The hon. member for Gordonia asked why we did not get it from his part. The Salt Committee had visited the proposition he referred to and the fact is that at that saltpan, according to the Committee’s report, the salt is not of very good quality; it is a distance of 165 miles from the railway over roads which are quite impossible for the heavy lorry loads of salt; after investigating the whole thing the Committee recommended that the quickest way to get it was from Cape Cross which I think is only 90 miles.

83 miles.

83 miles over roads which are passable. The hon. member also asked about iron and steel in that area, but he knows that Dr. van Eck and Dr. van der Bijl have examined a proposition in the North West and they are interested in it, but the main deposit there is manganese and only 10 per cent. manganese is used in the making of steel. There is no coal there. Still, it is a possible proposition, but with the demand which we have on hand with the existing industry, only time will show whether the country can stand a second venture of this kind. At present there is nothing proposed in the way of developing the iron and steel industry in the Kimberley area. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) delivered a long discourse on the future of the sugar industry. I am sure he does not expect me to follow him in discussing this matter at length. I know he has studied this question and I know he has taken great interest in it. All I want to do is to ask him whether he thinks the present condition of the industry is such that prices should be reduced. I think the hon. member has not appreciated the position. In 1936, 50 per cent. of the sugar production was exported, and the average price, in terms of raw sugar realised, amounted to £11 11s. (this figure represented in terms of raw sugar the weighted average price realised for both exported and local consumption sugar). It is true that there has been an enormous increase in local consumption since the conclusion of the 1936 Agreement, but what is lost sight of is the fact that under this agreement the industry was required to place on the market No. 2 grade sugar which had to be sold at a price which did not permit of such price being loaded with export losses; in fact the price was based on costs of production plus a small margin to provide for the profits. Now the large increase in local consumption has been predominantly in this No. 2 grade sugar. The fact, therefore, of the large increase in consumption has not been a materially enhanced average price for sugar. Notwithstanding a drop in the export percentage from 5 per cent. to 25 per cent. and in addition an increase in the export price for raw sugar from £6 10s. to approximately £10 10s. the overall average price in 1943 was only £13 3s. as against £11 11s. in 1936. This represents a rise in price of approximately 15.5 per cent. and as intimated the smallness of this rise was due to the large increase in local consumption of No. 2 grade sugar. As against this increase of 15.5 per cent. in the average price of all sugars realised costs of production, according to figures furnished the Department, have increased from 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., so that the sugar industry in relation to costs is some 10 per cent. worse off than it was in 1936. This, however, is not the case for as between 1936 and 1943 production increased very considerably and in addition, as the consequence of the development of improved canes, yields have been considerably improved. The Department is nevertheless satisfied that the increase in costs due to higher costs of materials and labour has more than offset the favourable developments which have taken place in the industry since 1936 and that as stated before the industry is more than justified in maintaining the present price levels. It may be stated in this connection that in 1942 the industry had to meet a very onerous wage determination which in some directions increased labour costs by nearly 100 per cent. My Department which keeps a close eye on the sugar industry and works in close conjunction with it is perfectly satisfied that the industry is well organised today, that by absorbing the increased costs and maintaining the same price, the pre-war price of sugar in the Union, the industry has performed a very efficient service to the Union. With regad to the question put by the hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark) I shall take up the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Railway and Harbour Funds.

On Head No. 1.— “General Charges”, £717,800,

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? The Minister of Transport, during the past few years, has been in the fortunate position that he had a substantial surplus every year, that he could come to Parliament with that surplus, and that he could announce every year that the Railways had set up a new record. Expenditure also went up during that period. Revenue took the lead, and the increase in expenditure followed. Last year the Minister still had a surplus, but this year, he says that the records no longer signify what they signified in the past, and he has told us that the red light for danger was ahead. We were reminded of the history of the Railways during the last war and also during the years of depression, from 1929-1932. During years of prosperity the revenue of the Railways always mounts up enormously. Expenditure also goes up but more slowly than revenue does. But one does find that after that revenue comes to a certain point and stops there, while expenditure, on the other hand, follows revenue and passes the point at which revenue has stopped; then it becomes very difficult to prevent expenditure from going up still further. The position becomes even more difficult when revenue starts showing a tendency to drop, while expenditure continues to show a tendency to rise. That was our experience in the years from 1914 to 1920. To begin with we had surpluses, but the high-water mark was reached in 1916 and after that expenditure exceeded revenue. We, on this side, have been trying constantly to warn the Minister during this war. We asked him to arrange his control and management in such a manner that during the years of prosperity the various Railway funds would be strengthened and reserves would be built up, so that if deficits arose it would not be necessary for him to touch the wages and salaries of the workers, or to retrench people, and it would not be necessary to increase rates and tariffs; we urged him to strengthen the funds so that he would be able to face the years of depression with equanimity. On the other hand hon. members on the Minister’s side have been urging him to use the profits, the surpluses, for war purposes, and the Minister has allowed himself to be persuaded to comply with the requests made by his own side of the House. He has allowed himself to be misled into using this money for war purposes. What is the position today? As the Minister has told us himself he expects deficits to occur before long. To show how sensitive Railway revenue is, I should like to point out that the Minister still expected a surplus of £522,000 in March. Within a month, at the end of that same month, March, it appeared that he was £330,000 out in his reckoning, and that the revenue was £330,000 less than he had expected it to be, so that for the year a surplus of only £192,000 is expected. In one month he was out in his estimate to an amount of £330,000. When the Minister made his Budget Speech he anticipated a deficit of £486,000 for next year. That deficit, in all probability, will be very much bigger and the question arises as to what the Minister’s policy is going to be. How is he going to make up that deficit? He has to do something. If the Minister had accepted the friendly advice given him by this side of the House, that position would not have arisen. There are two Railway funds in particular which are used as a buffer between revenue and expenditure. There is the Rates Fund. We have created a Rates Fund with the object of meeting conditions caused by a deficit during the year, so as to make it unnecessary to reduce the salaries or to retrench or to raise rates. I have asked the Minister repeatedly in the last few years to make that fund as strong as possible and the figure I mentioned was £20,000,000. I asked the Minister to increase that fund to £20,000,000. The Minister replied that the suggestion to raise the Rates Equalisation Fund to £20,000,000 was in his opinion a panicky suggestion. He said: “I do not think there is any necessity even to consider it.” He was so full of confidence that he did not even consider the necessity of raising the fund to £20,000,000. He wouldn’t look at it. He added that he had no intention of increasing the fund beyond £10,000,000. That was the attitude adopted by the Minister. Within a year the Minister has come to realise that our attitude was the right one and that he was wrong. If he had realised it a year sooner, and if he had accepted our good advice, he would have been in a much stronger position as far as his funds are concerned. The Minister stated: “This fund is now £302,485 short of £10,000,000, and if the expected surplus of £522,000 is realised the total amount in the fund will be a little over £10,000,000.” He is not going to get that surplus now. The Minister said, in addition, that, in regard to the Rates Fund, he had been interested to note what an authoritative report had stated about the Rhodesian Railways, as it contained the remark that the Stabilisation Fund should be made as strong as possible, and the Minister added that if we strengthened our funds on the same ratio as Rhodesia, our fund, instead of being £10,000,000, would be £20,000,000. He added that this would bring the whole question of the Railway Reserve Funds under the searchlight of enquiry. The Minister is now converted, therefore, to the view that a strong reserve fund is necessary so that it may be used in times of depression in order to prevent the necessity for increasing rates and reducing wages. I am glad that the Minister has been converted to our point of view, but I am sorry that he has come to the conclusion at a stage when surpluses belong to the past, because the fund has been built up out of surpluses. Now that we have reached the end of surpluses, the Minister realises that he has made a fatal mistake, and that his fund is too weak. I want to point out to the Minister that his fund is really inadequate. If we look back into the history of our Railways we find that the late Mr. Burton in 1916 found himself in the same postion as the Minister finds himself today, to wit, that his expenditure has exceeded his revenue. He was compelled to take certain steps. What did he do? He increased rates, increased them to such an extent, that in one year he imposed additional rates to an amount of £9,000,000. In spite of that he still had a shortage and he had to retrench from the railways. If we remember that, in the space of one year, it was found necessary to increase rates by £9,000,000 we must realise that this £10,000,000 in the Minister’s fund is a mere bagatelle. That being so it is the more regrettable that the Minister took no heed of our pleas to make the fund as strong as possible. The fund today is only about £10,000,000. And what is the position in general? Rolling stock has to be replaced; trucks, passenger coaches and locomotives have to be replaced on a large scale. The Minister and the General Manager have stated repeatedly that the condition of the rolling stock is thoroughly unsatisfactory, so much so that some of our locomotives have to stop on the track to get up a bit of steam. The Minister and the General Manager have stated repeatedly that locomotives, coaches and trucks, which should have been scrapped and taken out of the service, are still in the service today, because the worn-out rolling stock cannot be replaced. The Minister told us that it was impossible in our railway workshops to manufacture new trucks, and we cannot get any new locomotives, so the only thing that is done today is to effect repairs. That being so, we must expect two things to happen. One would expect the Minister to make the Renewals Fund very strong so that when rolling stock can be manufactured again, he will have the money for it. Yet what is the position. The Renewals Fund stands at £10,000,000—a bagatelle. It is too little altogether for the purpose of producing new rolling stock, too little for the replacement of locomotives. Where are the funds to come from if Railway revenue is dropping and expenditure is going up? I am not concerned with the Government’s policy of seeing the war through. I realise that the Government has decided to see the war through. The Minister of Railways is seeing that policy through, and it is not my intention to criticise it at this juncture. The Minister allows the Government to force him to use the Railways in the interests of the war effort and to the detriment of the Railways themselves. Let me remind the Minister that the General Manager in his report points out that the 15 per cent. tax which the Minister of Finance has imposed on passengers’ tickets is in conflict with the constitution of this country. The Minister himself realises it. What is more the Minister has taken up a very definite attitude in the past that the Railways must not be used in the way they are being used today. In 1934 the Government made certain concessions to the farmers in regard to railway rates, and the Minister then made these remarks—

We are not criticising the assistance today which is being given to the Defence Department. The Minister went further and he said this—

That is the attitude which we too adopt. It is not fair to make the Railways bear these burdens for the war effort. Let the Defence Department use the Railways to carry its personnel and its equipment, but let it pay for it. It is just as unfair to impose this tax on the section which uses the Railways as it is to impose a war tax on one special section of the population. It is just as unfair to impose a tax on the individual who uses his motor car to travel as it is to impose this tax on a man who wants to travel by railway. It is unfair to make him pay 15 per cent. more on a first or second class’ ticket. The Minister has announced that he is expecting a deficit. Since that time his revenue has dropped still lower, and I want to know from him whether he is still going to allow this 15 per cent. tax on railway tickets. The Minister allows the Defence Department a 33⅓ per cent. rebate on goods and passengers. That has now been increased to 50 per cent. In this connection I would like to draw attention to two matters. I want to point to the enormous burden which the Railways bear, and to show what it means to the Railways to give this abatement. The Minister of Railways himself said this—

In those days the rebate was 33⅓ per cent. and now it is 50 per cent. And then the Minister went on to say this—

Now that the 33⅓ per cent. has been increased to 50 per cent. that deficit will be very much bigger. I have analysed the figures of the rebate to the end of the financial year 1943-’44, and the rebate in respect of passengers to the Department of Defence meant a loss to the Railways of £2,940,398—nearly £3,000,000. On goods the rebate amounted to £5,143,509, a total rebate of £8,083,907.

Is that per year?

No, that is for the whole period I have mentioned. The Minister himself told us that this rebate meant a loss to the Railways, so how can one possibly defend a policy under which the staff and the users of the Railways have to bear this additional burden for the war effort? The Minister will perhaps say that these people paid nothing. As sure as the sun rises in the East, the Minister knows that he is going to have deficits every year, and that he will then have to retrench, because what else can he do to make up his deficits? In the long run, this money comes out of the pockets of the railway men, and out of the pockets of the people who use the Railways. It is a very unfair tax. It is an unfair burden, and it is in conflict with our constitution. If the Minister of Finance imposed a tax on one section of the population only, it would be just as unfair as this tax which is now being levied by means of the Railways. But the expenditure is a great deal higher than it has ever been before. Many other concessions are made to the Department of Defence. For instance, there is the rebate of 33⅓ per cent. to the Governments up North. According to the Minister’s own statement that rebate means a lot to the Railways. I do not know whether that rebate has also been increased to 50 per cent. I want to ask the Minister what moral right he has to carry goods for foreign governments at the expense of the South African taxpayer. There is no justification whatever for it. Now let me point to something else. While the rolling stock of the Railways is in a precarious condition, the Minister sells 16 locomotives to the Department of Defence. Those locomotives have cost the Government £53,000, and they are sold for £40,000. So evidently they must have been in good condition because the price was reduced by only £13,000. These locomotives are used for war purposes up North. I asked the Minister a question and here is his reply—

While the Minister and his Department, therefore, have a shortage of locomotive power, while they are unable to carry the passengers and the products of the country, while they are unable to carry all the coal, the Department sells 16 locomotives for the war effort up North. We expect the Minister in the first place to be Minister of Railways and not Minister of Defence; we expect him to look after the interests of the Railways as a whole. I have said before that the total amount of the abatement granted by the Railways to the Defence Department on goods and passenger traffic, amounts to a little over £8,000,000. In addition to that there is the difference between the civilian and military pay of the officials who have joined up. Until the end of the last financial year the amount was £3,000,000. That brings the total amount to £11,000,000. In addition to that we know that thousands of people have been employed to take the places of the men who have gone North. That will mean at least another £4,000,000. The total amount therefore contributed to the end of the financial year 1943-’44, by the Railways to the war effort, cannot be less than £16,000,000. What is going to be the Government’s attitude if we are faced with the position of a tremendous drop in Railway revenue? I want the Minister to tell the House what his policy will be and what administrative steps he will take to meet this increasing expenditure and diminishing revenue. Is he going to do the same thing that was done in 1929? Is he going to discharge thousands of people? Is he going to put off white workers and employ coloureds and natives in their places? At Bloemfontein, hundreds of Europeans used to be employed in the goods sheds, and they were replaced by non-Europeans. Journeymen’s wages were reduced by half, and more than 300 were put off. Railwaymen who, in all those years, in days of pressure, did their best to keep the railways running, were simply thrown on the streets. Is the Minister going to do that again? The Minister paid a tribute to the railwaymen and said that they had done their utmost in these difficult times to keep our railways running. Thousands of them have gone up North, and inexperienced people, who know nothing about railway work, have been employed in their stead, with the result that experienced men have had to use their best efforts to prevent accidents, and to keep the railways running smoothly. Is the Minister prepared to give us a promise in this House that in spite of the blunders he made in not strengthening his funds, he will promise us that if the difficult situation arises when expenditure and revenue do not balance he will not throw any men on the streets. The railwaymen are waiting for that promise from the Minister and from the Government. To them it is a serious matter. There is another point to which I wish to refer. I have drawn attention to the fact that the rates in 1916 were increased by more than £9,000,000 per year. Is the Minister going to follow that policy again or will he promise us that he will not do so? We should appreciate it if the Minister would assure us that he will not discharge any railwaymen and that he will not reduce their salaries. These people are feeling ill-at-ease today. They know the railway’s history, and they know what happened in the past. We, on this side of the House, have been urging the Minister for the last few years to strengthen his funds. Take a fund like the Superannuation Fund. There is a deficit of a few million pounds. In his Pension Fund, too, there is a deficit. It is quite logical that in these days of surpluses the Minister should at least take steps to wipe out that deficit. He is compelled to contribute to that fund in order to make it solvent. I admit that the Minister has made large contributions from his surplus in order to make the fund solvent. And now there is another point. The Minister has come to this House repeatedly for permission to spend thousands of pounds on harbour expansion. The Department of Defence was placed under the Minister’s charge, and the Minister was given power to undertake harbour works for Defence without the approval of Parliament. The position today is that the Defence Department can ask the Railways to undertake improvements, not because those improvements are necessary for railway requirements, but simply because they are necessary for military purposes. Yet that capital burden is imposed on the railway officials and on the railway user. The Minister today has to pay about £6,000,000 interest on railway traffic. He has announced that he is going to use about £30,000,000 capital for extension and expansions. We welcome it. We welcome the capital investment in the railways, but the question which arises is this. While that railway expansion has to be made out of loan funds, imposing a heavy interest burden on the user of the railways and on the railway officials, and while that expenditure … [Time limit.]

