I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion and pursuant to notice:

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

1. (a) setting up a Ministry of Food charged with the responsibility of planning the production and most equitable distribution of foodstuffs; and
2. (b) building or causing to be built houses for the people on the principle of home ownership at interest charges not exceeding 2½ per cent. and/or on the principle of differential renting.

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the main object of this motion is to create a department which will be responsible for the production of sufficient food for all the people of South Africa, and that department will also be incharge of the distribution of food to the various sections of the people. The criticism may be offered that the Agricultural Department has been in charge of the production of foodstuffs and for the distribution of them. Then, you will readily agree with me that never in the history of Union has there been sufficient food for distribution to every section of our community. Therefore they have failed miserably in their function to see to the production and distribution of food. In order to be constructive, I propose to deal with the motion so far as food is concerned, in three stages. It is my duty, first of all, to point out that the position, as it exists today is chaotic. Secondly, I propose to deal with the steps that are necessary to take in order to produce sufficient food for the people during the whole of the time; and thirdly, I will endeavour to point out to the House how food should be distributed, while fourthly I shall take a leaf out of the book of Joseph ….

Which one—Stalin?

The Joseph I have in mind is the fellow who many years ago stored great quantities of wheat that saw the Egyptians through seven years of depression. What I mean by this is that we must provide for the lean years, and it is possible for us to provide for the lean years. It is unnecessary for us to allow a portion of our population to starve every time there is a drought. I have stated that it is my duty to point out that the position today is chaotic. Is there anybody in the House who will disagree with me on that? I say that there is plenty of meat available in South Africa, and if anybody dares to argue that we are not producing more than enough meat, they must argue with the Minister of Agriculture, who pointed out yesterday that we produced last year considerably more than in 1937. The point is simply this: There is sufficient meat—to come down to one of the main topics today—but there is not an adequate system of distributing the meat, and no proper channel is provided by the Agricultural Department for this proper distribution. If there is sufficient meat I think the hon. the Minister and his department may say “we have been at work for some time, and if you will give us one more year we will show you we will be able to distribute meat properly.” Well, we have been listening to that sort of appeal now for four years, and instead of the position improving it has been getting worse every day. For the last few years one has hardly been able to open a newspaper without seeing headlines which indicate that the position in regard to the distribution of food is becoming more acute daily. We read such headlines as these in the newspapers, and I am quoting now from the Rand Daily Mail of the 24th January—

We do not hurl this at the Minister of Agriculture or against the Control Board, but we are confronted every day with the position as revealed in these headlines. Complaints are made to us every day, and throughout the country people tell us there is a lot of food available in South Africa if it could only be given out. Why the Government has not taken the necessary steps, drastic steps if necessary, I cannot understand. For months now it has been the common sight to see queues standing in the streets from morning till night waiting for meat. They know where to get the meat, but they dare not go and get it, because if they do they will be landed in gaol. We have controlled and uncontrolled areas, for what reason I do not know. I am at a loss to understand why the supply is withheld from Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. I think I am supported by the statement of the Minister of Agriculture when he stated yesterday that at Durban the distributors refused to function and they organised a boycott—and it will be readily agreed there was a boycott. Their only object was to put people’s minds against control altogether. But when the department took the bull by the horns ….

Where did they get hold of a bull these days?

When they toot the bull by the horns and demanded meat, and sent out their own little lorries the department found that the meat was there. I ask the Minister why the machinery of distribution could not be made to work in Johannesburg, Cape Town and other places, but he has failed to give me an answer. The Minister has given us proof that sufficient supplies were available for the people of the country.

Are you shooting at the Government or are you shooting at us?

I had a question on the Order Paper indicating there is a system of boycott against control in this country and the Minister knows that there is definitely a system of boycott to withhold supplies from the public. Unfortunately the Minister failed to tell us who are responsible.

You tell us.

I am coming to that point, and if the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will look at my questions he would find out. The point is whether the Chamber of Commerce of Cape Town have ever told the Government whether they were in favour of control or against it. The Minister says they never told him. The reason for my putting that question on the Order Paper is that I openly blamed the Chamber of Commerce for trying to make things very bad for the Government. I was told that I was talking nonsense ….

Quite right too.

I said I would withdraw the statement provided the Chamber would indicate to the Government that they would assist control as far as possible. That is why I asked the Minister whether the Chamber of Commerce supported or boycotted him. I again repeat what I said in public openly, that the Chamber of Commerce is busy boycotting control, because they have decided and practically taken an oath that control must go. Why? They want control to be abolished for this reason, that they will be able to demand 5s. for a lb. of butter, and 5s. or 7s. 6d. for a lb. of meat. That is the reason why they boycott control, so that they hold the public up to ransom and say: “We demand this from you and then you can have the stuff, but if you are not prepared to pay through the nose you are not going to have it.” I am told that on the black market one can buy anything one requires, provided one is prepared to pay an unlimited price for the commodity. In other words, the position has become so chaotic that a paradise has been created for the black-marketers, in other words the idle rich. The idle rich buy at high prices and they get what they want. Why cannot our controllers do away with the black market? The Controllers must forgive me if I say there is a lot of talk about the paradise created for the idle rich. If not, why are they out to defend the actions of the Board all the time? Everybody should be able to get what they want according to supply in times of prosperity and in times of scarcity. If there is a real scarcity, then rich and poor should carry the hardships and when there is plenty, rich and poor should all reap the benefit of abundance. I hope that hon. members studied a paragraph that appeared on the 23rd of the month in the “Argus”. One of the butchers in Cape Town declared that meat has been brought into the Peninsula every day “under the noses of the Government officials.” Who these officials are I do not know; I suppose the reference is to members of the Board. Some hotels and many private individuals are getting regular supplies of meat from Paarl, Wellington, Stellenbosch, Somerset West and Malmesbury. One of these people told me that not only can they get all the meat they want, but they can get it at a far cheaper rate as well. It comes here in lorries and vans and in the backs of cars. One hotel proprietor said he had been openly approached to place an order, and he was told he could have all the meat he needed delivered at his hotel. He was not told how it would be brought in. The “Argus” was informed by an official of the Food Control Organisation in connection with these points that the authorities were keeping a watch on the position. The position is chaotic. The supplies are there, and the people who have the supplies are ready to deliver the meat in lorries, but they dare not do it. What is wrong with control? I want control, but I do not want control to be put into effect by the enemies of control. I want control as it would be practised by the friends and defenders of control throughout the whole of the country. I do not want control exercised by the enemies of control. I think that today one would find that almost 90 per cent. of the people are against control, and for only one reason, that they cannot get supplies of foodstuffs they need, though the supplies are there. What I am stating now applies not only to meat but to all commodities. Is it necessary for me to repeat how food has been destroyed in the past, and for only one purpose, and that is the creation of an artificial scarcity. I told the House some years ago how food was being destroyed. That probably had very little effect. I know it is quite easy to challenge me if I made a statement about meat having been dumped into the sea since August last It would be very difficult for me to say that, and very difficult for me to prove it. It would be difficult for me to prove how fruit has been destroyed. But let them challenge me to show how food is being destroyed not by burning it or by ploughing it in in the way I pointed out to the Minister last year when they ploughed in 4,000,000 bags of oranges. Let them challenge me where maize and wheat are being destroyed. I will show them that tomorrow:

Where are they?

They are at railway stations. At the same time one hears these horrible reports from Zoutpansberg and the Transkei that the natives are starving. I say I am prepared to take the Board today and show them where they can find stacks of mealies where they have been lying for the last three or four years. That is easy to prove, and I am ready to prove that. But the Controllers know how difficult it is to show where meat was dumped into the sea three months ago and to prove that, and for that reason I cannot make that statement. But I want to ask the Minister whether he can put his hand on his heart and say that no food has been destroyed by dumping it into the sea during the last three months. The position is chaotic from that point of view. The farmers have tried to produce more, they have tried to play the game with the Government and the public and to produce more than before, but the distribution is getting worse every day, and I say that by overthrowing control you will make it worse than it is. That is why we are introducing a system here under my motion where control will work much better and not in the direction of ensuring a black market for the idle rich, or in the direction of creating an artificial scarcity, but where control will operate in the direction of making smooth the relations between consumer and producer. That is our object. If there were any considerable number of members in this House who doubted that the position is chaotic, I would have spoken for hours. But I am convinced that all sides of the House, and the Minister himself, are satisfied that the position is chaotic. Now we want an improvement. We want to see the present production still further increased. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate the picture that was shown to us privately yesterday in the Library of the Senate. I hope that all members will have an opportunity of seeing it. It is something worth seeing, and if ever a man was assisted in his subject, I have been assisted by seeing that picture. We say that we want to create a department that will not devote itself exclusively to the interests of the one section, namely the producers but which will look upon the producer as a section that creates the necessities for the whole of the Union of South Africa. Approaching the matter from that angle, we can then call on every citizen of South Africa to make sacrifices in order to assist the men who produce the food for them, and it is when the problem is approached from that angle that we can expect loyal and voluntary support from every section of the people. Years ago whenever the Government contemplated doing anything for the farmer the parrot-cry would be heard from the cities, and through the newspapers, that the Government wanted to spoonfeed the farmer. But my party does not belong to that small section who condemn the farmer every day. We say that conditions should be made so attractive for the farmer that instead of farmers’ boys being attracted away from the farms, they should be induced to stay on them and make a living; that would be to the benefit of the country rather than that they should all become railway employees or Government officials. Here I believe I will have the cooperation and the assistance and goodwill of every well-meaning member of this House. It is necessary, as has been said by many members of this House, that a proper soil survey should be made in South Africa, and our soil should be classified and graded systematically, No. 1 and so on. It struck me yesterday when I was watching that picture, that Mr. van Rensburg hit the nail on the heard when he said that we should not rear cattle on lands that are more adaptable to sheep, or rear sheep where we should have cattle, any more than we should dream of placing ostriches in a river instead of fish. We must make a proper survey right throughout South Africa, and advise our farmers, our producers, in this strain: This is the soil that is suitable for growing wheat and that is the soil which may be best used for growing maize, while these lands are adaptable for sheep and those for cattle, and so on. The lands must be properly scheduled so that the producer should know what are the ideal places for the specific commodities. It must be scheduled, and once it is scheduled we can indicate to the farmer the policy it is wisest for him to follow. We have not done that in the past. It is true that we have made surveys, but we have not indicated what was found or what was recommended. I maintain that the whole country should be scheduled. Only then will the Government be able to arrive at a calculation of how much wheat can be grown for the benefit of the people of South Africa, how much maize can be grown and what quantities of other products can be grown. On that basis we shall be able to ascertain what South Africa can produce, and the best lines along which to proceed to make farming a success. Once you have that survey completed, South Africa will, for the first time in its history, be able to estimate the numbers of cattle and sheep and the volume of produce that the soil of South Africa can produce. We shall then know our potential maximum and our potential minimum in regard to the production of this country. Then we would take the next step. We would then render the necessary assistance to the farmer by supplying him with the requisite implements. Today it is absolutely impossible for the farmer, it has been impossible since Union to obtain farming implements in this country at reasonable prices, compared with the prices that are paid by farmers in the Argentine and in America. The farmer in this country has always been told: You can’t produce as cheaply as other countries can. I think we can, but if we have to pay in South Africa £600 for a tractor which costs the American farmer only £200 or less, you cannot expect our farmers to produce on the same scale as the American farmer. The producer is over-taxed not only through the importers of farming implements and requisites, who in due coruse become millionaires but they are overtaxed by our pernicious tax system though I know you will not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to digress any further on that aspect. Once we know what our stocks of produce should be in this country, and once we can define the correct or ideal localities for the production of our commodities, we would advise our farmers accordingly, making it clear to them how to set about acquiring the right soil. Implements are very necessary, and that is one thing we insist on here. The labour question can be dealt with. That is one big mistake we have made. Our labour forces have been wasted on the farms no less than on the mines, because on account of it being plentiful and being cheap the desirability of making the most economical use of it has been entirely overlooked by us. No proper use has been made of labour in this country; it has been employed wastefully on the mines and on the farms as well simply because it is so cheap. There is no necessity whatever why South Africa should ever have cause to complain about the labour position. I maintain that our labourers are the best workers in the world, and any farmer will tell you that he does not want anything better than a good team of natives to do his work. We are indeed fortunate that our small European population should have this labour supply. Our labourers should, of course, have good treatment; that goes without saying. One of my friends interrupted a moment ago to ask why the Labour Party does not go in for farming. Well, if they did go in for farming, and if you have a Labour Government you would have a good Government. It is in the interests of farmers to see that the consumers are looked after, and when they have legislative power they bear that in mind. But our farming conditions here instead of improving are becoming worse every day. Let me recommend one farming community to the attention of the House. There is no country in the world where farmers have been so assisted by the Government as in New Zealand. If you support the farmers by putting us into power you will never have a meat scarcity, and you will not have chaotic distribution of commodities. That would be against the interests of the farmers themselves, because they realise full well that they cannot exist without adequate and satisfactory markets.

