I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

This Bill is introduced to make provision for the servicing of the Union for the first portion of the new financial year, which will commence on the 1st April, 1945. It is necessary to follow this procedure because it is not expected that the general Appropriation Bill can be passed before the end of the financial year. As hon. members know it is necessary in the first place to submit the estimates, then to allow a budget debate to take place, then to discuss the votes in committee and only thereafter the general Appropriation Bill can be submitted. It will therefore not be possible for the general Appropriation Bill to be accepted before the end of this sitting and it is therefore necessary to make provision for the monetary requirements of the country for the period between the 1st April and the date on which the general Appropriation Bill will become law. For that reason this procedure is followed and a Part Appropriation Bill is submitted at this stage. Apart from that, we would be without any financial cover for the period immediately after the 1st April. This Bill is in such a form that it does not give us the right to incur any expenditure other than on the basis of the estimates for the current financial year. In other words, the estimates for 1944-’45 form the basis of this Bill and not the estimates of expenditure for 1945-’46, which are still to be submitted. Last year we made provision in the Part Appropriation Bill for the servicing of the Union for a period of three months. In other words, we took into account the fact that the Parliamentary Session might possibly continue up to June and, in fact, that was the position. Whether the Session will again last as long as that this year, no one can say, of course, but in this Bill we are making provision for the same amount for which we made provision last year.

Is there anything in the rumour of a second sitting in September?

That depends on circumstances, of course—not as far as I know. In any event it will have no effect on the Appropriation Bill. It is not necessary for me on this occasion to make a general financial statement. In introducing the additional estimates I indicated generally what the present financial position was, and since the general budget speech will be delivered in the near future, it will present an opportunity for a general review of our financial position. I do not want to anticipate that now. I cannot determine definitely when the budget speech will be delivered, but it will not be possible before the 28th February and it will probably not take place later than the 7th March; in other words, approximately at the beginning of next month, probably within two and a half to three weeks from today. For that reason I do not want to anticipate what I shall then inform the House.

We on this side of the House know, of course, that on the occasion of the introduction of a Part Appropriation Bill, it has not been the custom in the past to make a lengthy statement, and consequently we did not expect it on this occasion. Nevertheless a few important questions of principle do arise, principles which should be stressed on every occasion. In the first place the Minister is again asking for an amount of £45,000,000 this year as he did last year. But the previous year’s sum was £10,000,000 more than the amount in respect of the year 1943-’44. On that occasion the Minister, in a light frame of mind, said that he was asking for £10,000,000 extra because it was a new Assembly and he did not know how long the members would speak. With the experience which the hon. Minister has gained, that is probably again the reason why this bigger amount is being asked for. As the hon. Minister indicated this amount is being asked to cover the current expenses of the servicing of the country. These services must in any event be continued, and as a result of practice and tradition, it calls for no comment. But there are other things which do deserve attention, things which arise out of the Vote itself. Without going into all the details, I want to point out that the prosecution of the war must also be covered by the sum which is voted, and in view of the fact that funds for the war have to come out of this, I take it the Minister will expect us to express an opinion in regard to the appropriation of these funds. I do not want to say much at this stage in regard to the ordinary appropriation of funds. The Minister will realise that we are keeping him to his word, which he has now repeated, it is a proposition which he also laid down last year, that no new services would be introduced out of the money which is being voted here.

That is also laid down in the law.

As far as I am concerned, I must say that last year when the estimates were laid on the Table, I was surprised to see that provision had been made in the estimates for various new services, and I was under the impression that appropriations for the new services had been made out of the amount in the Part Appropriation.

I refer, for example, to the agreement with the British Government in connection with certain payments and provisions for Unrra ….

In both cases money was granted for it last year.

In any event, we accept the proposition that no new services will be introduced until such time as this House has had an opportunity of properly criticising the appropriation of sums for that purpose. There is a considerable difference of opinion in regard to the objects for which the funds are appropriated, namely the war, for which the largest amount will be used, after all. There it is necessary to state again that we have already devoted £400,000,000 to this matter, and we have learned that in the expenditure of that amount, money was spent in a manner which not only calls for strong criticism, but which should also be condemned in the strongest terms. I refer to the discussion in this House towards the end of the previous Session when it was indicated that large quantities of stores had been neglected. I refer to contracts which were entered into without supervision and even in conflict with agreements, where money was wasted. And I want to draw attention this morning to a new phenomenon which appears from the report of the Auditor-General in connection with the War Expenses Account for 1943-’44. We took it for granted that the serious warnings which were given by this side in previous years, would be sufficient to ensure that there would be no repetition of such mal-appropriations, if I may call it that, as we discovered. The Minister may say, of course, that these comments on the part of the Auditor-General arise out of appropriations in respect of the previous year, but even then it seems to me that the Treasuiy actually committed a misdeed in connection with the wrong appropriation of State funds. We notice from the report of the Auditor-general that during the year approximately £111,000,000, nearly £111,250,000, was spent on the war, in addition to a further sum of nearly £16,000,000 for other belligerent governments. I take it that the additional £16,000,000 will be reimbursed and that this sum was expected in terms of existing agreements. I do not therefore want to criticise the appropriation of this £16,000,000, but I just want to refer to the large sum which was spent. Out of this £111,250,000 which was devoted to war purposes, only £6,363,000 was expended on permanent works according to the data of the Auditor-General, i.e. on buildings, coastal defences, etc. I take it that those permanent works will be of value in the future. But then there still remains an amount of nearly £105,000,000, and I should like to address a few remarks to the Minister in regard to the manner in which this sum was expended. Under the item “Wages, Salaries and Maintenance” we get an amount of nearly £48,000,000 for one single year. In the appropriation of that sum, certain payments were made which throw a tragic light on the manner of administration which is to be found in the offices. In paragraph 8 of the report of the Auditor-General, reference is made to the wrong appropriation of nearly £195,000 which was paid out as an overpayment on more than 17,000 accounts.