We have at least £200,000,000 invested in our railways. It is a large amount of money to invest, and on that we pay about £6,000,000 per year by way of interest. That money was invested on the clear understanding that the railways would be run on business principles, and the point raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), that during the war that principle has been ignored, represents the attitude of this side of the House. The railways have not been run on strict business lines. We do recognise the fact that the railways are State property; they are a State investment, and they can be used for the purposes of the State in times of emergency. We concede that point, and we are not arguing about it, but we do say that the railways must always be run on business lines and that any military duty which the railways undertake must be undertaken on business lines. The railways dare not depart from that principle. If the railways make a profit, they can and must use that profit to maintain a sound position, and to strengthen their position for the future, and to secure it. Now let us analyse the value of the asset in which we have invested our £200,000,000. Our asset is our railway line; our asset is in our rolling stock; that is where our assets lie The railway line has, according to the certificate of the Chief Civil Engineer, deteriorated during the past four years— and it must have done so—it is self-evident. The renewals which are necessary from year to year could not be carried out. That is what the Chief Civil Engineer certified. The same applies to the rolling stock. The Minister has even admitted that our locomotive force has suffered considerably, tremendously, in fact; our rolling stock has deteriorated and is still deteriorating. We are getting into arrears which will have to be made up, not only in regard to the necessary and permanent maintenance of rolling material, and our locomotive strength, but also in regard to renewals. Our assets must be kept up to standard. Our assets must be maintained, and in that respect we have made a great sacrifice for the sake of the war, and in doing so we have done serious harm and caused great inconvenience to the users of the railways. We have caused the railway users considerable inconvenience by giving the military authorities first call on our Railways. We do not find much fault with the authorities in giving the military people first call on the Railways, except for this, that, if inconvenience is caused to the public, that inconvenience should be reduced to a minimum. Military traffic has in the past few years practically eliminated ordinary civilian traffic on the Railways. The normal flood of passenger traffic at certain times of the year could not be handled by the Railways, greatly to the discomfort of the travelling public. The same applied to goods traffic. As a matter of fact the trucks, our locomotive power, were placed in the service of the military at the expense of business people, at the expense of farmers, at the expense of the permanent users of the Railways. In that respect I feel that the Railways as a State enterprise have done their share in fostering the war effort. We feel that the Railways can be used for that purpose, but we do not think that the Railways, as such, should be used for the purpose of financing the war effort. That is not what the Railways are there for. The object of the Railways is to render service and not to supply funds. The service which has been rendered, has been rendered at the expense of the normal user of the Railways— the normal railway user has had, indirectly, to suffer. Many business men have suffered losses owing to their being unable to travel on the Railways when it has been necessary to travel. Farmers have suffered damage through their being unable to get trucks when they needed them. Business men have suffered damage because they could not get their goods moved at the times when they wanted them moved. And surely that in itself is a sufficient contribution on the part of the Railways—to let the normal railway users suffer for the sake of the military. The Railways have allowed their lines to deteriorate. They have allowed their rolling stock to deteriorate. They have allowed their locomotive power to deteriorate. They have done harm to their ordinary customers by depriving them of the facilities to which they are entitled, because it is their money which is invested in the Railways, and they can legitimately claim the right to travel on the Railways, and business people and farmers have a legitimate claim to transport when they want their goods moved. After having imposed all these hardships on various sections, after having caused all this discomfort to the people I have mentioned, the Railways now give the military a rebate on passenger fares, a rebate on goods fares, and in addition to that, they make a number of other contributions. The Railways, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein District has said, have spent round about £15,000,000 in connection with the war, but their indirect contributions also amount to millions of pounds—if they can be calculated at all, because for the last three or four years the Railways have been turning down business simply because all railway facilities have to be placed at the disposal of the military. One would not object if all this were necessary for the safety of the State and the preservation of the State, but we have pointed out repeatedly in this House that thousands—one could almost say millions—of journeys are made on the Railways which, in our opinion, are absolutely unnecessary—journeys which in any case are not necessary for the safety of the State. We realise that if a country is threatened by an enemy and it is overrun by the enemy, and that enemy takes the Railways, he takes everything; that being so it is the duty of the Railways to do everything possible for the security of the State. But apart from that, if the military had had the use of the Railways for the security of the State, we would not have objected, but we say that the Railways have not been used for the security of the State. They have been used purely for the purpose of giving facilities to the military and, in many respects, they have been unnecessarily used by people travelling up and down needlessly; they have been used for the transport of goods, which it was not necessary to transport; they have been employed for purposes which were totally unnecessary. Another point is this, that the Railways have also made contributions through their workshops. Their workshops, which should have been used for railway purposes only, for maintaining their rolling stock and their tractive power, have been used for the manufacture of war equipment. I have referred to the certificate of the Chief Mechanical Engineer in regard to the conditions of the tractive power and the rolling material. I notice from that certificate that it is in comparatively good condition, but that it has not been kept up to standard. The Railways have placed their workshops in the service of the military authorities for the purpose of making war materials—ammunition—at the expense of the effectiveness of the service. In that particular respect I should like to know what is the amount of the Railways’ contribution to the war effort.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the salary scale of telegraphists. Let me mention telegraphists with 22 years’ service, getting a salary in the neighbourhood of £200 and £300. There are telegraphists in the Service today who are still third grade officials, and who are getting £355 per year after 22 years’ service. When he gets his second grade his maximum is £416; and there are also other branches in the Service where the salaries are extremely low. The Minister had an investigation made into the salary scales, and a report was issued about five months ago. So far nothing has been done about that report. People are waiting to see what is going to be done to give them the increases to which they are entitled. I want to ask the Minister what is the cause of this delay. These estimates show that our Salary Bill amounts to 25½ million pounds. The Minister states that about 5 million pounds is paid in respect of war allowances. In many groups the salaries are still extremely low although the cost of living is going up. The Minister will be compelled to revise the grades and to increase these people’s pay, but besides that we find, according to the Press, that the cost of living is going up continually, and the railways, the biggest employers in the country, will be obliged to increase their salary account by way of additional cost of living allowances. The wage bill cannot be reduced. Today it amounts to £25,500,000. Then we have £6,000,000 interest, making a total of £31,500,000, and that is an irreducible amount, and that amount will continue to go up. It goes to show the extremely dangerous position in which we find ourselves. We have this tremendous expenditure which we cannot curtail. I want to ask the Minister what his attitude will be if the expenditure continues to rise and the revenue to drop. There is one other matter which I should like to bring to his notice and that is the position of stewards on the trains. They are among the poorest paid people in the Service.

The hon. member cannot raise that on this vote.

I should like the Minister to tell me what has become of the report of the Commission which was appointed to look into the position of station foremen. The Minister will remember that I raised this question last year and he promised me that he would go into it, and subsequently he appointed a Commission or a Departmental Committee to go into the whole matter. I should like to know what has become of the report and what the Minister intends doing. A few miles beyond Worcester one gets some thirty of these foremen who haven’t had leave for years. I spoke to one of them the other day—he was a man who hadn’t been able to get leave for two or three years. People in the railway service are disinclined to get the grade of station foreman and they actually have to be compelled to take that grade, because they know that once they become station foremen they are on duty for twelve hours every day; they know that they do not get even a half-day off, not even a Sunday, and they are far away in the veld at these small isolated stations. Some of them live in corrugated iron houses. They have to get their food a long distance away, and in some of these places there are no shops and they have to go to the nearest dorp and spend some of their leisure hours, when they ought to be sleeping, to purchase their requirements. I don’t want to go into details again, but the Minister should tell us now what he is going to do for those people. If they ask for leave, they are told that there is no one to relieve them, so they have to stay on. Do hon. members realise how the relieving staff is being employed today? Members of the relieving staff are used to act as stationmasters. That is why the station foremen cannot get leave. The other sections of the staff get leave and are able to go on holidays with their wives and children. Thirty miles from Laingsburg there is a man who is 50 years of age, who hasn’t had leave for 3 or 4 years. Things cannot go on like that. I have raised the question before and the Minister should do something about it. I wish to ask the Minister, now that the question has been investigated, to make a statement in Parliament and to tell us what he is going to do for these people. Let me also tell the Minister that there is a lot of dissatisfaction in the Service. People feel that they are discharged for things for which no other employer would discharge them. They feel that they are badly treated—I won’t say like dogs, because some dogs are treated far better than they are. The Minister is told that the spirit among the workers is magnificent. But these people are afraid to talk. The Minister should not imagine that there is no dissatisfaction among them. He is not in touch with them. He meets only the chiefs. They report to him and they tell him that the staff is satisfied, but one cannot expect a man who has to wait three or four years for leave to be satisfied. They must get leave from time to time, especially if they are in these isolated places. I haven’t made these remarks in order to pick a quarrel with the Minister; I have spoken as I have simply because he does not know what is going on, whereas I do. I warn the Minister. Let him not rely exclusively on the reports he receives. These people live in fear and trembling. They never know when their immediate chief is going to get them into trouble. They are afraid of being victimised if they talk. The Minister should not imagine that everything in the garden is beautiful. There are lots of difficulties and there is a lot of dissatisfaction, and yet these people have served him faithfully. In the days when the staff was very small they worked hard to keep the service going and in these circumstances he should be sympathetically disposed towards his staff, and if any just complaints are made, these men should have the opportunity of submitting their cases without any fear of being victimised.

Mr. Chairman, I think I might just deal with one or two points raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) and clear the ground in regard to one or two other matters, so that members may know exactly what the position is. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) claimed credit for being right when the Minister had been wrong in respect of the fact that we are now having deficits instead of surpluses. I would like to make it quite clear that I never expected for one moment that the surpluses of two or three years ago would remain; it was quite impossible for us to retain the Railways on that basis. Had we been able to go on developing, had we had much more rolling stock than we had at the beginning of the war and had other factors been there, we might have carried on for a little longer than we did, but it was inevitable from the start, that the time of surpluses would pass, and the time of increased expenditure would come along. There has been a good deal of criticism from the opposite side on the score that we had devoted the Railways to the war effort, and I am afraid that nothing I could say would convince the other side that I have been right in the attitude that I have taken up the matter, and therefore I think on that issue we shall just have to agree to differ. When you quote figures showing what we have done for the war effort, what the war effort may have cost the Railways in direct contribution, such as discounts on Defence traffic, such as civil allowances, making up the civil pay of our workers, when you look at that side of the balance sheet you must also look on the other side, and see what the Railways made out of the war, to put it very crudely. The Railways did not set out to make anything, but the fact remains that the Railways have been able to do something as the result of the war. Now I say that the Railways have a remarkable record of achievement over the war years, not only in what they have been able to do in the field of transport but in the strengthening of the financial resources over that period. The Rates Equalisation Fund, which stood at £3,000,000 when I became Minister, is now just on £10,000,000. We have built up our Renewals and Betterment Fund and we have steadily built up our superannuation fund on the basis recommended by the actuaries. We have even paid an extra £500,000 on one occasion to make up the deficit in the Superannuation Fund; we are now paying in cost of living allowances to our workers at the rate of £5,500,000 per year: we have increased the pay and allowances of the lower paid workers, both European and non-European, on the Railways at the cost of £1,700,000 and I could enumerate quite a number of other items also. Now, how have we been able to do that? As the result of the enormous impetus given to the industrial activity of the country owing to the war, and I say, when you are talking about the relatively small contribution we have directly made to the war effort on the one side of the balance sheet, you must also show the other side, and I think the country will be satisfied that the Railways have made a very good bargain indeed. I would like to say at this stage that I know the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) has always supported the policy of writing surpluses into reserve. I know that he has even urged me to go further than I have done, but on the other hand, what I have done has been very substantial, and remember this, no matter what figures you quote today, that if the Railways had had a Rates Equalisation Fund totalling £7,000,000 at the end of the last war, they could have seen the whole of the depression period through without retrenching a single man or putting up a single rate. That is a significant fact, and after this war, not only will we have built up the Rates Equalisation Fund to the higher level of £10,000,000, but in the fifth year of the war, and there was no fifth year of the last yar, we have not increased a single rate, we have not increased a single charge. Well, I won’t say we have not increased a single charge, there may have been one or two odd rates that have been modified, but, in effect, we have not increased any of the charges. We are about, I should say, the only business concern in South Africa, if not in the world that is still trading on its 1939 basis of charges. Now, I say that is the financial picture for which we are entitled to a little credit. I am not claiming any credit for myself, I am only emphasising it to show that the picture you may be trying to draw is only looking very much at one side of the whole thing. Capital, Betterment and Renewal Fund accounts have been built up to levels which, according to our experts, will meet all the demands that will be necessary on these funds in order to bring our rolling stock and all our other assets to a condition they would have been in had we been able to get all the material we wanted. It is not only a question that we were using trucks for the war effort and other work, because that policy was largely dictated by the fact that we could not get the materials to go on with truck building, we could not get the materials in a variety of directions, and therefore we had to devote our workshops to other works, for which priority gave us the necessary material. The harbour works which my hon. friend for Bloemfontein (District) indicated we have been spending money on, I would remind him were started before I became Minister. The harbour extension of Cape Town was started by my predecessor, not my immediate predecessor but the one before. It is only natural that we should finish these works particularly as there was a big demand for shipping accommodation. The same applies to Durban so far as the harbour works are concerned. My predecessor laid down the policy which I have only been carrying out, but let me confess, had he not laid down the policy, I should myself have started these works because I think, far from being anything in the nature of an expense or burden upon railway users, they will be a very great asset in the development of our railway work in the next decade. Let me again emphasise this, that when you talk about facing a deficit, the prospect does not frighten me. I am not alarmed at it at all, and I say the way to face a deficit is not to talk about retrenchment, not to talk about curtailment, that is quite a wrong attitude, and not even to talk about increasing charges unless you must; everything should be done to encourage trade and traffic, and only in that way will the Railways face a period when expenditure and revenue do not balance.

We will remind you of this at a later stage.

I have not the slightest doubt you will remind me of it, provided that it suits your political viewpoint at that time. Let me even go further. We will, of course, have to increase rates, that I think is inevitable in certain directions; we may have to curtail certain discounts that we have beeen allowing; obviously expediture must be brought up, but we are still working on the 1939 basis of charges, and I say, after five years of war, that is rather an achievement, having regard to what we have done. Let me develop this a little further, and this will interest the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). We are going into the question, at the present time, of a general revision of working hours, and improvements of the conditions under which our railway men work. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) knows what we are doing in that respect. One hon. member asked me why there was delay. I only got the report of the Hours of Duty Commission I think at the end of February, or the beginning of March, so there has been very little time to consider it.

Why this slow motion?

The hon. member knows, he is an old railway man, and he knows what a complete readjustment of hours of duty means, and the difficulties that attach to such an important change as that. I hoped in my ignorance, that we might get it through some time in May, but I found, when I went into it, that it was quite impossible. I got extra staff to deal with the report but it is very unlikely that we will get the report finalised until August. I can assure the hon. member that we are making a real effort to bring our Railways, in respect of working hours and pay, up to a standard that will set an example to the country as a whole. We must do it, no matter what it costs, because there is no question about it that there are sections of our railway workers that are employed for far too long hours. These things will cost money, and apart from the relatively small deficit which we are facing at the moment, these things will cost a good bit more, but even that does not alarm me. I still see how these things can be financed without a radical upset of the economic structure of our country by a wild and panicky raising of rates at this stage. With regard to the point that was made about traffic up North, I have dealt with it before, but I would like to point out that the 33⅓ per cent. tariff discount which we gave the traffic up North, was not designed to help the railways up North, but designed to help South África in getting certain supplies which used to come from other countries, which were necessary for the Union, and which, because of the danger to and the shortage of shipping, had to come overland. In order to make these transactions possible it was necessary to come to an arrangements with the railways right through. We certainly got more out of it in the way of assistance than anybody else did, but lest there should be any undue worry about this, let me explain that the total, from the 1st of the tenth month of 1942, to the end of last year, was only £15,000. In any case it was a very small amount indeed. In regard to the locomotives which were sold, I have already dealt with them on previous occasions, but let me emphasise this, that the only locomotives there can be any question about were those which went North. Those that were sold to local works, to Iscor and others, there is obviously no objection to. If we had not sold them these locomotives we would have had to do the work for them that these locomotives did. Those that went North we took off the scrap-heap. It would not have paid the Railways to overhaul them. The need for them was so urgent that the British Government agreed to pay for their overhaul, regardless of whether it was justified or not for ordinary traffic. They were overhauled and sent up North and had they not gone North they would have remained on the scrapheap so far as the Railways are concerned.

I should like to revert to the reply of the Minister and his General Manager to the criticism which we levelled last year against the injustice done to Afrikaans-speaking officials. Last year we complained bitterly to the Minister and the General Manager about unfair discrimination in promotion and appointments against Afrikaans-speaking officials. The Minister saw fit to reply to this criticism by means of the General Manager’s annual report and the reply, briefly, amounted to this. Firstly, that such appointments and promotions were made on the recommendations of the Railway Service Commission; and it would appear that the Minister and his General Manager are taking refuge behind the Afrikaans-speaking member of that Commission. The Commission consisted of three members, one Afrikaans-speaking and two English-speaking. But this defence can have meaning and value only if the Minister is prepared to tell us how many of the recommendations since 1939 have not been unanimous, and, secondly, if he will tell us which officials were recommended by a majority of the Railway Service Commission, and which officials were recommended by a minority; and if the Minister will lay the documents dealing with this matter on the Table we shall be able to see them for ourselves. Then, and then only, will this defence carry any weight. In the second place, the defence put forward is that every official has the right of appeal to the Railway Board and that secures them against any unjust treatment. But the Minister and the General Manager forgot to say that our criticism was directed mainly against promotions and appointments of officials in receipt of salaries of £1,500 and more, and that in those cases the appointments were made by the Minister or by the Executive Committee on the recommendations of this self-same Railway Board. What is the use of saying that an official in respect of whom a recommendation is accepted or rejected has the right to appeal to the Railway Board? It is simply a farce. In that connection I should also like to ask the Minister whether he will tell us which officials in these high posts have appealed and the names of those whose appeals have succeeded. I say again that it is a farce to say that those officials have the right to appeal to the Railway Board, when the Minister himself knows that the Railway Board has been responsible for the unjust treatment meted out to these people. What is the use, therefore, of saying that they have the right of appeal to the Railway Board? And now let me mention another line of defence put forward by the Minister and the General Manager, and that is that there are such things as key positions and when appointments are made to those posts the question of seniority is not taken into consideration so much as the particular ability of the officer concerned. Key positions indeed! Let me say at once that this excuse about key positions is nothing but a smokescreen for favouritism. It is nothing else. Let me mention a few instances to show what happens. We have the case of the man who was a senior clerk in the Minister’s office. I want to avoid mentioning names wherever possible. In August, 1940, he was appointed to a position, which at that time was carrying the maximum salary of £585. Three years later be was promoted to a position of £1,200— so in three years’ time he jumped from £585 to £1,200—and in that process he passed over extremely competent officials who were his seniors. But all this is excused by saying that the position to which he was appointed was a key position, and apparently he was the only man fit to occupy this key position. I want to mention another case, that of the present Secretary of the Railway Board, Mr. Purvis. This official was specially ordered to return from Up North by plane to take up his new post, and that without his having had any previous experience of the particular work—again under the guise of this key position excuse. He jumped from £585 to £840 and after that to £1,050 in June, 1944. In less than three years’ time this officer jumped from £585 to £1,050. And, I repeat, all this happened within three years. Now let me say straight out that I am told that both these officials under this key post excuse are to get further promotion in the near future. Here are two instances to show how these so-called “key positions” are used to hide unjust methods. Now let me come to another question—that of the manipulation of posts—that is, the raising or lowering of posts by grading and the gross injustice resulting from this disgraceful manipulation. Last year we mentioned specific instances of such unjust and unfair manipulation at the expense of Afrikaans-speaking senior officials. Since last year further instances have occurred, also in connection with Inspection Engineers. For some considerable time the normal salary scale for this position has been £1,600, but last year, as we told the House before, one of these posts was suddenly reduced to £1,400. It was reduced to this amount with no other object but to keep Afrikaans-speaking people who are entitled to that post out of it. After that, after a favourite had been appointed, this £1,400 post was pushed up again to £1,600. That was in August, 1943. That is the sort of thing with which we are faced over and over again.