Have you got a Labour Minister in the Cabinet?

Mr. Speaker, we come to another subject. Once we have supplied our farmers with the necessary implements there is nothing so essential in the country as the conservation of water, and those members who saw that picture yesterday will be quite clear in their minds in so far as irrigation in this country is concerned. We are hardly in the primary stage, and it is necessary for the Government to embark on a very large scheme, not to run away from the propaganda in the big cities but to make the payments that are necessary in order to have more irrigation schemes along the main rivers like the Vaal River and the Orange River. And unless we embark on an important and extensive irrigation policy in South Africa, unless we tackle the drought problem in the country we are going under. What is very important is the figure that shows the actual loss of animals. We can nowhere find the actual and proved figures which indicate the number of sheep and cattle that have died in the last thirty years in the Union.

Three million odd.

Mr. Van Rensburg yesterday said it averaged two million a year, but I submit that that is a horrible figure. The thing is that when it rains we are all satisfied, but when it is dry we start to feel that we never did our duty during the rainy period. Especially now when the drought is taking on more severe proportions we want to draw the Government’s attention to the fact, because now is the time when the public will listen to you if you endeavour to undertake big schemes to restore the water of the Union. We have heard a lot in this House about wanting boring machines, but I have never put up a plea for that and I never will, because there is no use drilling into the solid rock if no water is conserved in the rivers in order to supply underground sources. We must see that that mighty stream, the Orange River, is dammed and we must dam it. I do not know how many of these members, Mr. Speaker, have ever seen a booklet on the Tennessee Valley. They should put it into practice in the Union of South Africa. We should have more irrigation works. We advocate this and I know that every progressive member in this House will agree. We want something after the nature of the Tennessee Valley in the United States. Surely it is not a difficult matter to get all the political parties to agree to this because it is necessary.

Your policy is “dam the water.”

Yes, dam the water. Let them talk about damming water. I spell it “damme”. We want a dam like the Vaalhartz and Vaal Dam. We allow a mighty stream like the Orange River to flow on, losing its water, but if you continue along the tributaries of that mighty river you will see erosion gradually occurring. It will be a sorry day if the death of almost one hundred million animals in such a short period is not sufficient to make every member of this House serious about the position in South Africa. I would like to know what else will make them serious and what will make the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) serious. I have not had one second of silence since I started speaking. Now Mr. Speaker, we should see that after a survey is made we must save soil erosion. It must become a national matter and I want to point out to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that an appeal should be made for co-operation but that the lead must still come from the Government and the Government must still point out to the country how serious they are about the matter. They must indicate to the public that we cannot continue to have these huge losses of animal life every year there is a drought. The onus is on the Government to do that and it is for these reasons that we advocate the establishment ….

For the dams.

The Government should be responsible for the production of food because your Department of Agriculture’s first duty was just to look after farmers, as farmers. We want to change that so that they will look after the farmer as an essential part of the population without which we cannot prosper in the Union. I do not know what one of my hon. friends meant when he said that we have already too many farmers. Mr. Speaker, our object, after our survey, would be that if South Africa requires so many bags of maize for our annual consumption we must first of all produce that. If we require so much to feed the whole population of the country it must be our first object to produce it, and our second object will be to produce at least 10 per cent. more than our annual consumption in the country. I have never in my life seen that proper provision was made in South Africa, as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, to provide for the lean years in putting away a certain number of bags of mealies for the natives and animals starving every year in the Zoutpansberg and the Transvaal. We definitely say that we must produce at least 10 per cent. more than our annual requirements, and that must be put away in elevators and stores, not for the rainy days but for the years and months when it does not rain at all in South Africa. There has never been any attempt made by the Department of Agriculture to provide in any way for these lean times. It is for that reason that, apart from producing for normal consumption, you must produce more in order to provide for these people. That might sound like something new, for the simple reason that production in South Africa has been for one object only and that is to make the maximum profit, like in all other things in this country. But once the farming community is carried on the back of everyone in the country it will be better off. Once the burdens resting on the farming community in this country lie on the backs of everyone we will do something and then we will be in a better position than we are in today. Now we come to the most important point and that is where your Department of Agriculture has broken down all the time, and that is the question of distribution. We want to teach the Department of Agriculture how to do its work and we do not apologise for making that statement because the Department failed hopelessly. I told the previous Minister and all the Ministers in this House that they have never had a secretary competent to do the job.

That is a rather strong statement.

Yes it is. When they introduced the Marketing Act I said that it is clear to me that that man is absolutely incompetent to do the job.

Is there a rift in the lute now? Does your Minister say so too?

I do not apologise for saying that because if ten years of experience is not sufficient to weigh up the evidence and to come to the conclusion that the Agricultural Department failed miserably I do not know what is. I will now tell you what I want. Instead of having meat and food distributed by people whose hands are not properly clean, I want to change your distribution in quite a different way altogether. Every municipality, every City Council, should have their officers ready and there should be a distribution system in every municipality with a trained staff working under inspectors.

Have they got clean hands?

Look at the way food is handled today. It does not increase your appetite at all. What we propose here is that where the Minister made a start in Durban your municipality in Cape Town should have their staff ready to do that job and see that the food is distributed and that it is done properly, and that the staff should be trained in a hygienic way, and not as it is done now. That should be the case for fruit, meat, milk,, etc. Every municipality should have their lorries properly collected and should have their trained staffs to get it right from the depôt where the producer delivers his goods. Then we will not have old stuff that has been lying in the sun for days, but we should have food that has been properly stored and handled properly and put into vehicles which are clean and so delivered to the consumer. Then it would be worth-while for the Government to advertise on all the envelopes “Eat More Fruit” and you will see that sales will be increased. Today you call upon the farmer to produce. Once the farmer produces sufficient it lies in the stores of the controllers. The controllers refuse to give a permit. Certain people will not improve distribution simply because they do not wish to do so, because they wish to break control, but we are satisfied that if you put that system into practice it will not take the Minister of Agriculture many months or years to think it out that the system he applied in Durban can be extended. There are many lorries in the Defence Department which could be used for that purpose, to take the produce from the farm and to deliver it to the depots, and then you have another set of lorries, suitably equipped to deliver it to the consumers.

Who is to pay for that?

The municipalities should appoint the people to do the work and to see that it is done properly and in a clean way instead of having these hawkers today. They will get the staff and train them properly so that the job can be done in a clean way. The stuff delivered by the lorries in this case may have been at second hand or third hand, but if it was taken direct from the farms and brought to the depots and then delivered it should not cost so much and the profit of some hundreds per cent. should not have occurred. There is no more time for artificial arguments. It is time that we should come down to tin tacks and do the job properly. I want the Government to be in charge and to take the stuff from the producers and have it distributed in two stages only, from the farm to the depôt and from the depot to the consumer, and not a hundred and one other handlers. If we want to be ridiculous in our arguments we can do that but I do not propose to make a laughing stock out of the position at the moment, when the farmers cannot sell and the poor people cannot get food. We simply say that we have the right to criticise the Department of Agriculture because they cannot do the job properly. I say that if you have a Department who are in charge of producing sufficient food for the people of South Africa, make a survey of what is required and then see that it is produced and that it is properly distributed. That is the proper way and not the way we have been doing it. You have your Boards. What do they achieve? They have just been a handicap, but no-one had the courage in this House to tell the public what the truth is. Why are they afraid to tell the public that the Boards were boycotted by the big people, the vested interests, as the Minister of Agriculture called them? Why are they afraid to say so? These people are the enemies of the farmer and of the consumer. That is the only way in which to do it if you want a farming community which will be prosperous under all circumstances, and that is by giving them the necessary assistance. See that the soil is there ready for them. Give them advice, but also give them protection. One can hardly blame the farmer if he prefers to take a job of £25 a month instead of trying to struggle all his life on the farm where he cannot make ends meet. The time has come to make farming attractive in South Africa and worthwhile for the coming generation, and then we should, instead of just looking at the picture as it was screened yesterday, see it for ourselves and put into practice common sense agricultural methods, instead of the way in which it was done in the past. If there is one thing that is killing the initiative of the farmers it is the marketing system and the system of distribution. The Minister is doing his best with his Control Boards but as long as the Control Boards are there for the benefit of the very same people who were against their policy in the past and who are against everything they do, they will never be a success. My party says that that department should take control of producing sufficient food in South Africa and food to be stored away for the lean years to come, and that we must take control of distribution and take the stuff from the farm direct to the consumer. If that is done, it will be successful. As long as the Board applies for one more year of mercy—it is easy for members of Parliament to say that they are willing to give them one more year of grace—things will not come right. The poor people are standing today with a few shillings in their pockets wanting to buy food but they cannot buy it. I will draw the Minister’s attention to that. I was pleased to see yesterday that he climebd down one step in connection with rationing. We have been advocating rationing.

The hon. member must not refer to that.

It is very difficult to see what can be included in this motion that has not been touched on by the previous motions. I thank you Mr. Speaker for your kindness. We want the Minister not to think that we move this motion in order to go for him as Minister of Agriculture. We here realise that the unhappy system which we have today existed when he took over. It was then in a bad state already. But we say that he should see, and it is his duty to see, that production is kept up in all branches of agriculture and that everything that can be produced in South Africa is produced sufficiently for the needs of the people. Then there is another very important thing. Distribution must be improved in the country. If we allow things to continue as they were in the past. I feel very sorry not only for the farmers but for the thousands of poor people who have a little money and cannot buy what they need. It is high time that this condition is considered properly and that the food position in the country is reconsidered by the Government, not only as an agricultural matter, but as a matter concerning everyone. As far as housing is con cerned I do not think it is necessary for me to go to any length to show that the position there is also very chaotic. There are many poor people today coming back from the army who cannot get their homes back. They are prepared to wait because one day our good Minister gets up and says: “I notice that we require so many thousands of houses in this country” and then he makes a press statement that they are going to build so many houses. But then he has to go to the other Minister and the other Minister says: “No, you do not want so many million houses, but many more,” and so it goes on. For quite a long time we have been talking about building houses, but it is my opinion that the progress was very slow. I want to say that there is no hope whatsoever for us as long as Building Control and the building of houses are subject to War Supplies, as it is today, because the whole policy of War Supplies at present is not concerned about the country’s position today and after the war, but just to obtain American merchandise. We say that whatever building material is available should be placed at our disposal at once and there is no need for us to try to put away more cement and to try to hide more timber in this country. It should be placed at the disposal of the people at once, and we must proceed according to our supplies which we have today. You will remember last year I made the point when I said that the honourable Minister states that there is no timber available. But last year there was more timber in the country than we have ever had in the Union since 1910, and even today there is plenty of building material and we urge the Government to allow these bodies concerned to set it free. I know the hon. Minister will say that if is the duty of town councils to build houses. We know that, and the councils will be only too pleased to proceed to build houses tomorrow if they can get material. I think the time has arrived when the Government should release all the building material they can so that after the war we will not have old stock but can produce new houses at once with new materials. There is no point in withholding these things any longer.