There were erroneous payments amounting to the sum to which I have referred on those accounts. Since mistakes were made in connection with such a large number of accounts, we can only come to the conclusion that the administration of those offices was in the greatest state of confusion. How is it possible, with an organised service and proper administration, to make mistakes in the case of more than 17,000 accounts. Of this amount certain sums were written off. Hon. members will find it particularly interesting to look at paragraph 8, if they want to see how State money is being used under this item, and in what light it is regarded by the Auditor-General. I say that of this amount to which I referred, certain sums have already been written off; an amount of £48,000 was exempted. Other amounts which were written off amount to more than £6,000. But what is of interest to us is the fact that a large sum was placed under suspense account, apparently on the advice of the Auditor-General. Here we are dealing with an important point. In the same paragraph it is stated that the Treasury gave authority to write off these amounts. I think I should rather quote what the Auditor-General says in paragraph 8—

Here we have two facts. The first is that a certain portion of this money, amounting to a sum of nearly £200,000 which was earmarked to be written off, is recoverable according to the Auditor-General. The second is that notwithstanding the fact that that is the position, the Treasury authorised this amount to be written off: After this Parliament has made available so many millions of pounds for the prosecution of the war, the Treasury assumes the power, after certain mal-practices had undoubtedly taken place, to authorise the writing-off of this sum. I maintain that the assumption of that power is a negation of the right of Parliament, because the Treasury dared to authorise the Department of Defence to write off funds amounting to so much. It is the historical and inherent right of this House to act as a link on behalf of the taxpayer between the Government and the taxpayers. I regard this as unheard of, because if that principle is approved of it eliminates Parliament with regard to the appropriation of funds, and I am of opinion that it is something which ought to be condemned most strongly. At the same time I want to refer to the appropriation of certain national funds. Since we are not given the opportunity to go into details, we can only point out the existing faults. And in most strongly expressing disapproval on behalf of this side of the House of the delegation of power to the Treasury which belongs to Parliament only, and which ought to vest in this House, I want to refer at the same time to other faults and offences, if I may call it that, which are taking place in connection with national funds. I want to draw attention to the appropriation of national funds in connection with the control system. In principle there is no objection to the exercise of control during war time. Certain goods are always in short supply during war time, and there are always people whose consciences do not deter them from exploiting the public as much as they can. For that reason there is no objection on our side, and I take it on no side of the House, to the application of the control system in time of war. The question arises to what extent it will also be desirable after the war, and at this Stage I do not want to express an opinion on that point. This side has no objection to the principle of control during war time. I want to say in all seriousness, however, that I believe the Government has misused the control system. In response to a recent question in this House, it was indicated that almost £400,000 had been devoted to the control system in respect of the year 1943; and well nigh £600,000 was devoted to it last year. I maintain that the country received no proper services in return for the appropriation of those national funds, and that is a serious statement.

Do you mean the control under the Department of Commerce and Industries?

Yes, the control under the Department of Commerce and Industries as well. I do not want to hold the Minister concerned personally responsible for the administration.

Are you referring to the expenditure on the Votes?

The expenditure which was appropriated in the years referred to.

In terms of the Votes?