Shame!

During June, 1943, all the Divisional Superintendents concerned recommended that the post of Commercial and Staff Superintendent, Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban, should be graded higher. The Administration and the General Manager accepted that recommendation, but instead of giving effect to it at once, they allowed it to hang over till November, 1943, six months later—again with the object of keeping out certain Afrikaans-speaking officials who were entitled to be considered for this more highly graded post. During this period, from June to November, 1943, the grading of certain other posts was improved, and favourites of the General Manager or of the Minister were appointed to those regraded positions, and in the course of that process, they secured seniority over those same Afrikaans-speaking officials who originally were their seniors, and in that way the Afrikaans-speaking officials who should have been considered for those posts were kept out, because other posts had in the meantime been placed on a higher grade as a result of which the other officials had secured seniority over the Afrikaans-speaking officials. The time at my disposal is limited. I have mentioned a few of these cases very briefly, but again we want to protest most emphatically to what is going on in the Railways today. This unfair discrimination against Afrikaans-speaking officials, especially in the higher positions, the manipulation of posts, the grading, up or down, of posts— all these things are done merely for the purpose of keeping out certain people and of giving others so-called seniority so that they can go over the heads of other officials who used to be their seniors, and in that way to establish a degree of justification for the promotion of the favourite.

A short while ago I put a question to the Minister about accidents on the Railways, and the Minister replied to my question. I asked the Minister how many of these accidents were attributable to the human element. He said 103. I asked how many were due to faulty material and his reply was 45, and 117 were due to other causes. In the first place I want to say a few words about the human element in connection with 103 accidents on the Railways and when doing so I would, like to speak about the station foremen. I am glad a Commission has been appointed which has reported on the work of the different classes of railway workers, and I want to plead the cause of the station foremen. We discussed this question of station foremen on a previous occasion, and I do not wish to repeat what was said then; I want to draw an analogy between the position of the station foremen and that of other officials in the Railway Departments, such as the clerks, for instance. Not that I begrudge these people the privileges and the salaries they get,— I think the members of the clerical staff are entitled to every penny they get, but I want to compare the foreman with a member of the clerical staff to show how unjustly the foreman is treated. A station foreman can never become a clerk, even if he has all the necessary qualifications. Assuming the work becomes too heavy for the foreman—he cannot be appointed as a clerk even though, during the period of his service, he has had to do all the clerical work at the station where he works. A clerk on the other hand, can become a station master and he actually gets preference over the station foreman. Let me mention a few instances. If a clerk has had five years’ service he is entitled to a first-class free railway pass. The clerk gets a higher salary than the foreman but after five years’ service the clerk is entitled to a first-class free pass, whereas the foreman is entitled to a first-class free pass only after 20 years’ service. In other words, he has to work four times as long as the clerk before he becomes entitled to a first-class free pass. A clerk is entitled to one month’s leave per annum after five years; a foreman, after one year gets 12 days’ leave and after 20 years he can get 20 days’ leave per year. À clerk gets a half day off every week. The foreman has to work seven days per week. He has to work on Saturday afternoons and also on Sundays. A clerk works 7 hours per day, whereas a foreman works 12 hours per day. If a clerk makes a mistake, other people scrutinise the books and rectify the errors. But if a station foreman makes a mistake it may cost hundreds of people their lives. The station foreman has to work long hours without a break. His work is much more exacting and much more responsible than the work of a clerk. If the clerk gets ill and is absent from work, he gets full pay for a certain period of time; if a foreman gets ill, he gets only two-thirds of his ordinary salary. I don’t know why there is all this differentiation. If a foreman and a clerk start in the Railway service at the same time, the foreman can obtain his first grade after a certain time but the clerk can become a stationmaster in the same period. I think it is unfair to the foreman that the clerk, although both of them may have the same qualifications, should have all these privileges. In view of the fact that the work of the foreman is of such a responsible nature, I think he is entitled to better treatment. Now let me say a few words about the dissatisfaction prevailing in the service. I think one of the main reasons for the dissatisfaction in the service is to be found in the appointment of casual people to certain posts. I think the best way to prove my contention is to quote from a letter which I have here and which deals with the position of station foremen—

I hope the Minister will not persist in this tale of the war too much. And then he goes on—

One can quite understand that these people are exhausted sometimes when they are on duty every day and never have a holiday. If they ask for leave they are continually put off and told that we are passing through abnomal times and they have to be satisfied with that. The reason is not far to seek. At Saldanha Bay and Kuils River temporary stationmasters have been employed for a year, though permanent stationmasters could have been appointed.

The hon. member can discuss that question under Head No. 5.

Which question?

The question of stationmasters.

We listened with a great deal of pleasure to the Minister’s statement on the financial position of the Railways, particularly that in regard to the various funds of the Railways which should certainly satisfy us. The change in the financial position has certainly caused concern—the estimated surplus of about £500,000 for 1943-’44 has come down to an actual surplus of about £190,000, and the estimated deficit for the present year, although small, certainly indicates the necessity for considerable caution. It is a big change after the Railways have produced such large profits. It is in the use of these profits that the Minister is to be congratulated namely in strengthening the funds generally and raising the Rates Equalisation Fund to £10,000,000— this latter is certainly a matter for satisfaction. In addition to the fact that there have been no increases in railway rates, the Minister has given rate reductions, in the local consumption coal rate involving an estimated surrender of revenue of £600,000 per annum and in the rates on foodstuffs affecting the cost of living which involved an estimated surrender of half a million pounds per annum. These and the existing rebates in respect of wool and farmers’ requisites involving a further £300,000 per annum, indicate that, although there have been no increases in railway rates, the Administration has not been unmindful of the necessity of special treatment being accorded here and there. One of the main considerations which we have to bear in mind is that the cumulative financial effect of increases in wages and other improvements in staff conditions for the whole of the Railways and Harbours staff is about £4,000,000. That is to say for 1944-’45, in addition to the cost of living allowance, the Administration will have to provide for expenditure of £4,000,000 in respect of improvements in wages and other staff conditions effected during the Minister’s term of office. I make this statement because I consider the Minister is to be complimented on the efforts he has made to improve the conditions of the railway workers. I wish to express my pleasure as an old railway man at the fact that the Minister is determined to improve the position in relation to hours of working as a result of the proposals of the Hours of Duty Commission. I also want to express my pleasure at the development of the Department of Welfare in the Railway Administration. The fact that the Minister and the General Manager are specially interesting themselves in the living conditions of the railway men is one that should be commented upon. I understand that the Minister is extending this work to cover appointments for the coloured. Indian and native sections of the staff and I should be pleased if he would make a statement here as to the progress which has been made. When so much emphasis has been placed on measures for social security and the improvement of family conditions, I am sure the Railways Administration will not lag behind in its efforts to improve conditions and to be helpful in regard to the home life of the employees and their families. Earlier this session I spoke at some length on the question of a revision of railway rates. The Minister was non-committal in his reply. He has now indicated that it may be necessary to increase tariffs. He has also said that he would prefer to increase traffic rather than tariffs. I agree with him but I think the point will commend itself to him that it may be necessary in some cases even to reduce tariffs in order to increase traffic. I hope the time is not far distant when he will agree to the recommendation that railway tariffs should be brought under review in consultation with the industrial and agricultural interests of the country. The criticism which has come from the Opposition in regard to the sacrifices made by the Railway Administration in connection with the war effort, should be appreciated, whatever the merits of their case may be. There is no doubt that, indirectly, from the Opposition there has come a tribute to the magnificent effort by the Railways and Harbours staff in our war effort. I think the House will agree from the Minister’s statements in regard to plans for future developments that the country is assured that the Administration will contribute on the same magnificent scale during the postwar reconstruction period.

I had really expected something very much more concrete from the Minister in his reply; something more than the vague hone that after the war the railway traffic would be such that there would be no need to increase railway rates or to retrench and that the amount of traffic would keep the financial position of the railways sound. In that respect, I should like to draw the attention of the House to what the Commission, which enquired into railway rates, had to say on this subject. These are their words—

And in spite of that people had to be retrenched. The Minister tells us that 10,000 of his employees have joined up, and that he has given an undertaking to employ a further 2,500. The ten thousand who are now away, are replaced by 10,000 others, and I make bold to say they are replaced by 12,500 others. After the war he will find that he will have to employ 12,500 people and that he will have to keep the 12,500 he has now, or otherwise he will have to discharge them. He says that the war has brought the railways a lot of traffic. That is so, but he will admit that the profits which he made at the start involved increases in wages, or rather, let me say that he began increasing wages long after they should have been increased. The increase of the wages of the staff always comes a few years after the cost of living has gone up and the railway profits have been made. The incidence of the war comes after the war not during the war. He made big profits during the war but the reaction will come, with an ever-increasing fury, after the war. He cannot depend, therefore, on the money he has made during the war, because the allowances paid to the staff—allowances paid in part and which, according to his statement, will go on, and have to be paid—mean that the consequences will be felt only long after the high income peak has been reached. The reaction will come when his income drops. Then his expenditure will go up. He has already reached the point at which his expenditure exceeds his revenue and the full effect of wage increases has not yet been felt. He boasts of having £10,000,000 in the Rates Reserve Fund. It is a considerable amount, but if one takes into account the railway estimates, one finds that the estimates are calculated at about £50,000,000, and one realises that his 10 million pounds will not take him very far. In the last war we never reached the point at which the expenditure exceeded the revenue, but in this war we have already reached the stage where the Minister is estimating an excess of expenditure over revenue next year. Now I would like to ask the Minister whether he does not feel that the time has arrived to stop these war concessions—the concessions to the Defence Force. He admits that the rates have not been put up during the war, but he admits, in the same breath, that they will have to be increased. Why then does he continue making concessions to the military when he sees that we are reaching a stage where tariffs will have to be increased? He realises that his staff will have to pay the price for the war effort. That staff is already paying for that war effort in the same way as ordinary citizens of the State. I do not want to comment on that. It is the Government’s policy. But do not expect the railway official to pay for the war as an ordinary citizen, and then to pay for it again as a railway official. A Rates Reserve Fund of £10,000,000 is nothing wonderful when bad times come along. On behalf of this side I would like to recommend most strongly that the Government reconsider the concessions to the military. If the country has to continue the war let it be at the expense of the country, but not at the expense of the railways. The Minister knows that he is handling military traffic below cost. He cannot continue to do so; as a matter of fact, legally, he should not have done so at all. He owes it to the country and to the staff to withdraw these preferential tariffs to the military. We do not say that that will make the war effort less effective; but we do say that the cost should be borne by the country as a whole and not by the railways. I should like to draw attention to the fact that this excessive traffic, if I may call it that, which the railways have enjoyed, has been due in this war to the fact that we have been unable to get tyres and petrol. During the last war we could get these things. The effect on the railway revenue is tremendous, but when the war is over we shall feel the reaction very much more because motor vehicles will be obtainable very much more cheaply. I also believe that as a result of the manner in which the travelling public has been treated by the railways during the war, people will do all they can to make themselves independent as far as travelling facilities are concerned. That takes me to the Railway Administration’s policy of deterring people from travelling on the railways in every possible manner. To tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman, I have been astonished to see the lengths to which the management has gone to put off the public generally, and not only that, but to inconvenience the public in their travels and in the continuance of their business. I feel that with the locomotive, coaches and trains that are available a great deal more could be done than has been done. The position has been very badly handled; it has been handled in such a fashion that it is causing tremendous irritation and discomfort to the public. I travelled by train the other day and we arrived at a station where 25 members of the public were waiting. They had booked on that train, but they were told by the staff that there was no accommodation for them. They asked when they would be able to get away. The reply was: “Try tomorrow, and if there is no room tomorrow, try the next day.” Well, I had an idea that there was accommodation on the train, and I advised the staff to take these peoeple on the train at once, and I told them that if they didn’t do so I would send a wire to the Minister. They took those people on to the train, and before we got to the next station accommodation had been found for everyone. You are turning away people from the trains although there is accommodation for them. There is accommodation for more passengers on every train, and I am quite prepared to supply details. A fortnight ago, some teachers in the Peninsula went to the Reservation of Seats Office to book for the 23rd June. They went there on the 23rd May and they were told to come on the 24th May to book for the 23rd June.—[Time limit.]

I should like to compliment the Minister on the fact that although we are conducting this debate in Afrikaans, he is able to follow it. We appreciate it and he is setting a good example to certain of his officials who should realise that if they will only devote a little time and take a little trouble they too can learn Afrikaans perfectly well. We really appreciate the Minister’s attitude. I should also like to compliment his Department on the way it provides for immediate replies to be given to any questions we raise here, especially on the estimates, and particularly on the fact that we get a written reply later to any matters raised here. This enables members to supply the necessary information to people who have made representations to them, and to tell them exactly what the position is. It is a good example which other Ministers might do well to follow. Now I want to come to a point on which I shall have to criticise the Minister very strongly, and that is the matter of the new instructions which have been issued to the effect that Indians of a certain rank are to be treated on the trains as though they are Europeans. We have heard of the case of certain Indians who recently travelled by train—the question was asked by an hon. member, and I listened very carefully—and those Indians, as usual, were placed in a separate compartment. We know that on all the trains accommodation is provided in separate carriages reserved for nonEuropeans. They can have such compartments in the first-class or second-class; they travel in these special compartments and they can demand to be served there with their meals. I understand an arrangement was made under which they could be served in their compartments. As I have said before, some Indians want to travel in the ordinary first-class coaches. I understand now that the Minister has given instructions that in future, Indians, officers of a specific rank, are to be treated like Europeans on the Railways. The Minister should realise that it is the thin end of the wedge. If he allows officers to be treated in this way, more well-to-do Indians, “ merchants ” as they call themselves, will also demand to be treated on the Railways as Europeans. You will, perhaps, have other Indians, occupying important positions in the country, who may demand to be treated in the same way. They object to being accommodated in separate compartments; and the Minister has now given instructions that Indians of specific rank are to be treated like Europeans. Now let us assume that one Indian only travels by train. Let the Minister say in that case that that man is to be accommodated in a compartment reserved for non-Europeans. But that man now demands to be treated in the same way as Europeans, and the Minister has granted that request. If the Minister does not give that Indian a first-class compartment to himself it means that he will have to be put in a compartment together with Europeans and the Minister can realise how much dissatisfaction that is going to create in this country. The Minister should realise that colour prejudice is very pronounced in this country. Even if the Indian is a man of high rank, the white man will object to travelling in the same compartment with him. But the instructions which have been issued go even further. The man has to be served in the same dining saloon and at the same time as the Europeans are being served. Why not make provision so that they can travel in separate compartments and can have their food served in their compartments in the same way as with some Europeans? No one could object to that, but we do object to their having their meals in the dining saloon with the Europeans. And this will apply not only on the trains, but we shall also be compelled to allow these Indians into the dining saloons on the Cape Town and Johannesburg stations, to have their meals with the Europeans, if they desire to do so. They will have to be served in the same way. This statement of policy on the part of the Government is a most unfortunate one, and we want to express our strong disapproval of it. On a previous occasion we pointed out that the Minister of Justice was now allowing Indians to be served in bars or bottle stores in the same way as Europeans, and now the Minister of Transport is doing something which has never been done in this country before. We strongly disapprove, and I hope the Minister will not allow Indians, whether officers or not, to be treated like Europeans on our trains. The Minister should realise what it will lead to. He is now doing it for the officers, but the moment he does it for one class of person, he will have to go further, and where is he going to draw the line? If he does it for Indians who come here from overseas, the Indians in South Africa will approach us one of these days and tell us that they are paying thousands of pounds in taxation and that they demand the same rights. Our trains are full up even now, and I hope the Minister will realise that it is a dangerous policy to place Indians on a footing of equality with Europeans on our trains. We cannot tolerate it. Now let me come to an entirely different matter—the transport of kraal manure in the rural districts. I have raised this question before but I shall do so again. We understand that there are difficulties about the transport of kraal manure, but the Government encourages the farmers to produce food, and it is those farmers who produce food who are particularly dependent on kraal manure. Fortunately large quantities of kraal manure are still available in the Transvaal, but we know the difficulty there is in regard to transport. Motor transport is provided but there is a lot of trouble connected with it, and I should like the Minister to give this matter his special attention. Nine-tenths of the cost of transport is contributed by the Department of Agriculture, and one-tenth by the farmer, but the issue is not the question of the contribution. We are asking the Department to provide the necessary means of transport. There is one more question I should like to raise, namely, the provision of trucks for the transport of cattle and other livestock which have to be moved to the big markets. The Department must meet the farmers in that respect. It is not merely a question of providing the trucks but also the question of seeing that the trains reach the markets in good time. We know that cattle and other livestock deteriorate considerably in 24 hours, and if the trains arrive late it means that these animals have to be held over for a full 24 hours. They are not properly looked after and the farmer loses a lot of money. I think the Minister should take steps to see that the trains are so arranged that such cattle and stock can reach the markets in good time.

There are just one or two points I should like to reply to now. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) raised the question of promotions, and alleged against me that I had an anti-Afrikaans bias. I can only once more assure this House that if there is one thing I do not have it is an anti-Afrikaans bias. If I should happen to promote an English-speaking official, or an official with an English name, that is only becaus in the particular circumstances of the case it is the best appointment that can be made, in my opinion. It has been my experience that these things run in batches. I sometimes find myself appointing three or four English-speaking officers, and then after that again appointing three or four Afrikaans-speaking officers. It does happen that these men come forward at that particular time, and I should like to give the House the assurance again that I have never allowed any racial prejudice to enter into the question of promotion. With regard to the question of the appointment of officers with salaries of £1,500, I should like to point out that it is the Minister who authorises those appointments, and not the board.

The Minister make the appointment.

The Minister finally approves of the appointment. He does not make it. It goes through the usual channels. The appointment is recommended by the Railway Service Commission, approved of by the General Manager, and then finally the Minister’s approval has to be obtained. It is competent for the Railway Board to reverse that decision, and I understand that it did happen during my predecessor’s time, Mr. Pirow. In any case, appeals have to come to me. In every case they have supported my appointment, but they could also have upset my appointment, and let me say that if they turn down an appointment of mine as the Minister, I would have to go very carefully into the matter to see what their views are. The Minister can be guided by the Railway Board.