Are the Labour Party in favour of the black man building houses for himself?

The hon. member for Hospital is very keen to assist me in my speech. Thanks for his assistance but he is doing me more harm than good. As far as the building of the houses is concerned, does it matter to the hon. member who builds the houses as long as they are built? The need is so serious that no-one will question whether this house was built by Mr. Jones or by Jim Fish. We want the houses and the hon. member still asks whether I want the house to be built by Jim Fish. The point is simply this, that we urge the Government to use all the necessary and available force to build all the houses required in the minimum period. A very generous offer was recently made by the Labour Party. They said that they will do this work but they will not allow a native to take bread out of a white man’s mouth because the native will work for less than the white man.

That is not the point.

Of course it is the point. You can do what you like provided you do not cut the throat of the working man. The position I want to stress is very serious, and as far as housing is concerned I will not say any more but will leave it to my able colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless), who is an authority on the point and he will deal with it very fully. I just want to make this appeal to the Government. There is plenty of food but it is not available. We want the Government to take the necessary steps to see that we get the food that is produced in the country. We do not wish to hear the story again after the season is over that a large proportion of the fruit crop was allowed to hang on the trees and rot. We do not wish to hear again that in spite of a shoratge on the market a large number of oragnes were ploughed in. We do not want to hear again that there have been shortages in Cape Town or Johannesburg Or Durban, and we do not want to read that no meat is obtainable at these centres, while we know that at the same time our farms are overstocked with cattle waiting to be distributed.

I second. I should like first, Mr. Speaker, to examine the correctness or otherwise of the Labour Party introducing a motion of this nature, because apparently the correctness of our course has been questioned by friends of the Government, and the “Sunday Times” in a report published on January 21st under big headlines says—

It then goes on to deal with the motion submitted by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I do not know whether the reporter of the “Sunday Times” is correct in his interpretation of the feelings of the House on this question. That is his opinion, and I am not going to range my opinion against his. If he is correct, and if there are friends of the Government, who are surprised at what is termed the vehemence of this resolution and who feel that the Labour Party should not have introduced such a resolution, I am sorry. But there is an obligation not only on members of the Labour Party but on members of the Government, as well as on all who claim to be friends of the Government, to see that this very important question of food is discussed at length in this House, so that a solution will be arrived at: and the Labour Party, as a party, has always concerned itself with economic questions. The party is not introducing the subject for the purpose of making political capital, but in the interests of the community, and it finds this to be its bounden duty, to raise the subject in this House and to compel all members of the House to realise in their own minds, that the situation in regard to food and housing in South Africa today is nothing less than chaotic. It is a pity if the word “chaotic” is going be be a cause of discord amongst those of our members who support the Government. What I say is that every member, particularly those members who come from urban, areas, whether they sit on the Government benches or on these benches (apart from those on our right), would be failing in their duty if during this Session they did not do everything in their power to alleviate the food question of this country. It is not necessary for members of the Labour Party to draw lurid pictures of people having to stand in queues waiting for food that they cannot get. Nor is it necessary for us to say that in Cape Town we live in hotels where they put food on your table, and when you have had it you feel hungry, and they overcharge you for the privilege of getting nothing at the table. People go into the butcher shop for meat and they are told there is nothing for them and they have to go out; then five minutes afterwards some people drive up in a motor car, and because they have a credit account at the shop they go off with meat.

Why did the Labour Party back the meat scheme?

It is not necessary for the Labour Party to go into those points I have mentioned. Everyone knows that those are the facts. What our resolution sets out to do is to make a constructive proposal to ensure that in future these chaotic conditions will not exist, and to ensure ….

Why did you back the meat scheme?

…. that a remedy is provided. What we ask is that the Government should take an ordinary elementary view of the matter, that they first of all plan the production of foodstuffs, bearing in mind in thé planning of their production the needs of the people, and with a knowledge of the total consumption of the community in regard to all the foodstuffs. We say, and quite correctly, that that can only be done through a Ministry of Food which would be entirely separated from the Department of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture is consistently under pressure from the farming elements of this country, for farmers are always wanting this or that, and some go so far as to say they are spoonfed. It is perfectly correct that they are out to secure from the Agricultural Department the very best things they can obtain for the farming community, but what we ask this House to recognise is that there is a natural conflict between the buyer and the seller. A seller wants to sell his goods at the highest prices, and the consumer wants to buy these goods at the lowest prices. There is that natural conflict. There is that natural antagonism between the buyer and seller, and the Minister of Agriculture cannot serve two masters at the same time. Let that be the Minister’s specific job, but let us also have a Minister of Food who sees that the people, the urban people in particular, are furnished with the food they need at prices which are equitable, and which are determined in relation to the needs of the farming community and the ability of the townspeople to pay for the food when produced. What the total consuming capacity of the people is should be a very elementary thing to determine, and from that point of view one must take an estimate of the things that can be produced. We have been told that the Government is going to examine the possibilities of some scheme whereby foodstuffs can be distributed by registration through retailshops in South Africa. I do not know why the Government have not examined this position and made up its mind on it a very long time ago, because I can recall when Mr. Keegan came to Durban some eighteen months ago there was a meeting of householders who were very perturbed over the foodstuff position, and that suggestion was made at that time. Surely the Government could have made up its mind during the intervening period whether it is feasible to have a distribution scheme on a rationing basis. It does not take eighteen months to come to a decision on that, and I think we are entitled to ask the Minister of Agriculture for any papers he may have from Mr. Keegan, so that we can learn the real and true reason why Mr. Keegan resigned from his post. It is true that certain statements were made in the paper, and it is recognised that one must use diplomatic language, and if a person in a responsible position leaves his post, it is put in an acceptable manner and without casting reflections on anyone. But there must have been reports from Mr. Keegan on the question of food rationing, and I think that we are justified in asking the Minister to have these reports laid on the Table. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) is now sitting on a commission which has been working for some time. Surely they have had time to give a report to the Government. Is it not a possibility that interim reports have been issued, and if these interim reports have been issued surely it is the duty of, the Minister of Agriculture to place these reports upon the Table of the House, so that members will know what work is being performed by the commission. The striking feature about the Sunday Times article is while they say that the House is surprised at the vehemence of the Labour Party motion, principally because it uses the word “chaotic,” on the very same page as that on which this report appears, there is another report which says: “Social workers alarmed by housing chaos.” It is apparently perfectly correct and justifiable for the “Sunday Times” to make reports stating that food and housing is chaotic, but when a responsible political organisation makes the same statement in this House and refers to the position as being chaotic, then it is the occasion for surprise by friends and supporters of the Government. I have another paper here which deals with the recent visit to Cape Town of a representative delegation of farmers from South-West Africa, and the farmers of South-West Africa say that there is no cattle shortage, and they gibe at the fact that in the cities of South Africa people have to go without meat, because in South-West Africa they have all the meat there that we want and they are ready to supply us with the meat. Apparently the hold-up is explained by the absence of any facilities, or the absence of the requisite facilities on the railways, by their omission to provide the refrigeration and cooling trucks which will bring the meat from South-West Africa to the cities of South Africa. When trucks are not available and it is said that there have been short supplies, the cattle have to come down on hoof, and this means a loss in weight on an average of something like 30 lbs., and it may be as much as 80 lbs. per animal, which means a huge aggregate loss, sufficient to deter farmers from sending by ordinary rail facilities, if available. The cattle are there, and South-West Africa is able to send it to the South African cities if the farmers are provided with the appropriate facilities. During the course of the last twelve months the railways should have been able to provide the refrigeration and cooling trucks that would have enabled that meat to have been sent from South-West Africa to the cities of the Union. Then our people would have had sufficient meat. It is a matter of plan, and if at the moment we have refrigerating or cooling trucks for the purpose, surely it is incumbent on the Government, in order to meet this acute shortage, and if the shortage is not to last for some considerable time, to provide the trucks to bring that meat to our cities. Let us examine the position in regard to sugar, and perhaps as a member for Natal it is perhaps a subject I should discuss with some heat. Is there any justifiable reason why there should be a large shortage of sugar in South Africa? There is no justifiable reason. It is only another sign of lack of planning. It is a lack of looking ahead. We have got all the statistics in regard to this sugar industry, and we know what the figures are in regard to consumption and production, and what they have been for many years past, in the pre-war period. We turned out something like 400,000 tons of sugar in South Africa, and approximately half of that amount went overseas, and the remaining half was consumed on the internal market. Now the export market for sugar is today practically closed; not only is all that production consumed in South Africa but the consumption capacity is being increased. The point I want to emphasise is this, that year after year all the figures and all the statistics were there to show that there was an increasing growth in the consumption of sugar in South Africa, and that to meet that continued growth in consumption it was necessary to increase the supplies of sugar. Perhaps the arguments in reply will be that we have not the machinery, that we have not the crushing plant required to crush the sugar which is available in the cane-fields in Natal. But I say that if we can get machinery on lease-lend from America to produce gold on our gold-fields, gold which we cannot eat, we should be able to get from America on lease-lend machinery which will help to provide the sugar that is required for the people of South Africa, and if necessary further supplies of sugar for the forces up North, in Italy or in the Middle East. No, we get this glorious example of absolute lack of forward planning, an absence of outlook. One sees that most clearly in the sugar question, because there is no reason in the world why sugar should be short in South Africa.

There is no shortage of sugar.

An hon. member on my left says that there is no shortage of sugar. I have sat in my hotel dining room without any sugar at my table.

Perhaps your hotel is no good.

I have yet to learn that it is possible to change one’s hotel and find conditions any better. But the fact is that you cannot walk into a shop and buy sugar. If you cannot go into a retail shop and buy sugar there must be a shortage of sugar, unless it is being held up, and the Government should then take steps to see that adequate supplies of sugar are released. Surely if you walk into a shop and cannot get sugar it is not there.

You can get it.

I do not know whether the hon. member is referring to brown or yellow sugar. I am talking of the inability of the ordinary housewife to get refined sugar. I have walked into a shop and asked for sugar, and was unable to get it. I had also to go into a shop to buy butter, because the hotel proprietor has not been able to obtain butter for the residents in his hotel, and I have not been able to obtain butter either.

It is going to the troops.

I do not object to the sugar going to the Western Front, but I say there has been a lack of planning, because there is no real reason why there should be a shortage of sugar, because Natal can grow all the sugar cane we want, and if necessary we should provide the labour, if required. The Minister asked a Question: “Would you like to have control of manpower in South Africa”, and with the control of manpower he could apply himself to the necessary production of agricultural products, and it would not be necessary to have these articles in short supply. There is an easy answer to that, and the Labour Party will give the answer: Yes, we are prepared to have the control over manpower all over South Africa, if you at the same time have the control over wealth, which you do not have now. That control over wealth would enable South Africa to make 100 per cent. war effort, and the Labour Party would agree. But do not talk about manpower and ….

The hon. member must come back to the question before the House.

In South Africa we are an agricultural and pastoral country. We can grow most of our foodstuffs. As to the validity of the suggestion for a Ministry of Food, let us apply a test which has been worked out in Great Britain. In the past, before the war, they were a food-importing country, a country not capable of producing all their food requirements, and under these circumstances and in these conditions they have introduced a system of food rationing which is recognised throughout the world as being a very efficient system. The people of Great Britain are content to go in short supply because they have the knowledge that it is not only a few that are going short, but that the same conditions are being applied to everybody in Great Britain, and if food rationing works in Great Britain, then there is every reason to believe that seeing that we have a greater suppply of the commodities here, it would be much easier to evolve a food-rationing system in South Africa. The argument has been voiced against it that South Africa has a heterogeneous population.

Rubbish.

That is the right word. It is a lot of rubbish. There is no obstacle which the ingenuity of man cannot overcome in matters of this sort, and even though we have a heterogeneous population and even though there is a big range of incomes and a wide disparity between the incomes of the lower paid groups and those of the higher paid groups, it does not alter the fact that if we apply our intelligence we shall be able to work out a scheme which will suitably provide for conditions in South Africa. That is what the Labour Party calls on the Government to do. Not only are we calling on the Government to do that, but on every street corner you hear the samé demand being made. In every organisation that sits down to a conference table, this question of food arises, whether it is the National Council of. Women or the Trade Union organisations, or various other organisations, and within five minutes of them embarking on discussion of the food question there is a demand for the setting up of a Ministry of Food. Only when the democratic will of the people of South Africa, only when the wishes of the people have been complied with and we have set up such a Ministry of Food, will we remove the discontent that is prevalent in every city in South Africa. The hon. member for Krugersdorp has made a reference to some of the headlines which deal with our food position. In the newspaper that I have before me at present there appears a sequence of headlines which deal with housing—

Day after day we read in the daily press of the fears expressed in different parts of the country, and we sense, we have an awareness that we are heading towards an acute crisis in regard to the housing problem in South Africa. This again is a matter which requires some reconsideration in the administrative work of the Government, if these fears are to be removed from the minds of the people, if the crisis is to be averted. Instead of having social welfare and housing under one ministerial head and the control of building material under another departmental head, surely it would be very much more efficient, it would strike the average man as being a more efficient method of co-ordination, to have one Minister responsible not only for housing but for the control of housing material. That is one point which we make at the outset in saying that the administrative proposition can be eased by making it more efficient in this way, and thus expediting the work of building houses for the people. I remember that during last Session when the Minister was describing his scheme for demobilisation he made reference to the fact that demobilised soldiers would get a loan grant of £1,250, and somebody interjected from this side of the House: “Will that money be available to soldiers for the building of houses?” The answer was “yes”. But now that the matter is being dealt with by the Demobilisation Committee you find that a soldier cannot necessarily by right make a claim for the £1,250 for building a house. He has first of all to be bale to guarantee or to prove certain things. He has first of all to prove either that he lost his house as a consequence of his joining the army, or alternatively he must be able to prove that in the ordinary course of events he would have had a house had he not joined the army. That is not the proper test. The real test should be not whether a soldier should have something he might have had if he had not joined the army, but surely it is a better test to say that a lad having joined the army and having served in the armed forces, he is entitled to something better than had he not joined up. The Government has got plans, there is not any doubt about that. We have seen the figures—400,000 in the next ten years. There has been conference after conference. There have been meetings of one group with another group. There have been exchanges of views by various officials, and between the executives of sundry organisations. That sort of thing has been going on now for twelve months, and it looks to me as if it may be going on for another twelve months; but the important thing is that houses are not being built, and the reason is not soley or entirely a question of material or labour though it is true they have some bearing on the problem. I deal first with the effect of labour. The trade union organisations in South Africa connected with the building trade have clearly stated that it is a physical impossibility to build all the houses which the Government say they are planning, within the time specified, even if every building artisan in South Africa was put to work on them as well as all the arti sans in the army, if they were taken out, and even if their number was doubled by the importation of new artisans, it would not be possible to complete the houses the Government has planned for. The Government figures must be based on something. We cannot assume that the Government has put down a lot of figures in an irresponsible way and said those are the houses we need, and those houses are going to be built. It must be on some scientific basis. I believe it is on some scientific basis. If it is not possible to build these houses or if we accept the fact as alleged by the building trade union organisations that it is not possible to build these houses in the time specified, and that the number of artisans available in South Africa is not sufficient—then there must be some other explanation and I suspect, rightly or wrongly, that explanation lies in the fact that there is a detremination on the part of the Government to utilise African labour in the building of these houses.

Would you let a native build a house for himself?

Let me make it clear to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). He made an interjection asking whether the Labour Party objected to a native building a house for himself. Well, the Labour Party has never objected to anybody building anything for themselves. What we have objected to is Africans building houses for someone else. That is a different matter entirely, and it is involved with the question of wage rates. If it is the intention of the Government to put Africans to work in building houses, at the same rates of pay as European artisans, no trades union organisation could possibly say that they objected to such conditions. Whatever prejudices some of them might have, they dare not object to the principle. They might not like the idea of Africans building houses and doing skilled work, but they would not say so, and trade unions would not object to the employment of African labour in the construction of these houses provided the Africans were paid rates of pay and were given conditions similar to those granted to European workmen. So you have to look further for the explanation, and the explanation for these houses not having been built is the Government’s intention to employ Africans in the building of these houses at a lower rate of wages than holds on the European market, and the building trade union organisation would be foolish in the extreme if they, for one moment, agreed to the employment of labour on a specified job at wages and conditions that undermine the wages and conditions that they have built up over the course of years. [Interjections.] I do not want to deal with these interjections now. I do not want the hon. member to distract me from this point. If the Government plan is a sound plan, then behind £he plan there must be the intention to proceed with the building of houses, and the employment of African labour at wage rates below the wages paid to European artisans. I say it is the job of the State to utilise the whole labour force of South Africa to see that non-Europeans are made skilled in the craft and that they are given the same opportunity as other people to perform skilled work. But it has of a necessity got to be by a process that these avenues must be opened to them, not as an immediate step but as a progressive step from month to month or from year to year. But ultimately the Africans must be provided with an opportunity of being able to do skilled work. They should in the course of time become skilled workers in order that South Africa can benefit from a population which is skilled in industry and skilled in craft, but it must not be done at the expense of undermining the conditions of the European workers. So much for the question of labour involved in the fulfilment of the Government plan. The question of material I will leave alone. It is true, at the present moment, there is some scarcity. While cement was being sent to the Middle East there was a definite shortage of cement. But what I also say is that the Government can plan in this direction; they can see that the potential cement which can be produced in South Africa is made available at the earliest possible moment so that housing will not be held up. But a more important point is this. In the building industry you have an industry in which the Controller of Manpower has been in operation. What we ask is this—and it is a crucial point; it is a testing point as to whether houses shall or shall not be built; it revolves on the question of capital which is used for the building of houses. If the Government is prepared, as they have been asked to do by Major Brinton and others, to make capital available at the rate of 2 per cent., then it will not be very long before you get houses, but if the Government is not prepared to use the money which is available to them either through the Post Office or through other sources, to make capital available for the building of houses at 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. as we ask in this motion, then no houses will be built. But if the Government is prepared to make capital available at 2½ per cent. then the question of material will not be a great obstacle, Labour will not be an obstacle. You will be able to get houses, but only when the Government is prepared to make money available will you get houses. The Demobilisation Committees today say that they are not prepared to approve of any housing scheme which means a soldier becoming involved in the purchase of a house at the present inflated value of houses. If that is to be the cardinal testing point, i.e. that we are not to build houses until land prices and building prices become deflated, then you will never get houses. But if the Government is concerned and if the soldiers’ committees are reasonably concerned, as I believe they are, and they will only see the point, then we will get houses, if capital is made available at an economic interest rate. They are worrying about deflated prices today. If they are going to adopt the attitude that they are not prepared to approve of housing schemes of the present inflated values, then you will not get houses for our returned soldiers. It is more far sighted, it is a better policy for the Demobilisation Committees to recognise that if they get money at 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. then the saving that they would effect on the interest on capital would at least in the normal course of repayments offset the enhanced values which they have to pay, and I would urge the Government immediately or at the earliest possible moment to build or cause to be built houses for the people of South Africa and not to worry so much about holding conferences here and there, which get you nowhere. I again submit that the real test, the test of its sincerity, lies in its willingness to make available capital for the housing programme at not more than 2½ per cent.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has moved a motion asking for a Ministry of Food. If there is one man in this House who ought to be prepared to accept such a motion with open arms, if any reasonable case is made out for it, I think that man would be myself. I would from personal consideration be only too glad to hand over to someone else the troubles I am having in handling this portfolio, but I have never heard a case made out for the setting up of a Ministry of Food. The hon. member has travelled from biblical Egypt to the Tennessee Valley, but he has shown no justification for the setting up of a Ministry of Food. One hears cries from many parts of the country today that if only the Government would agree to the setting up of such a Ministry then, as if by magic, all our troubles would disappear at once. Why that is so we are not told. Perhaps it is because a Ministry of Food has worked very well indeed in England. It has worked there with great success, but we are a horse of a very different colour. We are not In, the same position at all. England, with a population of 38,000,000, largely a food importing country, with a homogeneous population, all solidly behind the Government, presents quite a different proposition from ours. We with our 10,000,000 people, a food producing country—and before the war a food exporting country—with no homogeneous population but a very diversified population—Europeans with one standard of living and natives with another standard of living, Indians, coloureds—that is a totally different proposition. Even 40 per cent. of our European population is completely against the Government.

Only 25 per cent.

Or only 25 per cent. whatever the percentage is. They are completely against any step which the Government takes arising directly or indirectly out of the war effort so that one cannot take the case of England as proving the case for a setting up of a Ministry of Food in South Africa. My hon. friend has also given evidence of a misconception of the position as it is in South Africa today; he has shown a lack of full knowledge of the situation. I regret to have to point that out. He has stated, for instance, that the Secretary for Agriculture stands convicted of incompetence, that he does not know the first thing about distribution, but let me remind the hon. member that distribution is not the Secretary of Agriculture’s job today. The Food Control Organisation has that duty to perform. The Food Control Organisation is entirely distinct and separate from the Department of Agriculture, which is charged with the production of food. The Food Control Organisation is there as a separate organisation, in no way at all subservient or subordinate to the Department, and they deal with the distribution of foodstuffs. And, Sir, my submission is, from my experience and from what I have seen of the working of this organisation, that that is the best set up as far as this country is concerned. This organisation was divorced from the Department only last year, and with the grave difficulty we have with the shortage of manpower, it has had to get personnel not only for the very big meat scheme but also for its other duties; but it is improving and it is progressing, and I think with the experience it has gained and is gaining, it will be able to cope with the problems that we have in this country. The people who make this demand for the setting up of a Ministry of Food often do not know or overlook the fact that we in South Africa, in order to meet the peculiar difficulties of this country, have not a Ministry of Food but we have a small Food Cabinet. We have a miniature Food Cabinet.

Very miniature.