By whom were you guided? Who recommends? The Railway Board?

No, the Railway Board does not make any recommendation in regard to appointments. They are the court of appeal.

By whom are you advised?

The General Manager. Generally the first step in regard to appointments is the recommendation by the Railway Service Commission. It then goes to the General Manager, and finally it comes to me. I am always advised in regard to all appointments. I do not make appointments myself. It is quite true that in the case of a personal appointment such as a private secretary, I would make the appointment myself, but in any case it will be discussed before the appointment is made. I was also criticised earlier, and tonight as well, that I manipulated grades by pushing officers from £500 to £1,000. You cannot, however, have it both ways. If the officer is capable of occupying that position, if he is the right man for appointment to that position, then I say he should get it. I do not think, therefore, that it was necessary to criticise me personally, as was done in the House. With regard to the establishment of what is known as key posts, I should like to point out that in the Railway Administration we are faced with an unusual set of circumstances which no other Government Department is faced with. The General Manager’s offices are in Johannesburg, and the Minister’s offices in Pretoria, and therefore it is not possible for the Minister to be in daily contact with his Department, as is the case with every other Government Department, and for that reason it is therefore essential that the Minister should have what is described as an administrative secretary who can act as the link between the General Manager and the Minister. For this reason it is essential for the Minister to have an administrative secretary, and I make no apology for exercising great care in the appointment. Let me also say that if hon. members look at my personal staff they will realise that I have no anti-Afrikaans bias. I want to remind the hon. member that railway clerks have to start below the age of 22. They have to pass the Junior Certificate Examination, and then they are drafted into the clerical branch of the Railways. It would obviously be unfair to those men if we were to allow all sorts of men to step in above them and to hold them back. On the other hand, the foreman has the chance of becoming a stationmaster, in which case he gets all the leave privileges, etc., of the salaried staff, so that the foreman has his line of advancement. I may say it was in 1935 in my predecessor’s time that we stopped everybody coming into the clerical grades, except from the bottom; but there have been one or two instances, and when I say one or two instances I mean one or two instances to my knowledge, although there may have been a few more cases where we have allowed a station foreman, because of special reasons, and because of special qualifications, to become a clerk. I am sure the hon. member will realise that is a step which will have to be very carefully controlled if grave injustices are not to be done to railway servants who stop at Grade 3 and who cannot get any advancement beyond that. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) made some kind remarks for which I must thank him. I see, however, that he is not in his place at the moment, and therefore I need not reply to him. Once again, let me tell the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) that I do not think much can be drawn as to what may happen after this war from what happened after the last war. Conditions are entirely different. At that time South Africa was subject to violent industrial and economic fluctuations. The curve up and down fluctuated very erratically, and therefore considering things as they are I think I am justified in saying that the fluctuation after this war will not be so wide. Reserves that have been built up will be such that we will be able to face the years of depression which we will have to face in the next few years. It is important to remember also that we have a far greater reserve of work; we have a far greater reserve of capital, and we have a far greater reserve of equalisation funds than we had at the end of the last war. The hon. member knows that. He has also asked me rather categorically if I was going to raise fares, and whether I would give the public notice. Now he as an ex-railway official knows that you never give notice of what you are going to do for reasons which are perfectly obvious. My predecessor once gave notice that he was going to alter the coal rate in fourteen days’ time, and the result thereof was that the collieries immediately stopped working for fourteen days. The Minister was compelled to revert to his former policy, and he had to carry on on the same rates that applied previously. That is the sort of thing that you cannot do on the Railways, and if I was going to make any alteration, the hon. member will learn all about it on the day the change is made.

I should like to ask the Minister to reply to the question which he has not yet answered. When I asked this question at first, he did not have the information. It is the question about the Cavalcade which was held here at Green Point. Let me read my questions to the Minister. I do not intend at this stage going into details about Cavalcade. I only want to read the questions. I asked—

To this the Minister replied as follows—

He could not give any information because the Cavalcade accounts were not available for him. I also asked him whether any special trains and other facilities were made available for the public in order to attend the Cavalcade; if so what? To this the Minister replied that 374 special trains had been supplied for the purpose of dealing with the additional heavy traffic. I should like the Minister to answer these questions now. There is another point, too. Some of the railway material was sold after the Cavalcade was over. I want to ask the Minister to whom it was sold, how it was sold and what was sold. It is generally known that everything that was sold, was sold at such ridiculous prices that one could almost say that it might just as well have been given away. I should like the Minister to tell us what the expenditure was in connection with the Cavalcade. There is another item with which I should like to deal and I am not doing so by way of criticism. My object is to have a stop put to this condition of affairs. I am referring to casual labourers on the railways. Often there are unemployed at a particular place, say, for instance, at Mossel Bay, and then there are people who want to get work on the railways in a temporary capacity. Instead of appointing those people as casual labourers, people are brought from other places and given those positions. That has happened at Mossel Bay, and if it happens there, in all probability it happens elsewhere, too. I would ask the Minister not to bring in people from other places if he can get sufficient local labour, and to give preference to local labour. The next item I wish to raise is also in connection with a question which I put to the Minister. On the 7th March, 1944, I asked—

To this the Minister replied—

He said that Dr. R. R. Lane Forsyth had been recommended by the Sick Fund Board and then I asked—

To this the Minister replied—

I should like to know why Dr. Lane Forsyth could not be appointed and why Dr. W. P. Steenkamp was the fortunate individual. I also would like to know why the recommendation of the Sick Fund Board was not given effect to. I understand another man was also recommended by the Sick Fund Board, a well-known surgeon in Cape Town, but his name is not mentioned here. There is yet another matter I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice. I discussed this matter with him personally. It is in regard to the loco shed at Mossel Bay. The loco shed at Mossel Bay has been removed, and I understand that a certain company has applied to be allowed to establish factories there. To my mind there is one company which should be given preference there, because it is there already. May I ask the Minister why that company is now getting land elsewhere. Why cannot the company remain where it is? Why cannot that company be given preference? I was under the impression that the railway people were going to use that land, but they are not. That land is still being used for those purposes. I will also ask the Minister if he can tell us when the loco shed can be removed from there. The Fisheries Company is anxious to make a start there and we should like to know when the Administration is going to clear the ground. There are a few others matters I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice—matters causing a lot of inconvenience—I refer to the sale of monthly or weekly season tickets. I understand one cannot buy a season ticket before the end of the month. You have to buy it on the morning of the first of the month for which it is available. Hon. members will realise that that means that everybody comes on the first of the month to buy his ticket. As a rule one has a long queue of people and the result is that many of those people cannot get their season tickets. I wonder if the Minister could not make some other arrangements in that regard. There is yet another question I should like to ask. I should like the Minister to make a statement about the bedding stewards on the trains. There is an impression among people, there is a feeling that alarms many, that everything is not as it should be with the bedding.

The hon. member must discuss that under another heading.

I don’t want to delay the House very long at this late stage, but I have been asked by my constituents to bring up this point for consideration by the Minister. First of all, on behalf of my constituents, I wish to express my sincere thanks to the Administration for the very many improvements they have brought about on the Cape Flats line. If there is one complaint we have to make it is this, that the Railways, apparently without considering the wishes of the people resident in Pinelands, have decided to operate a shuttle service between Pinelands and Langa, with the result that many hundreds of natives get out of the train at Pinelands, and hang about the station, or take a short cut through Pinelands, with the result that we have many hundreds walking through the township every day, and this is a source of alarm to certain people whose husbands are away on active service. I don’t know why Pinelands was selected, since there are other points which might have been used, such as Ndabeni or Maitland, but seeing that the service has been started, residents have asked me to suggest that it might be possible for the Railways to run all-native trains, express through Pinelands, which will, at any rate, ameliorate the position as far as natives wandering through Pinelands is concerned. I also want to ask the Minister to bear in mind the probability of the establishment of a native reception depot at Langa. If that depot is established, it will mean that about 20,000 natives will be going into Cape Town daily. At present there is only a single track line serving Langa, and the Railways obviously will not be able to cater for all that traffic unless they double the line as soon as possible. Then again, I notice in the Brown Book that provision for improved stations at Crawford and Lansdowne is made. These amounts have been standing in the Brown Book for a good many years.

If the hon. member wishes to refer to any capital or betterment work, he should bring up the matter when the Estimates for Capital and Betterment Works are before the Committee.

I only want to ask the Minister to bear in mind that these particular places might be included in next year’s estimates.

May I reply to the Minister on the subject of promotion. This question was raised earlier this session and from the Minister’s reply I must conclude that the debate we had here before has had results. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is not only among members of the higher grades, but also among the lower grades that there is a sense of grievance. Only recently two posts in the Cape Area were raised from Grade II to Grade I, but within a few months these posts were reduced to Grade II again. Surely the Administration must have had good reason for raising the posts in the first place. Why then were they reduced again afterwards? Surely the Administration should not have raised the posts if they knew beforehand that it was inadvisable to do so. These are matters which the staff feel aggrieved about, and deeply so. The Minister tells us that he is not anti-Afrikaans. We should like to accept his word for it. But take the promotions which have been made since the 1st January. 125 promotions have been made in senior official posts, and of those 100 are English-speaking and 25 Afrikaans-speaking. Now let me refer to the more senior posts in the Department. Of the 50 more senior posts 37 are occupied by English-speaking officials and 13 by Afrikaans-speaking officials. Surely the Minister is not going to tell us that the English-speaking officials in the service are so much better than the Afrikaans-speaking. The overwhelming majority of the staff is Afrikaans-speaking. They have carried the Railways over the bad times now behind us, but when it comes to promotion the English-speaking officials are promoted and the Afrikaans-speaking officials have to look on. The Minister talks so nicely and so sweetly that one is inclined to believe him when he says that he is not anti-Afrikaans, but when it comes to actual promotion one finds that by far the majority of the senior posts are occupied by English-speaking officials. The General Manager in his annual report states that 80 per cent. of the senior posts are occupied by English-speaking officials. It may perhaps be said that they have inherited that position from the past and that things will now go better. Early last month, however, the Minister in reply to a question stated that in regard to 125 promotions, 100 English speaking and 25 Afrikaans-speaking officials had been promoted. We want to know when that sort of thing is going to stop. The Minister must not imagine that these things do not create grievances. Let me tell him that not only do the staff feel aggrieved but they feel very bitter about it, and that not only applies to the staff in the lower ranks, but also to the staff in the higher ranks; the Afrikaans-speaking officials are embittered. They can only approach us with their complaints. The Minister may say that they can go to the Service Commission. Let me tell him that he did not do any kindness to the Service Commission when he appointed the Chief Assistant staff of the General Manager as a member of that Commission. The Commission, in our opinion, has now become nothing but the General Manager’s rubber stamp. He is the Service Commission and the General Manager as well. The Minister stated that in his office in Pretoria he had to have a man possessing special qualifications and special ability. That is why he dropped down from £1,200 to £840 to get a man there. I agree that you need a good man there, who can give him information when he needs it, even when his General Manager shows a tendency towards kicking over the traces. He went and got this man from a lower grade and appointed him to a senior post. But now that he has got that special man with his high qualifications, I hope he will leave him there until the other people over whose head he has been promoted have caught up with him again. Otherwise we shall be led to believe that this man has only been promoted for certain purposes and that his promotion has been unfair and unjust over the heads of all these other people. If he has secured a special man with special qualifications, we don’t want to comment. That is a matter for the Minister to judge. But let the Minister keep him there until the others catch up to him again. What is more, if the General Manager or the Minister require a man with such qualifications, and they have too many people submitted to them, there is machinery in the service which is fairly extensively used, and the object of that machinery is to give a man personal promotion, but to keep his seniority at a certain level so that no injustice is done to others. Next year we shall meet here again, and we shall then ask the Minister these same questions again, and we shall then judge him not by what he says, but by his deeds, and we shall see how he has treated the Afrikaners in the year now ahead of us. We do not only want to talk about promotions in the service, but also about the spirit of extravagance which is displayed in the service, we want to talk about the fact that numerous senior posts are being created and that so many people are being promoted. It is alarming us. More money is being spent on senior officials, on the improvement of their posts, and the creation of new posts than the service can stand. We want to warn the Minister in a friendly manner, and we want to tell him that he has gone as far as he possibly can go. We feel that the service cannot stand any more senior posts than it has today. If further funds are to be spent, the lower ranks must be considered. Another question which we want to bring to the Minister’s notice is that of the number of officials who are acting in senior posts in a casual capacity. It is a most unsound state of affairs. The Minister can start with the General Manager. There we have the Deputy General Manager who is acting in a casual capacity, and then one comes lower down—I have a long list here of nearly 100 senior officials who are acting in a casual capacity. Some of them are drawing more than £1,000 per year in a casual capacity. They are occupying controlling positions, positions in which they exercise authority over the staff under them, positions with disciplinary powers in which they can punish people on the permanent staff. Those people themselves cannot be touched because they are there in a casual capacity and they are not subject to the disciplinary regulations, but those people, none the less, can punish the staff. It is an unsound condition. Has not the Minister any people in the service who can act in such posts? He has a staff of 80,000. Has he no people who can act?

You had better be careful—when you become Minister of Railways you can practise what you preach.

Without being Minister of Railways I should like to carry out everything I am pleading for now. I want to tell the Minister that that also is a source of grievance among the staff. The man who has to carry the job at some future time feels aggrieved at not having the opportunity of being given an active appointment. Why are people from outside appointed— people who are on pension, who have left the service, why are they appointed in a casual capacity and why are they put into positions of control?

The Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Justice have promised an investigation into wages and salaries of the Public Service and Police Departments, and I feel I shall be failing in my duty if I do not submit a very strong appeal for the railwaymen in South Africa. We have too many poor people in a country like South Africa where there should be no poor people at all. It is all very well for a man who wants to buy his wife a nice new dress to write out a cheque for it, but what about the poor man?

Why cannot he do the same? As far as the railways are concerned, no matter what the Opposition may have said, and will still stay, there is no gainsaying the fact that the Minister has definitely improved the railwaymen’s position during his period of administration, and the relationship between the present Minister and the employees on the railways is a very cordial and a very good one. I hope, Sir, that he will continue to maintain those good relations which exist at the moment. I remember a day, not very long ago, when there was a talk of a strike on the railways, not under the present Minister but one of his predecessors, but now the relationship is different, and I hope the present position will continue and that the Minister will improve the position of the workers, espec ally the lower paid section from top to bottom. Mr. Chairman, I have the hours of work and scales of pay, but I don’t wish to bore the House by giving hon. members that information. The Minister and his men sitting in the bay know them possibly better than I do, but I think the Minister will agree that the present scales of pay are inadequate. There is one thing about the Government service, municipalities and private enterprise, and that is that once they are prepared to pay high wages and salaries, for administrative positions, they are not prepared to pay the lower grades wages in proportion. The wages paid to unskilled workers, to artisans, and certain sections of administrative workers are out of proportion to the scales in the higher branches, and those scales should be brought up gradually, Sir. My appeal tonight is to bring up the wages of these men doing the hard manual labour on the railways. These people want a substantial increase. They would be better off if they were employed by the various local authorities, and the hon. Minister knows it. The Minister of the Interior has said already that he will appoint a commission to go into the wages and salary scales of civil servants, and the Minister of Justice has followed suit. He has promised to investigate the wages of the police force. I appeal to the Minister of Railways also to start an investigation into the conditions and hours of work of the men on the railways. In other words, Sir, whilst these other two investigations are taking place, this third investigation should become part of the social security scheme of which we have heard so much. I am sure the Minister of Railways will not be found lacking and will follow suit. Admittedly, we have the cost of living allowance, but that does not relieve the burden on the wives of railwaymen, who are the prey of commercial sharks who are using this war as a means of making money. They look upon it as a good thing. Railwaymen are still the prey of these sharks, and my submission is that the wages they get today bear no relation whatever to the cost of living. The index figures we see in the papers are not a true reflection of the increase in the cost of living. I hope the Government will shortly take some steps against these sharks—I am not referring to commerce generally, it is only a few who are making use of the war, and I hope the Government will do something, conscript them and make them work for the common good. Conscript them, make them realise what patriotism means. Touch them in their pockets. I make an appeal on behalf of those men living in the outposts on the Karoo who have nothing of pleasure in their lives, but just have to work and work. Enable them to enjoy some little pleasure. There was a promise made by the Minister’s predecessor, a promise which he could not carry out, but I hope the present Minister will be able to carry it out, and that is the question of leave. The men have to take their leave irrespective of the time when they wish to go on leave.

I regret to inform the hon. member that that does not fall under this sub-head. It would be appropriate if the hon. member brought it up under Item 4.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the hon. member for the remarks he has just made, and to assure him that as far as I am concerned, the interests of the lower paid worker will always have my personal consideration. I have realised from the start that there is a lot of leeway to make up there, and that within the limits of my capacity I have done my best to help them along in the right direction. The suggestion that I should follow the example of my colleagues of the Public Service and the Police is an interesting one, but I rather fancy that they are really only following my example. I took the lead in improving the conditions of my workers, but once more let me say that in this Hours of Duty Commission’s Report the conditions prevailing in respect of pay and hours have been reviewed amongst all sections of the staff. I was sorry I sat down without replying to some remarks of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). He raised the question of Indians on trains, and I would like to make the position quite clear. As the House knows, this question of the segregation of railway passengers is one that has always been a very difficult one. There are a few Indians in South Africa, I think the numbers vary from about 10 to 12, who are recognised as getting special privileges on the Railways. In the past, when we had one sitting, or two sittings, it was usual to allow these passengers to come into the dining saloon for the third or second sitting as the case might be, but unfortunately today we are having four, and even five sittings, and it is quite impossible to have a sitting after these, and therefore if there are any of these special Indians who have been given this privilege, they are allowed to occupy a separate table in the dining saloon at the last sitting, provided there is room, and there usually is. I think that is a very reasonable arrangement and I don’t think anyone could take exception to it. It only involves ten or twelve people in the whole country. It is a practicable, fair and reasonable way of meeting a difficult question. It has been applied on one or two occasions recently owing to Indian officers passing through the country who also required special consideration, but that phase is only temporary. I am sure, having regard to the difficulty of the situation hon. members will agree that the tactful handling of that position by the Railways in these circumstances, leaves very little to be desired. In regard to the Cape Flats line, the hon. member (Mr. R. J. du Toit) knows exactly what the position is, because he had a letter not very long ago in which the whole matter was explained. The position remains the same as in that letter. We have appointed, as he knows, one or two extra native policemen in order to try and keep the natives at Pinelands Station in order. If the situation is worsening in any way I shall be only too glad to have it looked into again. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) was out when I replied on the last occasion. I would take this opportunity first of all for thanking him for his remarks, and also explaining to him that as far as these changes that we contemplate making as a result of the Hours of Duty Commission’s Report, will apply to non-Europeans as well as Europeans, and there will be no differentiation on the score of colour. The hon. member knows well enough what we have done for the non-Europeans at the beginning of the war and I need not quote the figures to him again. I would like to explain to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that I have not the final figures for the Cavalcade, but I will undertake to give him a letter with the final figures. In regard to other matters affecting Mossel Bay, I want to say that it is my hope—a hope which is getting fainter as the days pass—that I shall be able to visit Mossel Bay. Whether I shall get there will depend on when I get away. I am afraid that there is a possibility that I may not be able to get there after all. It will all depend on when the session finishes. But when I get there I shall go into the question with my advisers. As to the question of season tickets, it is possible for season ticket holders to get their tickets the day before if they wish it. It would not be easy to arrange for them to get it a week before. For financial reasons very few ticket holders would find it convenient to get their tickets a week before the end of the month. In practice it is essential that the month should be clearly stamped on the tickets. To have these monthly tickets on a different basis as was suggested would not be advisable. It is essential that the date and the month can be easily checked. We do provide special windows for the issue of season tickets, and where there is undue congestion I shall do my best to have the matter dealt with if instances are brought to my notice.