Well, with the spectacles my hon. friend uses, it would be very miniature. We have in this country a Cabinet Sub-Committee on Food which consists of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, and we all know that the Department of Social Welfare is very intimately connected with the distribution of foodstuffs to the lower income groups. He is a member of that Food Committee. The Minister of Economic Development, under whom the Price Controller falls is also a member of the Cabinet Food Committee and so is the Minister of Finance who is concerned with the financial aspect. The question of subsidies comes up from time to time. I mentioned yesterday a number of articles which were subsidised at present and the amounts which have been paid in the past year in the form of subsidies. I am also a member of that Cabinet Sub-Committee, and the four of us try to look at this question of food as it affects the producer and as it affects the consumer. We try to look at it to the best of our ability from a broad national point of view, in order to see that the decisions which are taken, not only with regard to the fixation of prices, but in every way are for the benefit of the producers and the consumers of this country. The charge is often made that I as Minister of Agriculture am in an untenable position in that I have the Food Control Organisation under me while I am also Minister of Agriculture. It is said that my two positions are conflicting. The argument is that I shall not be able to do justice to the interest of the consumers, that I would yield to the tremendous pressure on the part of the farmers. Well, the question of the fixation of these prices comes before the Cabinet Food Committee where we all discuss these matters together and, as I intimated, come to a decision which we consider fair in the interest of the producer and the consumer. In other words, we aim at giving the producer in this country a price which will compensate him not only for the tremendous increase in his production costs, but which also takes into account his labour, and the increase in his own cost of living. We as a Government stand for social security, and we do not want to exclude the farmer from it. The farmer is also entitled to his fair profit and to a fair return on his investment in the form of his farm and his goods on it. As far as the consumer is concerned, we aim at seeing that he gets his food, which is produced in this country and which is imported, at a fair price, and if it is not possible to give the producer a fair price for his products, and a fair price to the consumer, then the Government in order to prevent inflation and to protect the consumer, goes to the extent of paying a subsidy. A subsidy was paid in the case of bread. It was paid last year in the case of maize. It is also being paid in the case of dairy products. That is the policy which is followed. I asked the hon. member, how does he think a Ministry of Food would get us out of our present difficulties, with a temporary shortage? Let us take the case of meat. My hon. friend says there is plenty of meat. He says that if you go to the areas outside the controlled areas you are able to buy as much meat as you want. Then he wants to know why some parts are controlled while others are not controlled. Well, there is a very good reason for it. The reason is that the basis of the present meat scheme is the dead weight and grade basis. You cannot control an area unless it has abattoir facilities in the first place, and in the second place you have trained graders who can grade the animals in a proper and efficient manner. I regret to say that we have not the graders to make the meat scheme of full effect throughout the country. We have barely sufficient graders for the controlled areas.

You have not even got sufficient graders for the controlled areas. I sold cattle; I know.

In that case, of course, the hon. member is speaking from personal knowledge. Let me tell my hon. friend that a month or more ago I had this type of complaint from people, not on a very large scale but certain people complained about the grading. Then I appointed a committee to investigate the grading in all the 9 controlled centres of the Union. I deliberately gave the producers a majority on that committee. I appointed Mr. Fawcett, who is a member of this House and a well known person in agricultural circles.

A well known “yes” man.

Then I appointed Mr. Lotz who is well known in the Free State.

Another “yes” man.

I appointed these two gentlemen together with the chief grader to investigate the grading in the 9 controlled centres. What was their report Their report was that the error in the grading was something like 2 per cent. or 3 per cent.—at any rate less than 5 per cent.—and the bulk of the error was in favour of the producer.

Do you call that an impartial committee?

Let me get back to the point which was made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. That is the reason why we cannot extend the meat scheme to all the outside areas. Why is there more meat in the outside areas than in the controlled areas? Let me give my hon. friend the figures of consumption in the meat trade. According to the finding of the McDonald Commission, the 9 controlled centres consume something like 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the total meat turnover in the country, so that these outside areas which are not controlled, only consume something like 25 per cent. to 30 per cent., so that we will see that when there is a scarcity it is not difficult to have something almost in the nature of a surplus in these outside areas, but to have a deficit in the bigger areas, where the quantity consumed is incomparably larger than the amount consumed in the outside areas. The fact remains as I have stated previously that our slaughter stock has been very severely reduced.

Nonsense!

You do not believe that yourself.

I will give the figures to the House. I do not want to make loose statements without giving the evidence in support.

Let go your heart and use your brains.

We have the census figures which I mentioned last year. I want to look at the analysis of these figures to see what slaughter stock there is in the country today. These figures show that as far as cattle is concerned, the number of cattle in August, 1937, was 6,196,000 in round figures.

Six million?

6,196,000.

Shame!

Let me add that is European cattle. Whereas in November, 1943, according to the census taken the number was 7,425,000. Let us look at what these animals were. In 1943 the number of animals under one year old represented 17.7 % of the total, whereas in 1937 is was 16.8% only; the percentage of females over one year was 46.7% in 1943 and 45.1% in 1937; the percentage of males over one year was 35.6% in 1937 and 38.1% in 1943. The total increase was 19.8%. Those figures show that although the increase in all groups amounted to 19.8%, it was accounted for mainly by an increase in the number of calves and female animals.

Where is the butter then?

That is what the figures show. In addition the number of cows that we have are retained more and more for the production of fresh milk and are not available to any appreciable extent for slaughtering. Male animals over one year in age show an increase of 11.9% as compared to 24.2% for females. The male cattle population shows a decrease of 35.6% in 1943 as compared with 38.1% in 1937. So that if the 1937 ratio of the various groups of animals had been retained there would have been 183,000 more male animals over one year old.

Is this from the report of the McDonald Commission?

No, this is not from the McDonald Report. The hon. member knows that the cattle census took place after the McDonald Report was drawn up. These figures show very clearly that the bulk of these animals are young animals and the majority of them are female animals. With regard to the male animals you have to take into consideration this further fact, that there is a tremendous demand for trek oxen owing to the shortage of mechanical transport. Oxen are used to a much greater extent than they were used before, and therefore even with the decreased number of male cattle you still have that as an additional drain on them. The position is quite clear that although you have more cattle today we have less slaughter stock than in 1937.

But you are now getting meat from the adjoining territories—from South West Africa and Bechuanaland.

We have drawn meat from the adjoining territories.

Very little.

As far as sheep are concerned, we know that the sheep population was found to be very much less in 1943 than it was in 1937. In 1937 it was 26,840,000; in 1943 is was 21,212,000. That refers to wooled sheep. Out of the 1937 figure just over 5½ million were lambs, and in the 1943 figure the number of lambs is very nearly the same. Coming to non-wooled sheep the number of lambs under one year in 1937 was 1 million and in 1943 over 2¼ million were lambs over one year old. That being the case I would like to ask my hon. friend how a Ministry of Food would alter that state of affairs.

By not exporting so much.

In addition we have had other difficulties with regard to meat, that I do not want to go into now. I think I have indicated very clearly to the hon. member why there is more meat outside the controlled areas than in the controlled areas and why our meat position is not as sound as it might have been. Our animals that are fit for slaughter are far less today than they were before the war.

What about the territories?

We have been getting cattle from the territories. We organised South West Africa. We sent men there to organise not only the sending of stock but to arrange for the trucks and I say for the beenfit of the seconder of this motion, that we took every step to tap the resources of South West Africa and Bechuanaland. We got a very substantial supply from those territories. We are continuing to take every step to draw all the slaughter animals that we can to the market.

Only yesterday you again commandeered a number.

Yes.

You are chasing them away now.

Internally the consumption has gone up very much.

That is another point; the internal consumption has increased a tremendous lot.

Now you are talking nonsense! As it is, there is no meat; how could it have increased?

The hon. member wants to split hairs. You can split hairs if you like, but we all know that the amount of money in circulation is very much more and when it is available the people eat far more meat than they did before the war.

How can that be; there is no meat.

I explained that there is more money in circulation and there are fewer manufactured articles on which to spend that money; therefore the greater volume of money goes into fewer channels and one of the main channels is the purchase of food.

But you cannot get food!

That is the position as far as meat is concerned. It is very easy to say there is no meat. Unfortunately we are in Cape Town at the moment where there is a greater shortage of meat than in any other area.

What about Durban?

There is not a shortage in Durban at the moment. With the exception of Cape Town and Pretoria, the meat position in the Union is fairly satisfactory, so much so that we have been able to bring down to Cape Town a quantity of beef from Durban; just as a few months ago when there was a shortage at Durban and Cape Town was better supplied, we sent meat to Durban. We reciprocate in that way. We have had to release for the use of Cape Town de-boned meat to the equivalent of some 650 head of cattle. That has been released and other steps are being taken by means of which I hope the position in Cape Town will be very considerably eased. We are also sending teams into the country to organise the sending of supplies, because we find that in many cases the slaughter stock is not being sent forward to the controlled markets because of the propaganda that has been made against the scheme.

That is nonsense.

What do your own people say about that?

Let them say what they like; we have the proof. In December we sent a number of men down to the Transkei and in no time about 2,000 head of cattle was forwarded, quite willingly, by those farmers who had been misled and who had been misinformed about the meat scheme Sir, I am not surprised at this. I am not surprised because the value of a scheme like this is gauged not only by the persons who are in favour of it but very much more by the people who are against it. We know that some of the vested interests some of the speculators, are very definitely opposed to the scheme and have made propaganda against it, and one of the steps that had to be taken was to counteract that propaganda and to publish the accurate facts.

Who made the propaganda? You?

The mover of this motion has also asked why we have not got rid of the black market and why there is still a black market. Well, I have explained the peculiar difficulties pertaining in this country and why the European countries are easier to control because their problems are not so complicated and difficult as ours; yet the information we have available shows that in those countries a black market has flourished nevertheless. I would like to refer to an extract from a report on Food Rationing and Supply, dated March, 1944, by the Director of the Economic, Financial and Transit Department of the League of Nations—

Some of my hon. friends will say that the Labour Party should have removed these difficulties, and all these miracles will happen. But the fact is that they do not happen. It is very difficult with our shortage of manpower, to stamp out completely the black market in this country. We have taken very drastic steps as far as meat is concerned. On the Rand over 50 of these firms were convicted for contravention of the control regulations. We will act in Cape Town also and steps will be taken here, too, to see that the regulations are carried out. I do not say that we will be able to stamp it out completely. In no country has it been possible to do that, but drastic action has been taken here and we will go a long way towards eliminating the black market in the meat trade. I have explained how in the case of potatoes the black market was broken up.

My submission to the House, therefore, is that there has been no case made out for the setting up of a separate Ministry of Food, that the present organisation is adequate to meet the peculiar and difficult circumstances pertaining in this country, that it has shown what it can do, and that as we gain experience we will be able to cope adequately with our manifold difficulties and problems as they arise. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept the motion moved by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg).

The hon. Minister of Agriculture has now proved to his own satisfaction that the less food the people have to eat, and the less meat there is, the higher the consumption in South Africa. The fact that the people have for the last seven months had to queue up in order to obtain a bit of meat is proof to him that the consumption of meat in South Africa has increased. He may convince himself with that argument but he will certainly not satisfy the people outside. What is also very funny is that the Minister quoted figures here with regard to the decrease in the number of cattle and sheep in the country, while he remains quiet on the matter of exportation figures. He did not mention a single word about that. On today’s agenda I put certain questions to him about that. I asked for figures, figures corresponding with those he himself gave five months ago, and now he wishes to pretend to the House that he cannot supply the information.

I will supply the information.

Yes, naturally, when the debate has already been finished. Then we will get the data, but I leave the matter there. Other members will deal with the food position. I want to speak about housing and wish formally to move the amendment appearing in my name on the agenda—

1. (a) to prohibit the exportation of all building materials, including building materials for military purposes;
2. (b) to make no further barracks huts or other buildings available for use by military units not forming part of the military forces of the Union and/or not being Union nationals, and to demolish all barracks and other buildings which are not absolutely essential for the use of the military forces of the Union, and to make such building materials available for local bodies for sub-economic housing schemes;
3. (c) to make a survey of the present large supplies of building materials which have accumulated in the depôts of the Department of Defence and to make available for housing schemes of local bodies and other approved organisations, so much thereof as will not be required in the near future for military purposes in the Union;
4. (d) to repatriate to their respective countries of origin all aliens (including British subjects) who entered the Union since 1st October, 1939, for temporary residence and who have been resident in the Union for three months or longer, with the exception of—
   1. (i) diplomatic, consular and other representatives of overseas governments, together with their families and staffs;
   2. (ii) permanent representatives of overseas business firms together with their families and staffs;
   3. (iii) persons who can produce satisfactory proof that they came to the Union for business or official purposes and that such business has not yet been completed, in which case the Minister of the Interior to have leave to extend their period of residence for not longer than a further two months; and
   4. (iv) refugees and evacuees from countries still under enemy occupation but only for as long as such countries remain so occupied;
   5. (e) to prohibit all immigration to the Union until such time as conditions have returned to normal; and
   6. (f) to admit no visitors for temporary residence until such time as conditions have returned to normal, except—
      1. (i) bona fide European inhabitants of adjoining territories; and
      2. (ii) persons entering the Union on strictly official business visits;

and to restrict such visitors mentioned in (i) and (ii) above to a period of residence of three months and to extend the period of residence for valid reasons only with the consent of the Minister of the Interior.”

It was originally proposed as a substantive motion but owing to the fact that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) also moved a motion about housing, I am forced to bring my motion in the form of an amendment. The question of housing, of anxiety about housing, of scarcity of housing, is a matter about which as much is spoken and as much dissatisfaction exists in the country amongst all sections of the population, even amongst the Government supporters themselves, as there is dissatisfaction about the food position. That is one of the main reasons why the Government got into disfavour with the population of the country within such a comparatively short time. That cannot be denied. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation will perhaps want to reply to this also, as in another debate, with mention of Hitler and with jokes in order to draw attention from the gravity of the situation. He has tried to do this on other occasions. That is “drawing a red herring across the track”, to use his own phrase. He must not also do what the Minister of Agriculture, who sat down just now, did and use all kinds of weak excuses in order to try to save their position. The Minister of Welfare said the other day when he replied about the dissatisfaction in the country, especially in connection with the housing question, “there is some measure of criticism”, and he went further and said with self-satisfaction “this Government thrives on criticism as long as it is constructive”. I should like to give the Minister a few examples of the kind of criticism from its own ranks on which, according to his allegation, the Government waxes fat. I want to refer him to his own supporters. I do not wish to refer to the criticism which came from this side, but I want to quote that sort of “constructive criticism” emanating from his own people. I refer the hon. Minister in the first place to his own fellow party member, the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), who last year already, when the position was not so serious yet, said at a meeting in his constituency—

He was there speaking about an alternative in connection with the war. He continued to say—

This is what the Minister calls “constructive criticism on which the Government thrives”. Then the hon. member for Parktown said further—

One can quote further examples of the “constructive criticism on which the Government thrives”. I have a pamphlet here from which I have already quoted, but it is good for the Minister to hear it again. It is “Common Sense”, a pamphlet issued by the Society of Jews and Christians, who are certainly not well-disposed towards this side of the House, but who are friends especially of the Minister of Finance. What do they say about the Prime Minister in January of last year? After the Prime Minister had been returned with a great majority they say—

That is the “constructive criticism”. I return to the hon. member for Parktown, the Minister’s friend. Last year in November, just the other day, he addressed another meeting. On the platform together with him there was the Minister of Economic Development, and according to the SAPA report of the meeting a motion was adopted in which—

And further—

That is a motion adopted at a meeting where the Minister of Economic Development was present. That is the kind of “constructive criticism” on which the United Party thrives. But the hon. member for Parktown said in his speech at that meeting—

There he certainly had in mind the present Minister of Agriculture. He went on to say—

That is the “constructive criticism” on which the United Party thrives. If the Minister still has any further doubts, let him refer to his own newspapers, the letters in the “Cape Times”, the “Argus”, and the “Rand Daily Mail” from people who in the last election were supporters of the Government; and if he pays attention to what they say he will see that there is such dissatisfaction reigning as never before in the case of any other Government. And to prove the matter still further I want to quote what the Secretary of the Minister’s own party, the Chief Secretary, Mr. O. A. Oosthuizen, said. In the circular letter, the well-known “News Letter”, that thing with the black mourning band on top, he says in the September issue of 1944—

He continues to state that there is general dissatisfaction and asks the question whether this is a sign of war weariness. It is the Minister’s own secretary who speaks like that. Then he touches on the matter with which my amendment deals, and says—

Is it necessary to go further? The Minister tells us that the constructive criticism they have received is a trifle; the Party thrives on it. One of these days perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will rise and tell us that the nation is flourishing on bullybeef and margarine. The dissatisfaction is understandable. Food and housing are the two important matters in a man’s life. The least that any man, any citizen, can expect from a decent country with a decent Government—which this one is not—is that he will have enough food for himself and his family and a roof above his head. That is the least he can expect. What is the position in connection with housing? Not even the Minister will deny that there is a housing crisis. It is hardly necessary to expand on the point that a housing crisis exists in the country. Just look around and read the newspapers. There are two aspects of the matter, in the first place the shortage of dwelling houses, and in the second place the shortage of lodgings, because that is an aspect of the matter which we should not lose sight of. There are at present thousands and tens of thousands of young men and women who have to look for accommodation in boarding houses and hotels and who find it very difficult to obtain accommodation. Those are the two aspects of the matter. Even the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) will be able to give evidence on that, because last year he said that he would have to acquire a caravan in which to live in Cape Town because he could not find accommodation. How far he got in acquiring the caravan I don’t know. If we study the newspapers for the last twelve months we find many reports of heartbreaking cases, cases where families had to go to plantations in order to live. Others had to stay in stables. Whole families had to seek refuge in garages or stables. And what is worse, we find a large number of cases of people who, in order to have a roof above their heads, were obliged to go and live with coloureds. That is the position in South Africa today. During a previous debate the Minister was worried about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition did not specifically mention ex-soldiers when he spoke about conditions in the country. I want to ask the Minister to have a look at the newspapers of 18th February of last year. There he will see how an ex-soldier with his family were obliged to live in a tent on the Market Square of Kuils River. That is the provision he made for the ex-soldiers about whom he is so terribly anxious. As further evidence I can quote Mr. J. H. Shaw, Chairman of the Rent Board here in Cape Town, who declared at the annual meeting of the Association of Municipal Services—

As further evidence I can quote the Van Eck Commission which was appointed by the Government and which declared in its report, which appeared in February, 1944, that—

They estimate that there was a shortage of 150,000 houses for Europeans and 140,000 for coloureds, making a total of 290,000 houses. But even the Minister who last year proposed a Bill to amend the Housing Act in his speech mentioned the serious conditions existing. It is therefore not necessary to expand further on the question as to whether there is a housing crisis. The question now arises as to what caused this housing crisis. Of course one will immediately hear from the other side of the House “there is a war on”. But even before the war broke out the Government knew that the position was beginning to become serious. Representations were made to the Government. Although the position in 1939 was not yet very serious, in view of the fact that a fairly large number of houses were built in that year, it was already beginning to become serious. Undoubtedly the war made the position much worse. But the trouble with the Government is that it is so anxious about the war effort that it gives all its attention to the war effort and neglects everything else. The Government followed the typical Smutsian policy of “letting things develop”, and in this matter things developed until we reached the position in which we find ourselves today. The Government knew about it and they were warned. I have before me the annual report of the “Citizens’ Housing League Utility Company”. I am convinced that the Prime Minister and also the Minister of Finance will eagerly accept the opinions expressed by the person who drew up that report, namely Mr. Charles te Water, who was formerly High Commissioner of the Union in London. He is the chairman of this company and he says in the report—

This is a serious accusation which surely the Government cannot just ignore. He uttered a warning. What did the Government do? If ever we had an example of a paper policy and a policy of promises, we had it in connection with housing. We received one promise after the other. The Minister commenced to speak in what he perhaps will call an “expansive moment” about the building of 30,000 houses in one year, 2,500 per month. But during the year 1943, until March, 1944, only 890 sub-economic houses were built. The Minister’s promises were legion. On 24th March, 1944, he addressed the Junior Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town. He made a nice speech and bragged about all the plans he had. He spoke about a new scheme which would come into operation in July, 1944. The homeless people expected great things. Eventually the Minister came before. Parliament with the Housing Amendment Bill, and at the second reading he admitted the seriousness of the position. But he said we were going to make a new start. It reminded one of the man who has lead a wicked life and who is now going to make a new start—a reformed rake. The “Cape Times” was very pleased, and on the front page under double headlines—“Government Drive in Housing”, “Mr. Lawrence promises Early Programme”—it said—

Brave words! Great expectations were aroused by these promises. The Minister then went to Pretoria and on the 27th June a SAPA message, apparently an inspired message, from that centre states—

SAPA had an interview with the Minister, and the Minister told them of everything that was going to be done. The Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Public Works, also made his contribution, and he also spoke of all the wonderful things they were going to do; and how all the people were going to get houses. We wait and wait, and it takes months before the commission is appointed under the Act. In the meantime the Minister spoke again and this time he spoke of 2,000 houses per month. He was assisted by his colleague behind him, the Minister of Economic Development, who on the 2nd November at Worcester spoke of no less than 2,000 houses per month. Then we had the statement of the National Housing Committee which was appointed. On the 18th September, 1944, the Commission stated that a programme of 12,000 houses would be completed for the year ending 30th June. By that time it had become 1,000 per month. To begin with it was 2,500, then 2,000, and by that time it had become 1,000. The Committee added that in the meantime applications had been received for 22,885 houses, to which they could not agree. But we also get excuses. As in the case of the food question we have reached the excuse-stage. They cannot carry out these plans; these promises cannot be fulfilled, because the National Housing Committee says “the war must be won, which means that quantities of building material must be placed at the disposal of the United Nations, especially cement”. The Commission also complained that these was a shortage of labour, and the Minister of Economic Development also came forward with excuses, and on the 7th November he said at Stellenbosch—

His colleague, the Minister of Public Works, goes even further and stated subsequently that 50 per cent. of our cement was being exported. It is perhaps just as well for us to ascertain how much cement was exported. Today I received a reply to questions which I put and it appears from that reply that in 1943, 128,431 tons of cement were exported which means 2,568,000 bags of cement. In respect of 1944 we only have the figures for nine months, and during those nine months 152,650 tons of cement were exported, the equivalent of more than 3,000,000 bags of cement. It stands to reason that there will be a shortage of houses when that type of thing happens. But the Minister was still making promises. On the 29th November, 1944, he held a meeting at Johannesburg, and there he spoke of “definitely 1,000 per month”. To begin with it was 2,500, then 2,000, and now 1,000. But what is the actual position. The official bulletin of statistics for the third quarter of 1944 states that only 266 houses were built. It has become a policy of paper promises. Nothing came of them The hon. member for Parktown was justified in his belief that the Government was making promises which it could not fulfil. As far as this matter of vital importance is concerned, it is clear that the Government and more specifically the responsible Minister failed to do his duty, was inefficient and reckless in regard to the question of housing. The Minister may say that he is not going to take any notice of accusations emanating from the Nationalist benches. Very well, in that case let us again quote to him the opinion of Mr. Charles te Water, and I hope he will listen to it. In the same report of the Utility Company, of which he is the chairman, he says—

That is a strong accusation from a man like Mr. Charles te Water. But there are further proofs from other quarters. I have before me a report that appeared in the “Cape Argus” on the 9th of this month. It is a SAPA report from Johannesburg—

Constructive criticism—

Here again we have an indictment from the other side. Then finally we have the report of the Gluckman Commission, which states—

A deadlock has been reached! The Government’s own commission comprised of its own people expressed that opinion. “Criticism from within the United Party on which the Government thrives!” A deadlock has been reached! I have now submitted to the House the evidence of Mr. Charles te Water, of the special committee that was appointed by the City Council of Johannesburg and of the Gluckman Commission. All three charge the Government with having failed in its duty in connection with housing for the people. That is why we have come with the amendment which we have placed on the Order Paper. We ask, in the first place, that energetic action should be taken on the part of the Government, and that an end must be put to promises. We ask that the Government should come with a clear scheme, and that that scheme should now be put into operation. We ask, in the second place, that the export of building material should be stopped. That is a main issue, for there is not the slightest doubt that the position in South Africa, is in a large measure, attributable to that fact. Just as the shortage of food is in a large measure to be ascribed to the export of foodstuffs, so the shortage of houses is in a great measure due to the export of building material. We ask that the requirements of South Africa should be given first consideration. I have given figures in connection with the export of cement. Over 3,000,000 bags were exported in nine months.