Somerset West and the Strand.

Well, I shall look into that and see what can be done.

I am sorry the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) is not in his seat because I want to correct him. It seems to me that it is the policy of every new member when he comes here to make representations asking for cheap excursion or cheap railway fares. I well remember the time when I made a similar speech, when the seating of the House was the other way about. I then made a plea for excursion fares for mineworkers and used the same arguments as the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) did today, but I want to say this. He referred to the ex-Minister of Railways and said that he had not kept his promise. Well I like to give credit where credit is due. The Minister of Railways in those days—largely as a result of the request of the hon. member for Langlaagte brought in a scheme under which five persons could travel under excursion rates. He introduced a system under which the children of charitable institutions could have cheap fares. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) made two statements in respect of the ex-Minister which were not quite correct, and as I want to give credit where credit was due I felt I must put the matter right. If it is possible to appeal to the Minister again—I have done so on many occasions—I would ask him to provide for the mineworkers or miners to be able to get cheap holiday fares when their holidays fall due.

We have listened attentively to the Minister’s remarks and we are interested to learn that it is his intention to consider the lower paid members of the staff for improvements in their salary scales. During the previous debate I drew his attention to the large number of vacancies in the Service. Take the rank of stationmaster. A short while ago there were 286 vacancies there and some of them had been there for more than a year. Surely there can be no excuse for vacancies which are left unfilled for such a long time. There must be something wrong somewhere. The Minister wrote to me and told me that the educational position of the staff had to be considered.

One always gets some reason or another, but I know that every one of the reasons he mentions was trivial. You cannot keep open a large number of posts for a whole year for trivial reasons of that kind. Now that takes me to the point that the machinery of the General Manager’s office operates unduly slowly. We recently had evidence of it in connection with the Report of the Hours of Service Commission. People affected have to bear the burden. Last night I was speaking to a stationmaster who for four years has been working twelve hours per day, without a day’s leave. How can a man’s health stand it? The office of the General Manager has the Commission’s report and is not getting on with it. Cannot the Minister force the General Manager to get a move on? The present General Manager has more assistance, props, and helps than any other General Manager in the history of the Railways has ever had, and it seems to me that because of that he is progressing very slowly. Not only are those people slow in making appointments, but one man I am acquainted with was appointed last September and up to this date he has not yet been confirmed in his position. This is June, and his appointment has not yet been confirmed. Cannot someone move a little more quickly in the General Manager’s office? If the trains were to run the way the General Manager’s office is run, no train would run to time. If there is one section of the administrative machinery which has collapsed it is the General Manager’s office. I attribute it to poor management and poor leadership. That applies not only to this question of hours of service, but there is also the question of disciplinary appeal cases being disposed of. I brought one case to the Minister’s notice—the case of a man who has been suspended for five months and who was only dismissed from the service after that. Is it fair to keep a man under suspension for five months and then to discharge him from the service? Surely it is inhuman. Now there is another question I wish to refer to. The Minister told me the other day that 806 unilingual people have been appointed to the Service. These people were appointed and promoted and put in acting positions in a higher grade. The Minister stated that 57 of these people were Afrikaans-speaking and 749 were English-speaking. I asked him to give me the names of the Afrikaans-speaking people who were unilingual. I have now got the names. Out of the 57 only two were promoted, or rather out of 59, two were Afrikaans-speaking and 57 were English-speaking. I asked for the names of the two Afrikaans-speaking men who had been promoted and the Minister gave me the name of H. M. Herbst, Grade I. I am prepared to give a guarantee that Mr. Herbst does not know Afrikaans only, and I challenge the Minister to state in this House that Mr. Herbst is a unilingual man and knows only Afrikaans. The second man is S. Z. van den Berg. He is a Senior Stores Officer, Grade II. I challenge the Minister to tell us that Mr. Van den Berg is unilingual and speaks only Afrikaans. There is no such thing in the Service as a unilingual official who speaks only Afrikaans. So this number of people who have been promoted consists entirely of unilingual English-speaking men. Then I come to appointments to acting grades. There the Minister said that there were 55 Afrikaans-speaking out of a casual staff of 739 unilingual men. I have their names here. Just let me go through their names in the way I did with the others, and here too I want to give the Minister the opportunity of telling us that those people know only Afrikaans.

How many are there?

There are 55 out of 739. I am prepared to check the names with the Minister or with one of the officals of his Department. I know practically all these people. They are all bilingual. There are 15 men and 40 women; all the men are former clerks and they are employed in a casual capacity. They are all bilingual. Now we are told that they are unilingual Afrikaans-speaking to give the impression that unilingual Afrikaans people are appointed in exactly the same way as unilingual English people. We deny that that is so. Our contention is that no man, no Afrikaans-speaking man, who only knows one language has been appointed in the Railway Service, and I am prepared to prove that not one of these Afrikaans-speaking people knows only Afrikaans. There are 40 women clerks here. I am prepared to prove that not a single one who is Afrikaans-speaking is unilingual. The Minister cannot show us a single member of the staff of the Railway Administration who knows only Afrikaans; but he has appointed 800 people who know only one language.

It is a disgrace.

Our contention is that it is high time the appointment of unilingual officials should stop. This is 34 years after Union, and there is no necessity whatsoever to appoint unilingual people, and we want the Minister to give this matter his serious attention—we want him to instruct the General Manager and the staff to see to it that henceforth no unilingual people are appointed. And if he does not do so, we shall tackle him again next year on the same subject.

We shall kick him out.

There is another question I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice and that is the subject of long-service promotion. The present method of long-service increases has a detrimental effect on the people who have to get those increases. An official can only get a long-service increase if he has a clean sheet over a long period of years. But now a man has served a number of years and he becomes entitled to his long-service increment. A long-service increment in certain cases is only 6d. per day, and in other grades it is 1s. per day. Often if a man has to get his long-service increment he is transferred from Cape Town to Durban or from Johannesburg to Port Elizabeth, for instance. A man who has had so many years’ service, who has a clean sheet and who has become established in a community usually has his own home. Now he is expected for the sake of an increase of 1s. or perhaps 6d. per day, to take transfer to another place. [Time limit.]

There is one point of a general nature, but of particular interest, which I wish to deal with very briefly. I say briefly, because I hope we are all going to co-operate to conclude this discussion as soon as possible, so that we can go home tomorrow. I want to say a few words about the transport of eggs over the railways. I have received letters from various farmers in my district in which they complain bitterly about the position. The eggs from Pietersburg partly go to Pretoria and partly to Johannesburg, but the position is this, that 10 per cent. of the eggs which are sent from Pietersburg to the Pretoria market are broken on the railways. I know the fault does not rest with Pietersburg. I have taken a lot of trouble in going into the position, and I have actually inspected the conditions on the station, but there is no trouble in regard to the loading at Pietersburg. The farmers after they have sent away their eggs, receive a letter from Pretoria in which they are told that 10 per cent. of their eggs were broken, and if a claim is made they invariably get the same reply. It looks like a circular letter from the office of the System Manager, because I have half a dozen of these here, and they are all identical—

That is the letter which is always sent. Now I want to know how a farmer can prove deliberate misconduct or neglect on the part of a railway servant. The farmer delivers his eggs at the station and 10 per cent. are broken. I have a strong suspicion that the railways do not really care, because the Market Master says that it is a daily happening for them to have trouble in connection with broken eggs and when claims are made the answers are always the same. I have just quoted the reply these people get. The Market Master also in forms me that agents have actually written to the System Manager, but even there they have not received any satisfaction. Eggs today are no longer 1s. per dozen, but they are 3s. and 4s. and thousands of pounds are lost in that way, and I therefore hope the Minister will give instructions that eggs are handled more carefully—after all, the egg boxes are properly marked. I am glad the Minister has promised to visit the Northern Transvaal, and I hope the General Manager will accompany him. If they do visit us we shall show them a lot of things. One thing we shall be able to show—and it is something which I think the Minister should encourage—and that is the nice gardens attached to the stations. Pietersburg this year won the cup awarded by the late Sir Patrick Duncan for the best garden attached to any station in the Union. The Station Master paid a lot of attention to it and we are grateful for what he has done, and I hope this idea will be extended. The decoration of a station with a flower garden should be encouraged.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) speak in connection with the decoration of stations and flower gardens; but I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position at the Kuils River station. I have repeatedly tried to interest the Railway Administration in the condition of that station. The railway building is a galvanised iron building and it is open at the bottom. There is a wooden floor, but the air comes through from the bottom, and the people are exposed to bitter cold. The platform is so narrow that it is not safe for the people. Then the sanitary conveniences are of such a nature that it is impossible for Europeans to make use of them. These places are separated by a few yards only and the position is scandalous. The travelling public of Kuils River feels that the position is extremely unsatisfactory. The passenger traffic is not very big, but many cattle which are consigned to the local auctioneers are unloaded there. I think the System Manager also feels that the position is unsatisfactory. He promised to investigate the matter, but we cannot get any undertaking that something will be done while the war lasts. That is only one station; there are others as well. It is all very fine to speak of the decoration of stations; but this particular station endangers the lives of the people; and especially when it rains, as it did during the past few days, it is extremely slippery and quite unsafe. A promise was made, but nothing is being done. I hope that attention will now be given not only to Kuils River but also to other stations within fifteen miles of Cape Town, some of which are in a terrible condition.

The very station master who brought about these fine improvements at Pietersburg and who rendered such good service, was overlooked time and again when promotions were made. Although he is a capable official and has rendered good services, it does not help him at all; time and again he has been wronged, and he is passed by other officials who are less capable. That is what makes the efficient officials feel so aggrieved. I want to come back to the question of the long service increment. I have one case here of a man who had to work 620 days last year. You can work out how much overtime he had to work. When he became eligible for a long service increment, he was asked to go to Durban for the sake of an increment of 1s. Hon. members will realise that if he accepts a transfer for the sake of an increment of 1s., he may be in a worse position than if he stayed and refused the increment. I want to suggest that a man who is entitled to a long service increment should not have to wait longer than three years; thereafter he should automatically get the long-service increment, that is, if he did not get it in the meantime. That would be fair towards the Administration and the staff. Then I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of the wages which are being paid to the catering staff. If there is one section of the staff which is underpaid and poorly treated, it is the catering staff. Last year the catering service showed a profit of more than £250,000. I welcome the profit which was made, but attention should be given to the staff. Then I want to raise another matter, a matter of policy, and in that connection I want to issue a warning in good time. I refer to the policy to replace Europeans by non-Europeans. That is a policy which is being applied more and more in the service. Europeans are available, and we should like careful attention to be given to this question. The next point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, also relates to non-Europeans. I asked whether non-Europeans were allowed in the dining saloon, and the Minister’s reply was in the negative. But I personally have been in dining saloons where non-Europeans were allowed to have their meals in the saloon, and not at the second or third sitting, but at the first sitting. I immediately spoke to he chief steward, and he informed me that he had been instructed that these people should be served at the first sitting. They were not at all well clothed; they were two Chinamen. They walked right through the dining saloon—at the first sitting. The information which the Minister gave is therefore not correct. I am prepared to prove that these Chinese travelled first class in the European section of the passenger train, and that they were served together with Europeans in the dining saloon at the first sitting.

The hon. member should discuss that under Head No. 9.

Another matter of general policy is that of the accommodation of non-Europeans in the European section of passenger trains. I here have an instruction which was issued to the staff, and which reads that henceforth “commissioned officers in uniform must be accommodated in the European portion of passenger trains, irrespective of colour.” I want ot asy that this is a matter to which we take the strongest exception and to which the travelling public objects. This is a standing instruction, and we do not know what the effect of it will be. We feel that it is the thin end of the wedge. Today it is not only the Agent-General of the Indian Government with his personal staff, but also warrant officers in uniform and Chinese, and tomorrow it will be the better-class coolies in the country and the better-class non-Europeans, and then we shall have mixed travelling throughout South Africa. We protest against this most strongly.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 2.—“Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works,” £4,887,158,

I shall be very brief. Can the Minister tell us what his plans are in connection with the station at De Aar? It is one of the most dreary stations on the whole line, it is a junction where people have to change trains and wait over. The other day I had to wait over on a bitterly cold day—it was snowing. It is a squalid dreary place, and people sometimes have to wait over for hours for the train connection to South West Africa. I want to ask the Minister to reduce the period of waiting. Cannot coaches be hooked on from Cape Town which will go through to Upington and South West Africa, so that the people will not be required to change at De Aar? The people say that promises have been made for years and years, but that there are no facilities for the people who travel to the North-West. I hope the Minister, since the station is in such a condition, will see his way clear to make available through coaches from Cape Town to Upington and South West Africa; just as we have through coaches today from Cape Town to East London.

There are a few minor matters which I want to raise here. The first is the condition of the station at Stellenbosch. There is not enough accommodation for the members of the public and the students to park their bicycles. The waiting room where the bicycles have to stand is so small that they sometimes have to be parked in the street, with the result that the bicycles are damaged and sometimes stolen. The students consequently suffer a great deal of damage, and we shall be glad if an improvement can be brought about. The goods office is in the station building.

I think the hon. member should raise this matter under “Improvement Works.”

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.—“Maintenance of Rolling Stock,” £5,551,123,

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the passenger coach which is left in the evening at platform No. 2 or No. 3 to allow the people to sleep in it. Those coaches are left in such a condition that the people who have to clean them, hardly want to enter them. The surroundings are equally bad. I discussed this matter with the station police. They are doing their best, but drunken people often sleep in the coach, and the place is dirtied. I refer to the coach which goes to Simonstown. I wonder whether the Minister cannot make some other arrangement, if it is necessary for people to sleep at the station. I am convinced that the Minister would not meet any other class of person in this way. I notice that the Minister is making an effort to protect members of the public, who make use of the station, when they go to the station at night, by putting up a crossbar. But if the Minister goes to the station in the evening between 5 o’clock and 8 o’clock, he will see that the lowest crowd of people to be found anywhere in the Union, and who do not go there to make use of the train service, congregate at the station to the inconvenience of the passengers. He should try to make some other arrangement.

In connection with the question of rolling material, I want to ask the Minister to make representations to the other territories which also have railways in Africa, to obtain their own rolling material in order to meet their needs. I am informed that there was one occasion when more than 3,000 trucks of our Railways were on the railways of other companies outside the Union. Not only were there 3,000 of our trucks on their railways, but after taking into account the number of their trucks on our railways, there was a balance of 3,000 of our trucks on their railways. We prejudice our own people in order to benefit the people in Rhodesia especially. On various occasions there have been more than 2,000 trucks, or a balance of 2,000 trucks, in favour of Rhodesia. It is no wonder that our own people cannot get trucks. The time has arrived when our Administration should look after the interests of our own people and leave it to other administrations to look after the interests of their people. I am given to understand that this question is related to the reduced tariff to the North, and we have no objection to that. The Minister stated in his reply the other dav that he was intent on obtaining business in those areas. We agree with that. But are we going to get that business? Is it a permanent or is it a temporary measure which we are using of necessity? If it is not a permanent improvement, why should our people be prejudiced to benefit other people? I feel that the time has arrived when we should first put our own house in order. Our own people should come first.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to explain in regard to our trade with neighbouring territories, that they require a number of our rolling stock and trucks, and that we try to keep a reasonable balance between ourselves and the territories. I also think the period referred to by the hon. member was rather an exceptional one, and whilst they have a number of our rolling stock and trucks, we have also got a number of theirs, as usual. The question raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in regard to the improper use of our rolling stock at Cape Town, will be looked into. I will direct the attention of the railway police to the allegations made by the hon. member. In regard to De Aar station, raised by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) I should like to say that although the hon. member may not be aware of it, the Administration has extensive plans in regard to that station, and it is proposed to spend a sum of £350,000 there in the course of the next few years.

When will you make a start?

As soon as conditions permit. We intend making a start right away. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think there is an amount in the Brown Book in respect of the De Aar station.

Will you allow the through coaches to run?

I will go into that aspect of the matter. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member an answer without making enquiries first.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 4.—“Running Expenses,” £8,194,273,

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? I want to raise a matter under items 287 and 292, namely, electricity supply and the purchase of water at the Hutchinson station. During the course of this Session I put questions in connection with both these matters, namely, the purchase of water and the supply of electricity. In connection with both these matters I want to raise the question as to whether these contracts were necessary, and if they were necessary whether they were advantageous to the Government. The second is the question of the identity of the person with whom these contracts were entered into. I want to deal, first of all, with the question of the water. On the 21st March I put the following question to the Minister—

1. (1) From which persons or companies does the Administration obtain its water supply at Hutchinson;
2. (2) at what annual rate is each paid for such water; and
3. (3) what is the total amount which has already been paid to each.

The Minister replied to the first question—

The water was bought from them. In reply to the second question he gave me a whole series of figures from which it appears that an amount of £2,773 per annum was paid for the water in 1938, and that the amount was increased to £4,680 in 1943. That means that during the six years in question, from 1938 to 1943, an amount of £22,000 was paid for water. It will be seen that there is a systematic increase. The amount was increased every year. Between 1938 and 1943 the amount was increased by 1,907, or nearly £2,000. It it £93 short of £2,000. It will be seen that it is stated in the reply that the water is being bought from the South African Association in Cape Town, which is a well-known local trust company, and it probably seemed remarkable to hon. members that the Railways at Hutchinson were buying water from the South African Association. I then put a second question in order to find out from whom the water was really being bought, or who really provided the water, and who the owners of the farms were from which the water was being obtained. The reply to these questions sets out the names of the farms, as well as the fact that they belong to Senator A. M. Conroy, and figures are then given in respect of the increased consumption of water. That is the information which I got in reply to the second question. The question arises at once whether the increase from £2,773 in 1938 to £4,680 in 1943 was justified or not. In his reply to my question the Minister stated that the reason for the increase was, in the first place, the increased consumption of water. The original contract makes provision for 150,000 gallons per day, while the average consumption in 1943 was approximately 183,000 gallons per day. The second reason which was given was the increased production costs. It is interesting to go into these figures. We notice that while the price of the water increased by a little more than 40 per cent. during the six years in question, the consumption of water increased by 22 per cent. It is necessary to note that. The price was increased by 40 per cent. and the consumption increased by 22 per cent. Then we come to the cost of production which was mentioned as a further reason for the increased price. It is difficult to say what the increase is, but we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he satisfied himself that the supplier incurred additional production costs to justify the increased price. The second question is whether the contract is justified. My information is that there are other boreholes at Hutchinson, apart from the boreholes on the land of which the Minister of Lands is the owner. My information is that there are a few other boreholes; that two of these boreholes are provided with engines; that two or three of these boreholes have sufficent water and were used in the past when the pump on the property of the Minister of Lands was out of order. Then we have the position that the Administration has its own supply of water at Hutchinson and my information is—the Minister can tell me whether my information is wrong— that there is an adequate supply of water in the boreholes and in the pumps which the Minister and the Administration have at Hutchinson. I believe there are five boreholes. I am speaking subject to correction, but in view of the fact that there is water on the Administration’s own lands, I want to ask, in the first place, whether such a contract involving such a huge sum of money, was justified; and, in the second place, if the Minister’s information was that the water on the Administration’s own land was not sufficient, whether in the circumstances it was necessary for him to take that additional supply which cost nearly £2,000, in view of the fact that he has his own boreholes on Administration property; because that is the reason which is given, namely, that there was an increased consumption of water—as I indicated, an increase of 22 per cent. What are the Minister’s plans in the future? Are we going to pay £4,680 for water every year, at a station where the Minister has an adequate supply of water on Administration lands? Now I come to the second point, and that is a very important question, in my opinion, namely, the identity of the person who supplies the water. I said that according to the reply which I got to the second question, it appeared that the water came from the present Minister of Lands. I take it for granted that the Minister of Railways, or at any rate his department, knew on whose land the water was at the time I put the first question. Here we are dealing with a contract which was ceded by the hon. Minister of Lands to the South African Association. In the first place, this contract was with the Imperial Cold Storage Company, which later ceded the agreement to Senator Conroy, who, in turn, ceded it to the South African Association some years later. I should like to know, therefore, why, in the first place, the Minister did not furnish that information, and why it was necessary for me to put a further question. But now this further question arises. The Minister apparently adopts the attitude that he is dealing with the South African Association. What were the real circumstances in connection with the cession of this contract by the Minister of Lands to the South African Association? I think we can take it for granted that the Minister of Lands, as a businessman, would not have handed over that valuable contract to the S.A. Association as a gift. I think we can take it for granted that there was a consideration. If there was no consideration for it, the alternative is that we are dealing here with what may be called a sort of camouflage. But let us take it for granted that we are dealing here with a consideration, that there was a consideration. In both cases—and that is the important point—the Minister of Lands gets a certain benefit; he gets the full benefit because if there was a consideration, I take it that he ceded that contract to the S.A. Association for some reason or oher. I was a little doubtful as to what had happened, but fortunately we got very valuable information from a leading article in “Die Suiderstem.” I think it is generally known that the Minister of Lands has a great interest in “Die Suiderstem.” I do not know whether he is on the directorate. If he is on the directorate it raises another matter, namely, the question as to whether it is proper for Ministers of the Crown to be on the directorate of a business concern. We know that he has an interest in “Die Suiderstem.” We also know that it is very clear from the contents of this article that the Minister of Lands had in the meantime discussed this matter with “Die Suiderstem.” I think it is a question of direct information to “Die Suiderstem.” What does “Die Suiderstem” say? In its leading article it states, inter alia—[Translation]—

I think we can take it for granted that any farmer who sells his water, must of course take into account the fact that he cannot use that water for his own lands. And what the question of the burning down of the machinery and the trifling insurance has to do with the matter, I cannot understand, because if one enters into a contract with people and their business burns down it is a matter between them and their insurance company. And according to this statement the Minister of Lands is to get a higher sum from the Department of Railways, because his machinery was not insured for a sufficiently high sum, which is ridiculous of course. “Die Suiderstem” goes on to say—[Translation]—

Here we have this evidence—let me read it again—

It is very clear that the Minister of Lands does get a consideration, because it is a question of the cession of his contract to the South African Association, and according to the statement of his own newspaper, they spend his money according to the instructions which he gives them. There is no longer any question, therefore, as to what the actual position is. I want to put this question to the Minister of Railways. In view of this information, does he realise in what a difficult position he is placing his colleague by entering into such a contract? I wonder whether he realises it. May I point out to the Minister that it is an unwritten law not only in England but also in South Africa—and our system is based on that of the House of Commons in London—that a Minister of the Crown should not derive any benefit from the position which he occupies. We have the question of directorship, for example. The Minister knows what happened in connection with the Marconi scandal. The Minister himself resigned his directorship when he became Minister of Railways. It is quite correct; but not only must a Minister of the Crown derive no benefit from his position, but it is an unwritten law that a Minister of the Crown should not transact any business with the Government of which he is a member. May I refer the Minister of Railways, who placed his colleague in such a difficult position, to the position as set out in the latest book “Cabinet Government” by Jennings which was recently written, and where he refers to what the Prime Minister laid down in the Marconi debate. He writes—

In the second place—

Then the writer goes on to say—this is what he calls the “rules of obligation”—

It will be seen, therefore, that not only is the proposition laid down here that Ministers of the Crown should not enter into business contracts with the Government, but there must not even be a suggestion that he might in such transactions put his own interests before those of the State. I just want to refer to a further statement which was made by Lord Palmerston in a letter to Mr. Gladstone. He said—

These are very important and weighty words. It is an unwritten law in England, and I think we can take it for granted that it is an unwritten law in South Africa. In South Africa we go even further. I want to quote a passage from “Municipal Law”—not that I want to suggest that one should compare this House with a city council—but to indicate how strong the feeling is in South Africa in regard to the necessity that any one who serves on a public body should not mix his private interests with those of the body concerned; and we find this in the Municipal Ordinance of the Cape—

And this is further confirmed in the case of Scholtz vs. Labuschagne, where the judge said—

The Minister of Lands is in a similar position. He is a member of the Cabinet, and in the last instance, under the principle of joint responsibility, the Cabinet is responsible for what the Minister of Railways does. The idea of collective responsibility is applicable in this case. If a member of the city council, or even his wife, may not do it, it applies with even greater force to a member of the Cabinet in connection with business which he transacts with a Minister who is a member of the same Cabinet. The Minister owes the House an explanation in connection with this contract. Is it an advantageous contract to the Railways? Now we come to the second matter, and that is the supply of electricity. It is remarkable that an arrangement was made with the Minister of Lands not only for the supply of water at Hutchinson station but the Railways also made an arrangement with the Minister of Lands for the supply of electric power. This has a similar history. Again one finds that his contract was ceded to the South African Association and, as “Die Suiderstem” says, the contract was advantageous to the Minister of Lands. It was also entered into in 1935, and in 1936 the Administration paid £212 per annum for its electric power. In 1943 it paid £570 per annum. I want to admit that it is possible that in the meantime there was an increase in the number of houses which have to be supplied with electricity. But the total amount which has been received by the Minister of Lands since 1935 for the provision of electric power is £3,634, and possibly a further £1,200, a total, therefore, on the basis of the quantity provided during the past few months, of £4,834. What is the price per unit? The Imperial Cold Storage was paid 7d. to 7½d. In 1927 it was increased to 10d. In 1938 it was reduced to 8½d. and in 1943 it was again increased to 10d. per unit. The very same question arises in this case. I do not want to repeat that portion of my speech, but everything I said in connection with the supply of water is also applicable to the supply of electricity. The question is whether this contract is advantageous to the Administration. At Beaufort West the Railways have a contract with the town council for the supply of electricity, and in 1938 they paid 33¾d. per unit. Today it is 3d. per unit. It has come down; it has not been increased; and then they pay 1⅓d. for everything exceeding 5,000 units. I want to be reasonable in this case too. Where electricity is brought from the Victoria Falls Company on a large scale, I believe the price is cheaper, but Beaufort West is an ordinary Karoo town, and if Beaufort West can supply electricity at that price, 10d. per unit at Hutchinson seems to be a particularly high price. Then I want to point out that in 1942 the town council—this is not the Railways now—in a place like Klipplaat, for example—I got this information from the Provincial Administration—paid £115 for electricity. The hon. Minister will admit that Klipplaat is more or less the same type of place as Hutchinson, but at Hutchinson the Administration pays £570. Take Gordons Bay, which is a big place, with big hotels and boarding houses. There the town council paid £981 in 1942 for electricity for the whole of Gordons Bay, but at Hutchinson—I doubt whether there are more than 40 or 50 or at the most 60 houses—the Railway Administration paid more than £500 for electricity. The question arises whether it is in the interest of the Administration, apart from the question of the identity of the seller. I took the trouble of making enquiries in Cape Town from the electrical engineers, and I find that in 1938 when this contract was taken over, the cost of putting up a 20 kilowatt machine which would have been sufficient to provide 100 houses with electric light, would have been £1,000. It should be remembered that that is the contract price in which profit is still included. The Railway Administration, with its huge workshops and machinery, would probably have been able to do it more cheaply, and would have been able to put up its own power station at Hutchinson. Well, that is the position. I hope the Minister will make a clear statement. I may say that I informed the Minister of Lands this morning, as a matter of courtesy, that I would raise this question, and I am glad that he is present. I should not have liked to raise it in his absence. I hope the Minister will explain how he justifies the payment of such a huge sum; and, in the second place, how he justifies the purchase of water and electric power from a fellow-member of the Cabinet, in view of the proposition which was laid down by the British Parliament and accepted in South Africa, and in view of the terms of the municipal ordinance.

I think I had better intervene at once in order to give the House a very clear, or rather, a much clearer picture of the actual facts of the situation in respect of this particular contract. I must say that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has done his best with a rather thin case, he has made the most of it, by way of indicating that things are not all that they should be, but apparently the gravamen of the charge is that we take water from a financial company in Hutchinson and also electric light, a company which is really acting for Senator Conroy. Well now let me just explain what the history of the two contracts is, because I think it is important that we should fully understand the whole situation. In 1926 the supply of water for the railways at Hutchinson was given by the Imperial Cold Storage and Supply Co. At that time the price was £135 per month for a daily supply of 90,000 gallons and anything above that was paid for at 1s. per thousand.

Can you tell us what the total was in that year?

These figures start from 1938.

From the 1st March, 1928, when I understand my colleague purchased this farm, that was 11 years before he became a Minister, the above agreement was ceded from the Imperial Cold Storage Co. to Senator Conroy. From 1935 the agreement which we had with Senator Conroy for the supply of water was ceded to the South African Association on the same tariff as before, that is to say 90,000 gallons per day, for £135 per month, plus 1s. per 1,000 gallons for anything extra. In 1938 the new agreement came into effect and is still in operation, one year before Senator Conroy became a Minister and that agreement is still in operation. It provides for the supply of 150,000 gallons per day at 1s. 3d. per thousand gallons, with a minimum monthly payment of £135, that is the same monthly payment guaranteed in the original contract with the Imperial Cold Storage. Owing to rising cost of oil and other equipment owing to the war, it was agreed to increase this 1s. 3d. to 1s. 4d. on the first of August, 1941, and on the 1st July, 1943, this tariff was increased to 1s. 6d. per thousand gallons. Well now you will see that this contract was entered into long before there was any question of my colleague becoming a Minister. It is a contract for the supply of water in a relatively isolated area, where most of the land is in the possession of my colleague. The contract is as old as the Railways itself and I see no reason whatever, other than any suggestion that we are not getting a fair deal, for cancelling this long-standing contract which has been running satisfactorily for all these years. Are we justified in saying that we are not getting a fair deal, a satisfactory deal in respect of the water supply here? If we look at a few other places of similar standing and see what we are paying you can come to your own conclusions about that. We will start at Beaufort West, a very large centre compared with Hutchinson. At Beaufort West we pay 1s. 3d. per thousand gallons as against 1s. 6d. at Hutchinson; at Calvinia we 2s. 6d. per thousand gallons plus 7½ per cent.; at Carnarvon 2s.; Stellenbosch 2s. 3d.; Heidelberg, 1s. 3d. ; Malmesbury 1s. 6d. At Paarl, we only pay 9d.; Porterville 1s.; Robertson 1s. 6d.; Riversdale 1s. 9d.; Somerset West 2s.; Swellendam 1s. 9d.; Wellington 1s. Now if you will add up those figures and take an average you will find that the average of all these stations, some of which are larger and some smaller, is 1s. 6d. per thousand. In the light of that I ask you can we do better than continue this contract with the South African Association? The water which is supplied by private contractors to the Railways varies in a similar way. The exact cost of pumping by the Administration itself is not at the moment available, but it is considered by our engineers that the cost of pumping by the Railways is approximately 1s. to 1s. 3d. per thousand gallons. And remember this, that at Hutchinson the contractor does not merely pump the water but has to deliver it to the railway tanks and supply piping and equipment for that purpose. So much for water. Now we come to electricity. From October, 1920, we had an agreement at Hutchinson with the Imperial Cold Storage for electricity, and the tariff laid down was 7d. to 7½d. per unit according to the quantities taken. From the 15th September, 1927, the tariff was raised to 10d. per unit, and in 1929 the agreement was ceded to Senator Conroy, and in 1935 the agreement was ceded to the South African Association, following the other contract; the two contracts really ran together. From 31st January, 1938, the tariff was reduced to 8½d. per unit and later, as the result of the instalment of light in railway houses, from the 1st July, 1943, the tariff was increased back to 10d. There again if we compare these figures with what we pay elsewhere you get the following: Heidelberg 1s. per unit; Swellendam 1s. 3d. plus 10 per cent.; Carnarvon 10d.; Calvinia 1s.; Klaver 1s. per unit; Prince Albert 1s. 1d.; you see we are getting current at Hutchinson at 10d., and if we made it for ourselves it would cost considerably more than that according to the actual figures we have already, and we pay a good deal more than that at most other places where current has to be produced on a similar basis. I think that in the light of that it will be agreed that first of all there is nothing improper in our having entered into this contract because it was entered into long before either I was Minister, or ever dreamed of being Minister, and long before my colleague probably dreamed of being Minister either, and secondly, that there is no reason why we should change our contract. In regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member, I would almost call it an innuendo, that there was something suspicious about this cession of the contract from the Minister of Lands to the South African Association, I know very little about the facts, but I am given to understand that the facts are simply this, that these people have various financial transactions with the hon. Senator, that they look after his affairs in a financial way and that it is quite natural he should cede this contract to them. I see nothing, with such knowledge as I have, to cause the Minister of Railways to make any change in regard to the satisfactory contract, satisfactory both in respect of the price charged, satisfactory in the genesis of the transaction, and satisfactory in as much as we have never had any trouble in respect of the supply either of current or of water.

I have listened with great interest to the explanation given by the Minister. I notice that the Minister again and again referred to the fact that it was a fair deal that they were receiving from the South African Association, and I think I am not misjudging the Minister when I say he created the impression, or tried to create the impression, that this was an arrangement entered into between himself and the South African Association. The Minister was, however, obliged to admit that he understood this was some form of arrangement between the Minister of Lands and the South African Association, whereby the South African Association performed certain work for the Minister of Lands. In that case one is inclined to put the question why the necessity for the cession? The Minister said that this firm does business for the hon. Senator, they invest his money, and pay out for liabilities which he incurs. But the question arises as to whether this is really the position as represented by the hon. Minister of Railways, whether, as a matter of fact, we have not here to deal with an actual cession of the contract for other reasons.

What has that got to do with this House?