We ask that the export of building material should be stopped, so that our own people can get it for the building of houses. There is an old motto that says, “Charity begins at home”. May I again in this connection direct the Minister’s attention to what appears in the Gluckman report—

Charity begins at home. Let us first look after our own people and not export cement to keep other countries going. The Government says now that there is a shortage of building material and of manpower. Will the Minister tell us why the Minister of Labour has not yet promulgated the Apprenticeship Act that was adopted last year. Why has he not done that? That would have contributed to obtaining the necessary labour forces. The fault lies with the Government and with the incompetent Ministers on the other side. We ask, furthermore, that those large supplies of building material that are in the possession of the Minister of Defence and his department shall be made available for use by the local authorities for the construction of economic houses, and particularly for sub-economic houses. We ask that the large numbers of foreign soldiers in our country should be sent out of the country. Huts and barracks are required for them, and if they are sent away the material of those barracks can be used for the construction of houses for our people. We have heard from the Minister that there are no fewer than 14,000 members of the R.A.F. in the country. What are they doing here? They live in huts and barracks, and the material from those buildings can be used for dwelling houses for our own people. The Minister shakes his head. That is the answer that I got today from the Prime Minister. We ask that those supplies of building material which are lying at the depôts, because they are not erecting any more buildings—the Prime Minister says they are not doing so any longer—will be released for the building of houses. Then I come finally to another contributory factor. It is an important contributory factor, namely the large number of foreigners and refugees who are in our country. I have before me the reply to a question that I put. The Government cannot give me the number of foreigners in the country. The Minister says that is difficult, but when I asked how many Jews had come in since 1939 do you know the number that was given to me?—16,118. It was added that some of them had returned from visits.

Give the facts.

Good. Let us deduct a percentage for that. Let us also allow a percentage for those who have left, but according to last year’s figures there were still over 13,000 foreigners in our country. They live in houses here. They live in hotels and in the boarding-houses. We have no objection—and my motion says that explicitly—to genuine refugees remaining in our country; so long as they are refugees from countries that are still occupied we have no objection to them. It is right that a country should provide asylum for genuine refugees, but as soon as their countries are liberated they must go. But here are many people who have left England because they do not want to be bombed. Let them return to their own country, so that our people can get home and lodgings. That is the policy that the United States followed in 1932. They deported all the foreigners, because at that time a serious economic condition prevailed in the country. We ask in our motion that that position should be improved because it is an important contributory factor. Mr. Speaker, I have here given evidence that shows clearly that there is a serious need of houses in the country; and I have proved that this Government follows a policy only of making promises, but that it does not fulfil the expectations that are awakened by those promises. We charge the Government with incompetence and indifference in connection with this matter. The people that come here from elsewhere live in houses and other residential quarters, and it is our own genuine South Africans who have to live in stables or with coloured people. We ask in the interests of these people that the Government should come forward with a clear plan and that it should give effect to that plan—that it should not only announce a paper policy.

I formally second, and I reserve the right to speak later.

The hon. member is not allowed to second formally, and to reserve the right to speak later in the case of an amendment.

Then I shall second the amendment.

I shall intervene in this debate to deal with those aspects of it that concern housing. There is no doubt that South Africa is faced with a serious housing shortage and that considerable public anxiety has been expressed on the subject. The hon. member who has just sat down began his remarks by a somewhat plaintive appeal to me not to refer to Hitler. I, of course, understand his nervousness, but after listening to him I think that possibly the interjection of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) would have been more appropriate to him on this occasion.

Let him tell us about his £15 fine.

But I shall meet the hon. member this afternoon and not refer to Hitler.

Hear, hear.

After all, Hitler has rather let down the hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. He has not delivered the goods.

Neither have you.

Hitler has put the hon. members opposite in rather a tight spot. One can understand the anxiety of the hon. member for Beaufort-West (Mr. Louw) not to be reminded about his former spiritual colleague, Hitler. The hon. gentleman has, however, spent a certain amount of his time in his opening remarks regarding constructive criticism. He has referred to something that was said in this House on a previous occasion, and attempted to make some sort of capital out of the fact that criticisms oh housing and other subjects have been made from time to time by members supporting the Government in this House, and by members of the public supporting the Government ….

And very severe criticism too.

I realise it must be very difficult for the hon. member for Beaufort West, and for hon. members opposite to understand how it can be that anyone in a free democratic country can attack the Government; so steeped are they in the tradition under which one dare not open one’s mouth arid one must be a yes man, that it seems seems strange to them when honest and fair criticism is offered from time to time by one’s own supporters. May I say that had hon. members opposite a better conception of the value of constructive criticism we, at the present time, those of us who are dealing with housing at the present time, might have had a less difficult problem to deal with than we are faced with now. I would remind the House that this very difficult problem of housing is not one that has emerged overnight. It has not come to us entirely through the war. There was a shortage of houses before the war, and we have now to deal with a legacy handed to us from the past. I would remind the House and the country that we had no less an ornament than the hon. the Leader of the. Opposition as Minister of Public Health for nine years—almost one-eighth of a man’s three score years and ten—to deal with housing and housing matters in this country, and I suggest this that if the hon. gentleman at that time had had constructive criticism and had behind him members who were ready to get up and express their honest views on this matter, he might have gone a little further in those days in dealing with the situation.

Has not your party given constructive criticism?

The official Opposition in this House has been so busy during the last five years trying to induce us to make peace with Hitler that it has not had the time to deal with these matters.

Who introduced the principle of sub-economic housing?

The hon. member did, about 1930, introduce the principle of sub-economic housing, and in those days—I shall give the House the figures—some progress was made. But I would like to remind the House in those days very little progress indeed was made in the building of houses. At the time the hon. gentleman was in office if 1,000 houses were built it was a large number; less than 1,000 were built. The scheme was introduced, the rate of interest was a high one, and very few local authorities indeed adopted that scheme. If the hon. gentleman had had a constructive criticism if instead of having behind him a docile bunch of sycophantic back-scratchers he had had solid back-benchers, he might have made some progress. I want to give the House a factual statement regarding the position, to give the House the facts objectively, and to give the country an opportunity of deciding whether the Government has made those preparations which the situation demanded. The system of sub-economic housing had been introduced in 1930 or in 1931. Changes were thereafter made, and incidentally it was my colleague the Minister of Finance who introduced the Slums Act in the House, and placed that Act on the Statute Book, and reduced the rate of interest in relation to the sub-economic scheme. During the whole period of his nine years of office the hon. Leader of the Opposition took no single step to place a Slums Act on the Statute Book. Immediately prior to the war the local authorities were beginning to waken up and consideration was given to the provision of sub-economic housing to the poorer section of the community. They started slowly, but with the more attractive terms offered they began to realise the possibilities of using the scheme for providing houses for the lower income groups. The biggest advance in any one year was in the pre-war year, 1939. In that year 4,118 sub-economic houses were built. That was the largest number of sub-economic houses built in any one year since the inauguration of the scheme. This sub-economic housing scheme was then obviously getting under way, and had not abnormal circumstances intervened many of our present difficulties would not have arisen. It should not be inferred that housing construction under the Act slowed down or ceased immediately we entered the war period. The hon. member for Beaufort West suggested we were so engrossed carrying on the war effort that we had no time to devote to the question of housing. I tried to show on another occasion that while the Government was in the very trough of the war, experiencing the greatest difficulty and getting no help from hon. gentlemen opposite, we were at the same time looking ahead to the welfare needs of the country. The hon. gentleman has not taken the trouble to get the facts. He has charged me as the responsible Minister with not having considered the housing needs of the community during the war.

I quoted Mr. Te Water and the Gluckman Report.

He may quote whom he wishes, I will give the facts. By September, 1944, the position in regard to sub-economic housing was that a total of 24,615 houses had been completed, from the beginning of the scheme in 1930, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition embarked on his high interest rate scheme. By September, 1944, 24,615 had been completed, 1,918 were under construction and 15,634 houses had been approved, but construction had not begun. Now this is the important point. Of the 24,615 houses completed 8,523 were built in the nine pre-war years, in the years of peace, while 16,092 were constructed in the five years of war. In the last five years we have built twice as many sub-economic houses as in the nine years of peace.

Did you build them or did the local bodies build them?

These houses were built by money advanced by the Government, and the construction was largely due to the instigation of the Government in stirring the conscience of local authorities.

How do you account for the shortage?

I will come to that. [Interruptions.] My hon. friend has made an allegation, and I am dealing with that. He has alleged that we ignored the housing needs of the community during the war. I fling back that challenge, and I give him the facts. We built twice as many houses in the last five years, during the war, as in the previous nine years. I think these official figures should once and for all negative any suggestion that the Government was so preoccupied in carrying on the war effort that it was oblivious to the need for houses. But gradually the strain of the war began to tell in such ways as the shortage of material, the scarcity of labour and the need for giving the Defence Department priority. These factors all contributed to the slowing down of building by the local authorities. I have no doubt that the hon. member for Beaufort West would say that the Defence Department should not be given priority, just as he said that we should not have exported cement, but in that view hon. members opposite are diametrically opposed to us.

Do you figures include 1939?

Yes, they include 1939. I obviously could not have given the figures I gave in moving the Second Reading of the Act. It was on the 2nd May, 1944, that I moved the Second Reading, and I obviously could not have given the same figures again. The hon. member has asked how I accounted for the shortage. During those years of war population movements had taken place owing to the exigencies of military requirements. The families of serving soldiers have moved from place to place. Certain centres have been congested, and what was a latent shortage has now become apparent, or more manifest than it was in the past. At the end of 1943 it was clear to the Government that a difficult position was arising. It was quite clear that due to these various factors I have alluded to special steps would have to be taken. The Government then appointed a committee under Dr. Van Eck of the Planning Council, and this Committee was asked to go into the whole question of housing and such steps as might be necessary to deal with the situation. That committee reported. It gave an estimate of the housing shortage in South Africa at that time. It reported at the beginning of 1944 and estimated a housing shortage of 150,000, of which 130,000 were in respect of non-Europeans and 20,000 in respect of Europeans. The Van Eck Committee recommended that the Government should establish a National Housing and Planning Council with much wider powers than the previous Housing Board. The Government acted on that recommendation. Legislation was introduced last year by me, and in terms of that measure the Housing and Planning Commission was appointed. In addition for the first time we established a National Advisory Commission on housing to enable public opinion generally to give expression to their views on this important matter. A Director of Housing was appointed. Special steps were taken to have additional technical officials available in the Department of Public Health. The Act also made provision for the introduction of differential rentals, a point made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) when he introduced his motion this afternoon. We therefore adopted the recommendations made by the Van Eck Committee. At that time the question of finance had also loomed large. The local authorities complained that under the existing scale of financial assistance provided by the Government, they were not able to maintain a building programme, because the losses incurred by them were too heavy. That was the complaint made then by the local authorities. It is important to remember that our whole system of building national houses is based on local authorities doing the building. It is the local authorities that build; it is the Government that provides the money, and the inducements and stimulus to do so. That principle was reaffirmed by Parliament last Session, and a mandate was given to the Government to carry on with the housing programme in conjunction with the local authorities. In conformity with that mandate we had discussions with local auhorities on financial arrangements, and it was decided to change the old financial formula to a new one, in the terms of which we would bear the losses on national houses in the ratio of two to one. That was the position when Parliament passed the Act last Session. Subsequently the local authorities maintained they could not carry out a full-scale housing programme on that basis of financial assistance, and the Government in its desire and in its efforts to meet the local authorities as far as reasonably possible, in its determination to see that houses were built and that there should be no abstacle in the way of local authorities building them, arranged with the Housing and Planning Commission to carry out further negotiations. Those negotiations took place, and in a very short time agreement was reached with the United Municipal Executives. A new formula was reached; it was modified subsequently and has now been accepted.