Everything. In other words the hon. Minister of Lands is getting full value, and in that case I cannot see why the Minister in his speech continually referred to the contract which he had with the South African Association. Why does he not openly admit that the contract is with the Minister of Lands? Why drag in the South African Association, when he knows perfectly well that it is not the South African Association that is receiving this consideration, but the Minister of Lands? The Minister was at great pains to explain that he had made a very profitable contract with the Minister of Lands for the supply of water, in spite of the fact that I repeated two or three times that the Railway Administration has its own water supply at Hutchinson. Why, in these circumstances, was it necessary to enter into this contract, a contract which increased from £2,700 in 1938 to £4,680 in 1943? I can appreciate Mr. Chairman, the Minister having entered into a contract at Cape Town or Stellenbosch, places where they necessarily have to get their water from the local municipality, but the position is entirely different at Hutchinson where the Minister has his own water supply. The Minister has not denied it. According to my information that supply is entirely sufficient for the needs of the Railways. Then why, in these circumstances, is it necessary to enter into a separate contract which in the space of six years cost the Government £22,000? The Minister says he sees nothing wrong in the Government entering into this contract. I am prepared to go as far as this and to say that if there was no other water available whatever, and the Railway Administration was stuck and forced to get their water from the Minister of Lands, then there might be something to be said for the Minister of Railways, though not for the Minister of Lands. But the position is that the Minister has his own water supply, but it is not used and he pays to the Minister of Lands a sum of £4,680 in one year. That is the position, The Minister says this contract was made long ago, long before the Minister of Lands became a Minister. On other occasions the Minister has been only too pleased to follow the rules of the House of Commons, but not on this occasion. The rule is that a Minister, when he takes office, necessarily divests himself of outside interests. When that contract was entered into the Minister of Lands was an independent member, a Senator. He then becomes a Minister, and since then he secures this increase in price from a Minister who has own water supply at Hutchinson. The Minister cannot get past that. In regard to electricity we have a similar position. The Minister was at great pains to tell the House how that at Beaufort West they have to pay more for water there. That is because the total water supply for a town of that size is small. But while he tells us that he is paying at Beaufort West almost as much as he is paying at Hutchinson, he does not at the same time, when dealing with the matter of electricity, tell us that he is, at Beaufort West, only paying 3¾d. He makes a point of the price of water, but not of the decreased price of electricity at Beaufort West. I am afraid the Minister’s explanation is a very plausible one. I do not think he, as a Minister, responsible, should have entered into this contract. I don’t discuss the Minister of Lands because the Chairman will rule me out of order, but the Minister himself knows the rules we have followed in the past. The Minister himself when he became a member of the Cabinet, divested himself of his other interests, and activities, not because the Government had anything to do with it, but because he felt it was the proper thing to do, and we commend him for that. When Senator Conroy became Minister of Lands he should have done the same thing. He should have said to the Minister of Railways: “You have your own water supply, and I don’t think this contract should be continued.” That is the position and I am afraid the Minister of Railways’ explanation this evening does not satisfy me, and I do not think it satisfied the other members on this side of the House.

The statement to which we have just listened is in very sharp contrast with the treatment which a small municipality in my constituency, which has not got 200 taxable properties, has received from the Railway Administration. It is a municipality composed of comparatively poor people, and on the 27th April, 1943, it applied for an increase in the price of 1s. per thousand gallons at which water was supplied to the Railways. They pumped the water from more than two miles away and then had to purify it. They made no headway with the Railway Administration. After a lot of bother the Railways Administration offered them one-tenth of a penny per thousand gallons more. They have referred the matter to me and the Minister knows that I have discussed the question with him. He has had it enquired into and he was kind enough to allow them an increase of 3d. per thousand gallons. This was after a twelve months’ struggle with the Minister, the Railway Board and the Administration. It is in very sharp contrast with the treatment received by a member of the Cabinet from the Railway Administration. I only want to say that the municipality cannot supply that water at 1s. 3d. per thousand gallons, and it has asked for a much higher amount than the Minister has been prepared to concede. Let me give the House this further information, that the ratepayers in this municipality have to pay infinitely more for their own water in order to be able to supply the Railway Administration at 1s. 3d. per thousand gallons. The ratepayer himself has to pay 10s. per thousand gallons.

Can you tell the Minister the name of the municipality?

The Minister knows which municipality I am referring to. It is the Municipality of Koppies. Those poor people have to pay 10s. per thousand gallons, whereas the Railway Administration in the past used to pay 1s. per thousand gallons and when these people applied for an increase, and pleaded with the Railway Administration for an increase, they were offered one-tenth of a 1d. per thousand gallons more. As I have said, after a struggle with the Minister we have managed to get 3d. per thousand gallons more. I feel that the treatment meted out to an individual has been very much more generous than that meted out to a public body. Our contention is that in regard to this particular matter the Administration has definitely discriminated very unfairly, and although I do not want to go into any more details, I still want to ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position of the Koppies municipality to see whether justice cannot be done to that body, particularly in view of the fact that the Minister has told us that a well-to-do town like Stellenbosch gets 2s. 3d. per thousand gallons for water, and Somerset West gets 2s. Koppies is entitled to at least 2s. 6d. per thousand gallons, and that would be a fair price. When Koppies applied for an increase the Railway Administration threatened to cancel the contract and to supply their own water. Why didn’t they do so in regard to Senator Conroy? What applies to them should also apply to him. If the Minister considers the increase in price for Koppies to be unreasonable, he should also consider an increase to Senator Conroy unreasonable.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Traffic Expenses,” £7,500,342, put and agreed to.

Head No. 6.—“Superannuation,” £860,990, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Cartage Services,” £771,210, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Depreciation,” £3,754,835, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 9.—“Catering and Bedding Services,” £1,386,250,

I would again like to raise a question of considerable importance to the travelling public of the rural districts: the question of obtaining bedding. At the stations one can get a ticket for bedding on payment of 3s. But the people in rural districts who get on at sidings cannot get tickets until they are on the trains, and they have to pay 3s. 6d. for their bedding. It means that they are fined. I must say frankly that I fail to understand why 3s. 6d. should be charged for bedding. Why must those people who get on at sidings pay 3s. 6d. They are called upon to pay an extra 6d. No extra services are supplied. The Railways make 6d. out of it, but they have no extra work connected with it. The farmers get on at sidings, but they cannot buy their tickets there. I don’t know what the intention was of having two different rates for identical services. While I am on my feet I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to say a few words about the catering service in the House, and I wish to express our thanks to the catering staff. I feel that special thanks are due to the staff for the excellent services they render here. We owe thanks to Mr. Smith and his staff for the excellent services and the courtesy which we have always had from them. They work under difficult conditions and we have never had any reason to complain. The complaints which have been made have been in regard to fruit—for which the staff cannot be blamed. We have often had night sittings and they have had to prepare food for 50 members or more, at a few hours’ notice. In spite of that we have always had the best possible treatment from them.

I should also like to say a few words about the catering services, and I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) has said about the stewards in the House. Some time ago I asked a question about the catering staff. I asked how many chief stewards there were, and how many others, and in what way they were promoted. The Minister replied that the promotions were made by a Promotions Committee. I have tried to find out from the stewards where this Promotion Committee is, and apparently they know nothing about it. We should like to know who are the members of the Promotion Committee and when they meet to make recommendations. We have for years been talking about the low wages of these people. I think that there is one section of the Railway staff which is entitled to increased wages; it is the stewards who serve us. I think the work they do justifies better wages. They get an allowance but their wage scales are very low. They work long hours, they always have to be clean and tidy and I do think the Minister should meet them.

I should like to say in respect of bedding tickets, such tickets can be purchased with the ticket you buy for your trip. At a siding where there are no tickets for sale, where the ticket must be purchased on the train, a bedding ticket will be supplied without the extra charge of 6d. If you fail to take your bedding ticket with the ordinary ticket, you pay an extra 6d. With regard to the question of extra pay for stewards that comes under the remarks which I made earlier in the debate in regard to hours of duty, etc.

I am sorry I omitted to speak about the bedding when I last addressed the Committee. I want to tell the Minister that the public is alarmed about the way the bedding is used. We notice that the bedding in the first and second class reserved coaches are marked in the same way as the bedding used in the other coaches. We should like to have an assurance that that bedding is not used for both Europeans and non-Europeans. What is the distinction between that bedding and the bedding for Europeans?

I want to voice an objection to the fact that the same bedding is used for Europeans and non-Europeans. There is no difference. When a non-European asks for bedding he gets the same bedding as the Europeans. Tonight a coloured person can use certain bedding and tomorrow night it may be used by a European. As regards the Minister’s explanation in connection with the charge for bedding, I want to tell him that if that is the position the change must have been effected quite recently. Until recently one had to pay the full charge of 3s. 6d. if one joined a train on a branch line. On several occations that I have travelled during the last six months I have been absolutely unable to obtain a bed. Then I want to raise an objection to the fact that non-Europeans on the trains have to be served by European stewards. They have to be served by white women, not only non-European travellers but non-European soldiers. The white stewards are now expected to serve non-European travellers on these trains in their compartments, and they have also to serve non-European soldiers in the same way. This is carrying things too far, and I want to draw the attention of the Administration to it and to ask that the practice immediately cease. Another problem is this. If a person is lucky enough on a trip to Upington to travel by a through saloon, then he has only to pay once for bedding. But if one does not strike it lucky one has to pay for a bed here, and at De Aar one will be charged for another bed. Travellers who make connections are continually subject to this difficulty. If the Administration are not able to accommodate one in a through saloon, then one has to pay twice for bedding. Then I want to complain again and to complain very seriously about the bad fruit and vegetables that we get in our dining saloons. On the last occasion I spoke on this matter, the Minister said he would try to have it rectified. The contracts which the Railway Administration give out are for first class fruit and first class vegetables, and recently we have been obtaining third grade fruit and fourth-grade vegetables. Those contractors are in nine cases out of ten Jews who ask first-class prices and provide third-class produce, and the Railway Administration accepts it every time. I have complained to the General Manager. I have complained to the Minister. I have complained inside the House and outside the House, and we are making no progress. We pay for first-class fruit and the best vegetables, and I think we get the worst in South Africa, and we have to be satisfied with it. On the trains the facility is provided that table stewards go round to compartments and offer sweets for sale. Can they not also offer fruit? When you are travelling by train you have always to alight at a station and go to a stall to buy fruit. Often it is a coolie who has that fruit stall, and he makes you pay top prices. I have already received a promise that the matter will be rectified, but the months go by and nothing has been done about it.

Last week one of the coloured men who issued bedding complained to me on the train that at first they were given sleeping accommodation in the so-called reserved second class, but that they are now obliged to sleep in the ordinary third class. The coloured man who came to me with this complaint said that they had to handle the bedding of the passengers, and that they had to keep themselves clean; but now they have to work in dirty surroundings in the third class and to handle the bedding there. I must say that I was surprised to have this complaint. I think it is only fit and proper that the bedding stewards should be placed as formerly, in the reserved second class, because they are usually a decent class of coloured person, and now they have to sleep amongst the natives and a dirty type of coloured people. It is also not right towards the European passengers whom they serve. Then in connection with meals, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that under the new system they have to wait until a dining saloon is full before they begin to serve. I have often gone to the saloon in time, as one is told to, and then had to wait 20 minutes because five or six people have arrived at their leisure 20 minutes late. If the meal begins at 12.30, let there be an interval of say 10 minutes to give passengers a chance to come in, but then those who come in late should miss the first course. I do not think it is right towards other passengers to keep them waiting so long, and this is also one of the reasons why the stewards are engaged in serving meals till half-past nine or ten o’clock. This is a section of the staff who work hard, and who have terribly long hours of duty, and they should be taken into consideration.

If the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) will give me a case which he happens to know of where Europeans have waited on non-Europeans I shall have the matter investigated. With regard to the question of non-European bedding being used for Europeans, the hon. member is misinformed.

I only asked.

The hon. member for Vredefort said so. There is a special set of bedding for non-Europeans. It has a distinctive green mark on it which will enable you to know if you get a bed which is intended for non-European use. The question of fruit and vegetables has led to the hon. member making a wild charge. I dare say we are sometimes unfortunate, but there again I think a complaint to the chief steward or if needs be to the System Manager or to the General Manager will see things put right, and I shall be glad if the hon. member will be so good as to assist us in that respect so that the railways may maintain their good reputation. With regard to bedding boys they are entitled to clean accommodation. I want them to keep themselves respectable. Now this scheme of special sittings has worked very well under present conditions where you have four or five sittings.

I am complaining about people who come late.

Yes, the hon. member has discussed the matter with me but any change would only make for confusion.

I’m not asking for a change in the system. The mealtime schedule is for 12.30. I have myself sat for 20 minutes before I was served because they want the dining saloon to be full before they start serving; in other words those who come in time have to wait for the others who come at their leisure. My suggestion is that those who come late should miss the first course.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 10.—“Publicity, Bookstalls, Advertising and Automatic Machines,” £384,200, put and agreed to.

Head No. 11.—“Grain Elevators,” £218,593, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 12.—“Road Motor Services,” £1,403,906,

Will the Minister just say what we may expect in connection with road motor transport, especially during the coming harvest season. The majority of farmers no longer have transport facilities, and they look to the Railway Administration for the transport of their crops. Last year we had the assistance of military transport, but it was still a very difficult matter to bring the grain to the station. The Minister is now also Acting Minister of Defence, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that military lorries will be made available for use by the railways, so that the farmers will be treated in a better manner than last year in connection with the transport of their grain. I am under the impression that the military have far more lorries at their disposal than necessary.

It would not be possible for me to give a comprehensive statement at such short notice as to the prospect of our road motor service for the next 12 months. But the position, I can assure the hon. member still remains very precarious; the future still looks very dark and I cannot hold out any hope at this stage of any general improvement in regard to our road motor services. Except for one or two awkward occurrences during the last 12 months, we have on the whole been able to meet all urgent demands made on us.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 13.— “Tourist Service,” £118,150,

I should like to know how it is that there is a large increase here for hotel accommodation and transport under “Tourist Traffic.” One would have thought that it would be much less than in previous years, but the amount is much higher.

These tourists have come from Central Africa, from the North, and in the old days before the war large numbers from North Africa, the Congo, etc., went to Europe when they had leave. That terrain now being shut off as far as they are concerned they are coming to South Africa and the rather remarkable figures which you see are entirely due to the visitors from other parts of Africa.

Do you get your money back again?

Oh yes, we get large sums of money back—much more than we have on the estimates. Our expenditure on road motor services all comes back and much more than that.

From this it looked as if you are out of pocket.

Oh, no, we get a good deal more back than is shown here.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 14.— “Interest on Capital,” £5,173,638, put and agreed to.

Head No. 15.—“Interest on Superannuation and other Funds,” £1,754,330, put and agreed to.

Head No. 16.—“Charges in respect of Lines Leased,” £13,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 17.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £5,833,702, put and agreed to.

Harbours.

On Head No. 18.—“Maintenance of Assets,” £520,704,

I should like to know from the Minister whether instruction is given in both languages at the naval college here at the Cape.

That falls under Defence.

We have heard that the new basin in the harbour here is not too safe for the berthing of vessels. With certain winds there is a strong current and the ships suffer damage. What is the damage that is suffered, and what is being done to prevent it in the future?

With regard to this question of range action, there are very few harbours which do not have range action. It is nothing new. As far as the Duncan Basin is concerned, range action is fairly severe under certain conditions of weather. About 48 hours after a north-west gale the water ranges vigorously. In order that we may study the problem, we have built a scale model to a scale of 1 in 5,000 horizontally, and 1 in 100 diagonally, and proper wave-making machinery in which we can produce the conditions in Table Bay Harbour and Table Bay generally. The model would cover the area between Mouille Point, Robben Island and the whole of the bay. We are conducting experiments to see what can be done to lessen this range action. The damage sustained so far has not been very serious but it has cost us a few thousand pounds. Naturally when the water ranges and the ships lift too much, they are apt to damage themselves. I have no doubt we shall ultimately get a satisfactory solution of the problem in which case there will be no further trouble. All the indications are that we shall be able to overcome the difficulties.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 19.—“Operating Expenses,” £672,430, put and agreed to.

Head No. 20.—“General Charges,” £49,193, put and agreed to.

Head No. 21.—“Superannuation,” £24,510, put and agreed to.

Head No. 22.—“Depreciation,” £200,293, put and agreed to.

Head No. 23.—“Lighthouses, Beacons, Bells and Signal Stations,” £72,307, put and agreed to.

Head No. 24.—“Interest on Capital,” £687,887, put and agreed to.

Head No. 25.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure,” £364,676, put and agreed to.

Steamships.

On Head No. 26.—“Working and Maintenance,” £1,294,000,

Will the Minister give us some information regarding the number of ships we now possess and the size of the merchant fleet that now falls under his jurisdiction? Will he also furnish us with some information in connection with 762/1 “Charter Payments.” What is the position?

I think if the hon. member had followed the discussion in Parliament this year, he would have been aware of the fact that in my budget speech I gave the House the position in regard to our ships at the present time. I do not think he wants me to repeat all that information again tonight, but for his benefit I should like to say that we have two sea-going steamers of our own.

Why talk about ships?

I think we have under charter seven other ships which are engaged, as I explained before, in carrying cargoes to and from South Africa. The charges are based on our running costs of the ships, but there is a considerable item of revenue to be set off against that.

Head put and agreed to.

Head No. 27.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £3,000, put and agreed to.

Airways.

Head No. 28.— “Working and Maintenance”, £21,269, put and agreed to.

Head No. 29.—“Interest on Capital”, £2,064, put and agreed to.

Head No. 30.—“Miscellaneous Expenditure”, £31,667, put and agreed to.

Net Revenue Appropriation Account.

Head No. 31.—“Betterment Fund”, £500,000, put and agreed to.

Head No. 32.—“Deficiency in Pension and Superannuation Funds”, £487,000, put and agreed to.

Capital and Betterment Works.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works on the South African Railways and Harbours.

Head No. 1—“Construction of Railways”, £153,863, put and agreed to.

Head No. 2.—“New Works on Open Lines”, £4,419,591, put and agreed to.

Head No. 3.—“Rolling Stock”, £324,609, put and agreed to.

Head No. 4.—“Road Motor Services”, £18,500, put and agreed to.

Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, £2,489,264, put and agreed to.

Head No. 7.—“Airways”, £250,700, put and agreed to.

Head No. 8.—“Working Capital”, £25,230, put and agreed to.

On Head No. 9.— “Unforseen Works”, £250,000,

I want just to mention a few matters that are causing some local difficulty at Stellenbosch. The students who want to come to Cape Town during the week-end, or who want to use the railways, cycle to the railway station where they leave their cycles. Sometimes there are 100 to 150 bicycles for which cloak room tickets are taken out. There is, however, only room for 30, with the result that the bicycles have to be left outside, and the student who has been the last to bring his bicycle there may be the last one back. That results in the bicycles getting all mixed up and moved about it. Not only are the bicycles damaged, but they are also stolen. I shall be glad if the Minister can provide some relief there. Another difficulty is that the goods sheds are more than a quarter of a mile from the office for one reason or another. If the public want to consign or receive goods, they first have to go to the shed to obtain the papers, then they have to walk a quarter of a mile to the office to pay, and then go back a quarter of a mile to deliver the documents in order to obtain the goods or to despatch them. It is an unthinkable arrangement, and I should like that matter to be looked into. Either a new arrangement must be made, or the goods office should be located nearer to the shed.

I have taken a note of the first point raised by the hon. member in regard to the bicycle shed at Stellenbosch, and I will also have the other matter referred to by him, looked into.

Head put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works on the South African Railways and Harbours.

Head No. 1.—“Construction of Railways”, £40,000, put and agreed to.

In connection with the amount that has been voted here for Unrra, I think that at this stage we must ask for a little more information. I do not want to detain the House for long, but I think that there are in particular two questions on which we require an answer in the interests of the country. The first is whether any limit has been placed on the extent of the rehabilitation work that will be performed by Unrra. Is it confined to the Allied countries or does it also include enemy countries? Some doubt exists and it will be well to have a definite explanation. The other matter is in connection with the amount that is owing. According to the agreement that was laid on the Table, it appears that, as far as the administrative costs are concerned, the signatories are saddled with a proportion that is fixed by the Central Committee. I understand that the costs have been estimated on the basis that South Africa shall pay 1 per cent. of the total administrative costs. This is apparently an annual estimate that has to be made by the Central Committee. For the last year it works out at £25,000.

That we have already voted.

Yes. Apart from the administrative costs there is an amount for the funds of Unrra with which rehabilitation work will be carried out later. Apparently 1 per cent. of the national income of the signatories for the year ended 30th June, 1943, has been accepted. Now I should like to be informed of the following by the Minister: (1) What is the national income for the year ended June, 1943; has that been determined, and do we know it approximately? (2) Is it calculated on the gross national income, or are certain items deducted? (3) What is the total liability of the Union of South Africa in respect of which this sum of £250,000 is apparently the first instalment? Are we bound to this 1 per cent., or are there any reasons that we can advance why we are not bound? A conference was held in Atlantic City in November, 1943; was this resolution taken there, or was it adopted later by the Central Committee? I understand that South Africa accorded its approval to the decision to pay 1 per cent. of its national income, and we should like to know what that signifies. So far as I am able to calculate it, it means that our liability will run to an amount of £4,780,000. Then I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government had not the opportunity when those proposals were pending in Atlantic City, or before the Central Committee, to submit them to this House before they were made binding on us? I understand that the arrangement for the payment of 1 per cent. is subject to approval by the various legislative bodies in conformity with customary constitutional procedure. I therefore want to know whether it was not feasible to obtain such constitutional approval for this liability before these proposals were accepted in the name of the Union.

My hon. friend has put various questions. The first was whether there was any limit. I think that perhaps he had the impression, quite correctly, that the original intention was to make it apply only to the Allies and those countries that are liberated by the Allies. But it is now understood very clearly that this scheme will apply to all countries, even to enemy countries. Accordingly, there is no limit laid down.

Will Russia also contribute?

Yes, the whole basis of the scheme is that it will be in the interests of all that those various countries that have been devastated by the war, shall be put on their feet again. That applies whether the countries are Allied countries or not. It is in the interests of all that the world shall recover as soon as possible. As regards the financial aspect of the matter, we have already voted £25,000 for administrative costs. That is our share to the end of the year. I believe that the meeting was held in Atlantic City in November, 1943. The administrative costs have been apportioned between the various countries. It was also recommended that the various countries should contribute to the funds on the basis of 1 per cent. of the national income. We then agreed to those recommendations, while the conference was still in progress, but subject to two conditions. The first is that our contributions should be subject to the approval of Parliament from year to year. The second was that our contributions would be mainly in kind and not in money. It is expected that we shall contribute at least 10 per cent. in cash. Probably the first contribution will be made in cash, but it will be mainly made in kind. This is of very great importance, because the time will probably arrive after the war when we shall have a surplus of agricultural produce, and also of industrial articles. We shall then be able to buy them with the money which we are making available for the purpose of Unrra. On the basis of 1 per cent. of the national income, our contributions will eventually probably reach that figure that my hon. friend has mentioned, namely, about £4,750,000. This will extend over a course of years, and it will perhaps be paid in respect of 90 per cent. in the form of goods that we shall be able to purchase in South Africa with the money that Parliament votes from year to year. I consider that this agreement is really in our interests, especially from the standpoint of the restoration of a normal world, that is necessary if we are again to live a normal life in South Africa.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 8.—“Pensions”, £660,000, put and agreed to;

Vote No. 13.—“Customs and Excise”, £1,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 17.—“Union Education”, £4,250, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 19.—“Agriculture”, £16,400, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 21.— “Agriculture (General)”, £1,000,500, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 23.—“Transport”, £74,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 24.—“Interior”, £800, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 29,—“Social Welfare”, £822,400, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 30.—“Public Health”, £50,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Labour”, £1,000,

I should like to know whether the amount of £1,000 has been made available for the relief funds in connection with the floods that recently occurred, and whether this amount is not too small. Then I should like to know what the estimated amount is in connection with the relief that will have to be given in the Eastern districts. This seems to me to be such a nominal sum.

My hon. friend will see that provision has been made for relief funds in connection with these particular floods under three votes. The smallest amount is under Labour. The principal provision is made under Social Welfare, £20,000, and under Irrigation, £25,000. If further funds are required under those votes, probably additional provision can be made by way of transfer from one head to the other. At the moment we have not got the necessary information available to make provision for relief funds in the Eastern Districts.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 37.—“Irrigation”, £25,000,

Will the Minister of Irrigation inform us whether this is damage that has been done to the irrigation works themselves?

Yes. But in addition the money that is made available here will be utilised to grant assistance to persons in such areas as Christiana whose houses were washed away by the recent floods.

Is it for compensation for damage?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 44.—“Commerce and Industries”, £35,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 45.—“Directorate of Demobilisation”, £216,000, put and agreed to.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister to give us the statement now he promised to make in regard to the policy of his department in connection with the Great Fish River Valley and Sundays River Valley.

Mr. Chairman, I promised to make this statement at this stage. I have committed it to paper in order that there should be no misunderstanding in regard to this matter in the future. It is a very important matter which affects the whole economic position of the Great Fish and Sundays River Valley. I should first of all like to give a history of this matter.

Fish River Valley: Historical.

The original development of the rich soils of the Fish River valley was by means of furrows to utilise the freshets or minor floods which occurred several times per annum. Weirs were erected and wide furrows constructed therefrom in order to divert as much water as possible while the flood lasted. Though this method certainly proved beneficial the farmers concerned were always anxious to augment the supply by using some of the water that passed over the weirs and reached the sea, so a general cry for storage was set up and after investigation and report the Great Fish River Board decided to apply for loans with which to construct the Grass Ridge Dam with a capacity of 62,871 ac. feet on the Great Brak River and Lake Arthur dam, capacity 63,630 ac. feet, on the Tarka River.

It was realised at the time that the construction of these two reservoirs would only assist to augment the “flood furrow” supply and that a by no means adequate supply for all the commanded areas of good soil would result.

It was also realised that gradual silting up of these reservoirs would take place but the owners were quite satisfied that the venture would be a success.

The total cost of the two dams and the necessary canals was £1,224,706, which sum was advanced as irrigation loans to the boards concerned. Of this capital amount £1,148,793 has been written off together with interest totalling £598,793 which makes a grand total of £1,747,586 written off. In addition to the amounts loaned to the boards for irrigation works, many thousands of pounds have been spent by private owners on their own schemes.

Position Today.

The position today is that the Grass Ridge Dam which cost about £170,000 has, by gradual siltation, had its capacity reduced from 62,871 ac. feet to 40,800 ac. feet, this latter figure is however higher than the mean annual run-off for the catchment which is only 36,000 ac. feet so the dam can still catch and store a very useful amount of water. In a few years’ time however the position will become serious as silting up is at the rate of 1,200 ac. feet per annum. With regard to Lake Arthur which cost about £600,000, the capacity had been reduced to 29,400 ac. feet despite the fact that by installing crest gates an extra 13,050 ac. feet was added to the capacity. The rate of siltation here is 2,600 ac. feet per annum so the position is extremely serious even at the present time.

Below these two dams is a scheduled irrigable area of 21,140 morgen, a large portion of which is laid down to lucerne and other valuable crops. The present water supply is however totally inadequate for such a large area and it is estimated that only about 60 per cent. can receive sufficient water, and unless steps are taken to maintain even this meagre supply the position will gradually deteriorate until farmers will eventually revert back to the flood water system.

Long Range Policy.

In order to delay this eventuality a long range policy of maintaining for as long as possible the present supply thus enabling the farmers at least to carry on, even in this more or less unsatisfactory manner, has been drawn up. The point being of course that they would be no worse off and would be quite aware of the limits of their irrigation facilities.

The long range policy includes the undermentioned works—

1. (1) Raising of Grass Ridge Dam.
2. (2) Construct Dam at Allemanskraal and periodically raise.
3. (3) Construct Dam at Little Brak and periodically raise.
4. (4) Construct Dam at Great Fish near Katkop and periodically raise.
5. (5) Raise Lake Arthur Dam.
6. (6) Construct new dam on Tarka River.
7. (7) Construct dam on Baviaans River.

The total outlay on the above-mentioned programme is estimated at £4,250,000 and at the end of the period involved the outlook will commence to be serious again. It will at once again become a wasting asset.

Sundays River Valley: Historical.

Now let us turn to the lower portion of the Sundays River Valley. In this valley the total scheduled area is 10,905 morgen.

Large citrus orchards are established and in addition a fairly extensive area is under lucerne.

In normal times the export of citrus furnishes the chief source of income but another source is dairy produce, etc. There is a condensed milk factory at Kirkwood which can take all cream, etc.

As in the cases of the Fish River Valley the original irrigation schemes were in the nature of furrows to catch and use portions of the freshets and here again the irrigators pressed for storage, whereby to augment the supply, with the result that the Government granted a loan wherewith to construct the Lake Mentz dam which had an original capacity of 94,619 ac. feet.

Some £579,427 of Government money was lent to the Sundays River Board of which sum £567,022 together with £385,790 interest totalling £952,812 was written off. Originally 17,000 morgen of good irrigable soil was scheduled but owing to the inadequate water supply this was reduced to 10,905 morgen and it can be stated that the water resources are adequate for only about two-thirds of this area, or say 8,000 morgen. Lake Mentz is rapidly silting up and, unless something is done, within the next few years, to relieve the situation, the position of the farmers in this valley will be a very serious one indeed.

To maintain existing supplies, which are far from adequate for even the 10,905 scheduled, for the next 50 years, it will be necessary to—

1. (a) Raise Lake Mentz Dam.
2. (b) Construct a new dam and raise periodically.

The cost of this programme would be about £1,500,000 and it is estimated that from about the year 2000 the position will rapidly deteriorate and irrigation will also revert to flood furrow irrigation.

Thus the total sum which will need to be expended to maintain the present inadequate water supply for irrigation in the Fish and Sundays Rivers valleys for the next say 55 years will be—

and the position thereafter will rapidly deteriorate.

With this dark outlook facing us it was decided to explore other ways and means of stabilising and improving the position and naturally our thoughts strayed to the oft suggested plan of tapping the Orange River and it is possible to give the result of preliminary investigations in that direction.

Proposed Scheme.

The proposal is to dam the Orange River and divert the waters into Fish River Valley by means of a canal and tunnel, providing ample water for the Fish River Valley, and thence by furrow, into the Sundays River Valley above Lake Mentz.

From our topographical map and by actual inspection it has been established that this can be accomplished by means of a high weir of the barrage type across the Orange River near Bethulie, a canal on the left bank, running as far as Brakspruit, thence by tunnel with an outlet near Thebus.

In the canal could be constructed several huge silt traps which would be so located as to allow of the silt being scoured back to the Orange River, leaving the comparatively clear water to flow along the canal.

The Grass Ridge Dam would be used as a balancing reservoir to provide for the few months each year during which the flow of the Orange River is low and an endeavour would be made to locate a suitable site for a storage reservoir, away from the river and with little or no catchment area, for additional reserve storage.

Water Requirements.

To maintain the existing inadequate supply in the Fish River Valley would require, at the tunnel outlet, an annual quantity of water ranging from nothing today up to say 50,000 acre feet in about 20 years as the existing dams silted up. But this is not all that is required, a further quantity of about 70,000 acre feet would be required at once to bring up the supply to anything like the requirements of the 21,140 morgen of land already under command and scheduled.

Similarly the Sundays River Valley below Lake Mentz would require up to 50,000 acre feet at Lake Mentz or say 100,000 acre feet at tunnel outlet to maintain the present supply to irrigate possibly 8,000 morgen out of 10,905 morgen scheduled. To provide for the balance of 3,000 morgen would require a further 40,000 acre feet. Therefore the total quantity required to put the present scheduled area in both valleys under an adequate and permanent water supply would be 260,000 acre feet.

A 1,200 cusec canal from the Orange River would divert about 600,000 acre feet per annum.

After providing for the abovementioned 260,000 acre feet we should still have 340,000 acre feet for further development in the two valleys. Obviously it would be the more economical to utilise this water as near as possible to the tunnel outlet and thus save transit losses, but it is felt that provision should be made for the supply of an adequate quantity of water for at least the 6,000 morgen of land which was descheduled in the Sundays River Valley; this would require say 80,000 acre feet at tunnel outlet leaving 260,000 acre feet for further development in the Fish River Valley. This should suffice for about 30,000-40,000 morgen depending upon the distance of the land from the tunnel outlet. Provision should be made for passing some of the water right down the Fish River in order to freshen the brakish water flowing down to the irrigators below Middleton.

Rough Preliminary Estimate of Cost.

As a rough but liberal preliminary estimate, the cost of the scheme can be taken at £8,000,000 or to be more liberal still £10,000,000 and it will be as well to examine the potential benefits of such an outlay.

Firstly we get an assured adequate supply of water for the 21,140 morgen of land already scheduled in the Fish River Valley, secondly we get an assured supply not only for the 10,905 morgen of land scheduled in the Sundays River Valley but an adequate supply for a further 6,000 morgen already commanded but descheduled, and lastly we have sufficient water to irrigate a further 30,000-40,000 morgen of new land.

In other words an adequate supply to irrigate, permanently, 68,000-70,000 morgen at a cost of £10,000,000.

The alternative to which the Government is more or less committed, by its promise to see that the present water position of the settlers in the Fish and Sundays Rivers is maintained for as long as possible and that the settlers will not be “let down” is to spend a sum of approximately £5,750,000 in order to temporarily maintain the present inadequate water supply which irrigates about 25,000 morgen of the 32,000 morgen scheduled.

Brak.

Before concluding these remarks it is desired to stress the point that brak is very prevalent in some of the upper reaches of the Fish River Valley and that careful soil surveys should be made to exclude such portions as may, by contributing brak seepage to the river flow render the water useless for irrigation lower down, unless liberal supplies of fresh water are let down periodically

Conclusions and Recommendations.

It has been shown that the project is, at least, worth further investigation and it is suggested that immediately the necessary staff is available surveys be made of—

1. (1) the best possible site for a weir on the Orange River;
2. (2) a rough canal line location as far as Brakspruit;
3. (3) profile of tunnel line;
4. (4) tunnel inlet and outlet sites, in detail;
5. (5) canal route from Fish River Valley into the Sundays River Valley.

Should the results of these surveys warrant it a soil survey should be carried out in order to ascertain the location of the best soil to be brought under irrigation as new land.

It is estimated that no definite plans, report and estimate can be framed in less than two years.

In reading this statement I want to say that the Government is practically committed to see that as long as it is possible the Fish and Sundays River Valleys shall receive supplies of water, inadequate as it is. The present scheme will cost £5,750,000. The Government is not committed to this new scheme. My department will now continue their investigations, they will make surveys and will bring up the data as near as possible up to date, so that by the time within two years that we have to start raising these dams we shall have all data available. As far as the Orange River is concerned it will then be for the Government to decide whether they will accept this alternative plan of spending £10,000,000 providing another 68,000 to 70,000 morgen of land.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote F.—“Local Works and Loans”, £3,081,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G.—“Land and Agricultural Bank”, £50,000,

I want briefly to put a question to the Minister. One of the primary objects of the Land Bank is to accommodate farmers when they have to pay off their debts from time to time. Now I am not aware whether my information is correct, but I am informed that in such cases where farmers remit extra amounts to the bank, in order to pay off more than it is necessary for them to pay at that moment, the money is returned to them, and an inspector is sent to them to ask whether they would not rather retain the money than deposit it with the Land Bank, in case they should later on require it for some other purpose. If that information is correct, it is a very important matter, because I think it clashes with one of the principal objects of the Land Bank, namely, that encouragement will be given to people to pay off their debts before they are really due. The farmers who are asked to take the money back will perhaps use it for another object, and this will perhaps encourage inflation, although in a small measure. The money can be expended on all sorts of unnecessary things. A third objection would naturally be that farmers who comply with the request to place the money on deposit with the Land Bank, will lose the difference between interest that they have to pay to the Land Bank, and what they receive on deposit—the last-mentioned will naturally be less. I do not know whether this is correct, but I want just to bring it to the attention of the Minister. It would be undesirable if this were the case.

I have no knowledge of such a procedure, but that of course does not mean that I can deny what the hon. member has stated, because the Land Bank is not administered by me. I am glad, however, that the hon. member has made these observations, and I shall get into touch with the authorities concerned. I shall go into the matter definitely on my return to Pretoria.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote H.—“Forestry”, £844,200, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J.—“Agriculture”, £250,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K.—“Labour”, £63,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote L.—“Assistance to Farmers”, £500,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M.—“Defence”, £50,000,000,

I should like to know whether instruction is given in both languages at the naval college, and if not whether the Minister will take effective measures to ensure that this is done.

I should like to bring something to the notice of the Minister. I was recently in Pretoria and there you can scarcely find a private soldier in the streets, only officers, whether they are women or men. Supporters of the Government as well as its opponents are talking about this. I have asked the Minister what the percentage of officers is in comparison with privates in Pretoria, but the Minister has stated that it is impossible to give the figures. Even the women in the offices are officers. Wherever you go you find not private soldiers but officers.

The college is still very much in the air, the plans have not even been drawn up yet. I have not the slightest doubt that when it is built and in operation instruction will be given in both languages.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries,” £215,600, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O.—“Public Health,” £1,300,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote P.—“South African Mint,” £31,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote Q.—“Native Affairs,” £40,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote R.—“Governor-General’s National War Fund,” £750,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote S.—Printing and Stationery,” £38,500, put and agreed to.

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

HOUSE RESUMED :

Report considered, and the Estimates of Expenditure adopted without amendment.

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

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting two Bills.