Was there differential renting?

It is for national housing in which differential renting may be applied. That formula is now operative. It means this, that where local authorities let national houses and the rental is based on a return of 6 per cent. of the capital invested, the loss is borne by the Government in the ratio of two to one. Where the return on capital is between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the capital invested, the Government bears the loss in the proportion of five to two. If the return on the capital invested is below 5 per cent., that is specially designed for the lowest income groups, the Government bears the loss in the ratio of three to one. That, I submit to the country, is a generous arrangement that has been made with the local authorities. We have met the local authorities all along the line, and they have been most helpful in their negotiations with the Government. The position is therefore that any financial obstacle has been cleared out of the way now. Before these financial matters were finally settled, in June of 1944, I arranged with the Department of Public Health to send a circular to all local authorities. That circular stated, inter alia—

The circular went on to ask local authorities to do their utmost to deal with the serious housing conditions which existed in most rural and urban districts, and asked them to submit on a specified day their housing programme for the next twelve months. That was done, and in response to this Circular 174 local authorities intimated their desire to build 23,500 houses. We were now planning an immediate programme as apart from long-term planning. We were told that the local authorities wished within the next twelve months to build 23,500. The Housing Commission went into the matter thoroughly. On that commission is the Deputy-Controller of building. He was specially appointed so that there can be the closest link between building control and the Housing Commission. It found it could allocate material for 12,039 houses. It informed the local authorities accordingly, and the local authorities were asked by circular whether they could give the commission an assurance that these houses would be built by the 30th June, 1945. By the 30th September, 1944, we had received replies, and those replies gave assurances for the completion of approximately 11,639 by the 30th June, leaving 400 houses to be erected. We were told by the local authorities concerned that they would be able to complete these 11,639 houses by the 30th June 1945. With regard to the balance of 400, some of the larger municipalities were circularised and asked whether they would use material made available for the construction of houses for European ex-servicemen. They were willing, and actually asked for more, and in the result we were informed that 12,637 houses would be built by June, 1945. That was the position by October and November last year. We had, in conjunction with the building control, made available building material. The Treasury, through my colleague the hon. Minister of Finance, had made available the necessary finance. We then asked for further information. We wished to be assured that these houses could be built and further circulars were sent out to ascertain what progress was made to date. I will now give the House figures in regard to 1944 itself. The suggestion has been made that there has been no concentration on building. During 1944, the calendar year 1944, the following permits for houses were issued: Economic housing: private houses, £13 million; private flats, £2 million; municipal houses, £270,000; national houses for Europeans, £373,000; for non-Europeans, £1,500,000, making a total in regard to economic housing and national houses of £17,431,245. In other words, during 1944 65 per cent. of the total value of the building permits issued were in regard to houses as opposed to public buildings. The latest information which I have been given is this, that in 1944 11,000 building permits were issued in respect of this £17½ million. These 11,000 permits were: for private housing, 10,742, 217 blocks of flats, 213 for economic schemes and 3,795 national houses, making a total altogether of 14,967 houses. I emphasise that in dealing with permits issued for housing it is important to note that it is not only permits issued in respect of national houses which help to relieve the housing situation, but every permit issued, every house built, whether it is a national house or a private house. That helps to reduce the estimated shortage of 150,000 and the whole object of Government policy was so to regulate the issue of permits that the greater percentage of permits issued would be in respect of dwelling houses. I would also advise the House that apart from these 15,000 houses in respect of which permits were issued during 1944, we have also proceeded with the special scheme encouraged by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for the conversion of military camps into model townships for ex-servicemen. That work is going on apace. In a few months some 700 to 800 of these cottages will be available. The minimum we are aiming at is 2,000, but we may have to go further. These model townships have all the necessary amenities. Facilities for transport will be arranged. The camps to be converted are adjacent to, or near the larger towns. Only camps within easy reach of the larger towns are being chosen for that particular purpose. Now, in planning for housing we have drawn a distinction between immediate and long-term planning; I have tried to set out the facts relating to our immediate planning up to the end of June, 1945. That was our immediate programme. There is a shortage and we must get up a certain number of houses as soon as possible. But if we are to achieve what the Van Eck Commission suggested was necessary to have in the next ten to fifteen years, we have to build something in the nature of 200,000 to 400,000 houses and it is quite obvious that we must, as the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) remarked, have a larger building force, a labour force than we have available at present. We have, in dealing with our temporary programme, our immediate building programme, been held up from time to time by the shortage of materials. We are, I hope, gradually beginning to get rid of that, but it is quite clear that we may be entering upon a period marked by a shortage of labour, certainly as far as concerns our long-term policy. The Government is aware of that and has for some time been taking the necessary steps to get the necessary labour for our long-term policy. It is suggested that our immediate programme will be held up because of lack of labour, and it is suggested that certain of our local authorities cannot proceed with their schemes at the present time. That problem is being investigated by the National Housing Commission. If, in fact, there is a shortage of labour which may make it impracticable to build the 12,000 national houses referred to by me by the end of June, 1945, the Government will have to take special steps to deal with that difficulty. If, on the other hand, we find that there is labour available, we shall have to negotiate with the responsible local authorities in order to induce them to proceed with their part. The local authorities, I know, are anxious to get going in the matter. Whilst the Government has taken to itself the power to build these houses itself, we wish to carry out the partnership which was entered into afresh last year, namely that the Government will provide the money and the local authorities will do the building. We may have to supply some of the labour ourselves and a possibility that is being explored at present is that we may have to make use of our Engineering Corps for building houses. That is a matter which of course involves discussions with members of the Building Unions.

Have you considered the question of forming a housing corporation as suggested?

The Van Eck Commission considered it and they suggested that it would be better to have a body on the lines of the Housing Commission. That is a body corporate but it is not a corporation on the same basis that the Electricity Supply Commission is a corporation.

What is the position now?

I have told the House that the Government is discussing these matters of labour with the trade unions. There again, it involves two aspects. It involves training a large number of building artisans. We have a building force of something like 20,000 at present and if we carry out this long-term programme we must increase that personnel. The trade unions have been very helpful. As the result of the deliberations which are taking place we will be able to come to an arrangement. A suggestion which was put forward and which has some force is that those artisans who are already trained should have some measure of protection. If we are to train members of the army under the C.O.T. scheme in a shorter period of time than is normally required, we must give some form of guarantee to those artisans already trained. I think that is a reasonable request and one which merits careful consideration. There is also the question of employing non-European labour, native labour, for native houses and coloured labour for coloured houses, not as artisans but as operatives; but there again, if this is done, something will have to be done to protect the rights of the fully skilled members of the unions. These negotiations are proceeding and I am hopeful that they will bear fruit. These considerations apply to our long-term planning. In relation to the short-term planning, if anything has to be done, it will have to be done on the lines of using the Engineering Corps to step in and do the work. The Housing Commission has also had regard to the question of prefabrication. Permits were given for the importation of two prefabricated houses in Natal as an experiment. There is a certain amount of divergence of opinion as to the efficacy of these houses and their suitability to South African conditions. These matters have been gone into and the information gained from overseas as the result of the return of the Supply Commission which the Government sent there is important. Then the question of land values is one which looms high in any long-term policy. Steps are being taken in that connection. Measures will be laid before the House during this Session and the matter will be fully discussed here. Rural housing is also receiving the attention of the Housing Commission. It is the duty of the Government to make housing amenities for farm labourers more attractive than they are at present, and we have been receiving very helpful suggestions from the Agricultural Unions who are most anxious to play their part in improving the welfare amenities of farm labourers. These then are the lines along which the Government is tackling the problem. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has come along this afternoon with his political panacea. He suggests that we should send away the British subjects who are here. He refers to aliens, as including British subjects. On this side of the House we look upon British subjects as members of one large family. We take quite a different view of the matter from members opposite. We do not look upon citizens of other dominions as aliens. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that so far as immigration is concerned permits for temporary residence are given in special cases, and you have tourist traffic from the Belgian Congo and from French Equatorial Africa of persons who come here for a short time. Then there are persons who came here and cannot go back. These people are from countries like for example, Poland, and other occupied territorities, who cannot go back.

Have you not read my amendment? I specially excluded them.

I have read the amendment and my suggestion to the hon. member is this, that if his amendment is passed, it will not help us one jot or tittle. It will not get rid of anyone, except possibly a few British tourists. Not along these lines could we solve this very serious and difficult problem of housing. I have attempted this afternoon to give the House the facts and to show what steps are being taken to deal with long-term planning and short-term planning. We have our difficulties but I think that the facts which I have attempted to set before this House will negative the suggestion that the Government is unprepared, that it was making false promises and that it has done nothing.

When you listen to the Minister you find that his speech is just a paraphrase of his remarks that he made in an address that he delivered during the month of June. There is only one difference, and perhaps it is not really a difference, perhaps the same thing will take place tomorrow. The Cape Times will again publish in big bold letters that the Minister has once more made an announcement about his future plans in connection with the Government’s post-war policy, and the people will know that they will remain without houses, and that the Minister cannot provide houses for them. He has made an announcement today and attempted to start a hare. For instance, he has said that the Government, during the five years of the war, built more houses than were built in the nine previous years, including naturally the period from 1930 to 1939. The Minister is not a stranger in South Africa. He knows as well as we do that the depression began in 1929. He knows that during that time there was a surplus of houses. You could go into any town and any village and find houses in rows standing vacant. That was the difference. But in desperation the Minister comes here and he does not know what to say to his supporters. Something must appear in the Cape Times, and consequently he comes here and says that the Leader of the Opposition was for nine years Minister of the Interior, and then he asks why the Leader of the Opposition had not built houses. But the Minister cannot be so green. Does he not know that the Leader of the Opposition is the father of the sub-economic scheme? It was the Leader of the Opposition who in those years took pity on the poorer section of the community. He was the father of that scheme. Knowing that his supporters are dissatisfied with him, knowing that they do not believe in his promises and knowing that today they entertain no hopes, he attempts to saddle everything on to the Leader of the Opposition, and he says that the Leader of the Opposition during the nine years that he was Minister of the Interior, did not build any houses. I want to put the question to the Minister: What is the reason for the shortage of houses? Just listen to the Minister’s childish reply. He says that people move from one village to the other and consequently there is a shortage of houses. The Minister deserves to be laughed at, If when in South Africa you move from the Cape to Beaufort West or from Beaufort West to Paarl, then of course houses must fall vacant. But let the Minister tell me in what villages in South Africa vacant houses are to be found. I do not know whether the Minister is going to stand up today and tell me in what village in this country houses are vacant. Everywhere one sees a shortage of houses; the people are pining for houses. It is nonsense to talk about a new world. There is only one sort of world that the people expect from you. It expects that the Government will provide work for them; they expect that the State will pay them a proper wage so that they can provide for their wives and children, and so that they can have a roof over their heads. The Government has made these solemn promises and has failed hopelessly to carry them out. This afternoon I only want to say this. The Minister comes here with much posturing, so that his announcement may appear in the “Cape Times” under big bold type, and he states what the Government has done in connection with housing in the last five war years. We asked how many houses the Government has to build. The Minister made a long speech and told us that if the local authorities do not build houses the Government will step in. He ought not to be afraid to intervene, because it is the Government’s duty to build houses if there is a shortage. It does not help for the Minister to hide behind the local authorities. We have told him repeatedly that it will not help him to hide behind the local authorities, because there are poor local authorities who do not see any chance to shoulder the responsibility of the housing scheme. It is the duty of the State to provide houses, and it is not the policy of my party to hide behind the excuse of local authorities. If any Government is in earnest in regard to the provision of housing for the people, it is its duty to establish machinery to supply the money and to appoint the staff so that the people can obtain houses. Seeing that the hour is so late, I should like to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 16th February.