Under control. I do not know whether provision was made for it on the Votes, because we did not get the details. But data was given to this House that in 1943 nearly £400,000 was spent on control and that during the past year more than £600,000 was devoted to it. I realise that we in this House would like to keep within certain limits, but since our experience in the immediate past has been that the country did not benefit from the expenditure of this money, I want to refer to certain abuses which were coupled with it. The first is that the Government availed itself of its right to apply control by the appointment of a large number of inefficient people. I did not go into the details, but I know that accusations have often been made that the people who were appointed, were appointed because they were favourites of the Government, and that others who were more efficient, did not have an opportunity to render service to the country in that respect. People were appointed who, owing to their inefficiency, influenced at least one Minister to accuse the Civil Service as a whole. I do not want to make use of this opportunity to defend the Civil Service. I just want to say this, that the reply of the Civil Service to the Minister concerned and the other Ministers was a dignified reply. Arising out of that, we are entitled to refer to the inefficiency of some of these people. I happened to learn of one case where a butcher who is still carrying on his business, was appointed as a price controller of soft goods. People have been appointed in these public posts where they have been enabled to protect particular interests. People have been appointed in this service who have been in the nosition to protect particular interests. I have not got the data to allege that they have done so. In a certain industry with which I am concerned, there is good reason to believe that the controller intervened in that spirit. I regard it as a mal-practice to appoint people to any position where they are tempted to promote their own interests to the detriment of their fellow-citizens. I have very strong reason to believe that there is discrimination as between fellow-citizens. On the strength of a certain basis which was adopted, which only took into account the dim and distant past, control was instituted which did not at all take into account new developments and new people who participate in industry with good reason because they invested their own capital in it, but who did not have the advantage which others had as a result of that basis which was adopted. Again I have no statistical data, but there is a very strong presumption, which I want to convey to the Minister, that there is a certain amount of bribery in connection with this service. There is a presumption that there are officials who are not above the acceptance of bribes. I know that what I am saying here is particularly serious.

Do you mean under price control?

I am speaking of price control and control generally. I therefore want to say frankly to this House that, although I have no data to found the allegation that that is the case, I want to warn the Minister in this House, on the strength of the general impression amongst interested parties, that if ever there was an occasion when it was necessary to scrutinise the working of this system very carefully, we have it here. It is not a question of wanting to appoint more inspectors to keep an eye on the existing inspectors. But there should be closer supervision of this service, which is perhaps necessary but which leaves a great deal to be desired. Too much money is being spent in respect of the services which are rendered under this system. There are no less than 21 control organisations. It is alleged that in 1943 we spent nearly £400,000 on the control system, and more than £600,000 during the past year, with much disappointment, much friction and much bitterness. Practically a whole army of persons was appointed for that purpose. In 1943, there were 1,513 and in 1944 there were 1,910. During the past year more than 400 people have been appointed under this system to exercise control. It would seem that the Government had in mind the idea of using the control system for social security. Since we seriously object to the appropriation of funds, as happened in the case of control, and since we object to the relinquishing of certain rights by Parliament, I now want to refer to a few other aspects of our public life. We are on the eve of new services and of great needs. We have promises on the part of the Government of a new social order. I have not had an opportunity of going into the details of the Government’s proposals. In any event, we assume that considerable additional funds will have to be voted. This side of the House has at all times advocated that adequate provision should be made for social security and health services, for the care of the poor, and also in other directions. We expect expenditure to be incurred in order to stabilise the position of our industries and to make them independent. We insisted on these services being rendered, and plans will apparently be submitted to this House in the near future to permit of a start being made. I cannot judge at the moment whether that start will be satisfactory. But one thing must be clear to this House, and that is that these proposed services will entail additional expenditure and additional burdens on the taxpayer. As a taxpayer I say that we are willing to bear every burden for a properly organised service, but we definitely refuse to agree to be further taxed until such time as we are convinced that all malpractices in connection with the appropriation of the taxpayer’s money are being eliminated. The State must assume responsibility for the malappropriation of national money, and those malpractices must first be eliminated. We must be convinced that the State is doing its duty in connection with the funds of the taxpayer and we want to be certain that these malpractices will be eliminated. We also want to be certain that the interests of the people will be looked after. I do not want to go into the details, but until such time as the people are convinced on these two points, neither the Government nor anyone else has the right to demand that the nation should bear further burdens. With regard to the possibility of stability and independence in the industrial world, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has already made certain comments, and I do not want to take up further time in that connection. But until such time as we are assured that the funds which are raised, are being appropriated scientifically, efficiently and conscientiously, neither the Minnister nor the Government has the right to impose further burdens on the people. I want to point out another very serious problem while I have the opportunity to do so. I refer to the increasing state of disorderliness which exists in a great part of the country. In commenting on this I shall bear in mind that there is a motion on the Order Paper which deals with certain acts of disorderliness, and I shall not deal with those. I refer to the acts of disorderliness which we experience daily in our large cities—theft, housebreaking, assault, violence, and sometimes even murder. That is something which is found daily in the bigger cities, especially in the north. I am not well acquainted with the conditions in Cape Town, but in Pretoria and Johannesburg there has actually been a state of emergency of late, and it is becoming more serious as time goes on. At the beginning of last month we read one morning in the same newspaper of no less than five cases of house-breaking and violence during the preceding 24 hours. It is becoming more serious daily, and the people are becoming concerned and anxious. There is a state of anxiety and concern in regard to the licentiousness and lawlessness which exists in the great cities today. The business people are trying to make provision for the protection of their property. There is scarcely one who does not employ a nightwatchman. They pay taxes, they pay for special watchmen and nevertheless we find house-breaking, burglaries and theft. A week seldom passes that there are no burglaries, burglaries which sometimes occasion great losses. Peace loving citizens and families go to bed at night with a feeling of concern and anxiety. I am not exaggerating. The people are perturbed and anxious and afraid in certain parts of Pretoria. When one goes to bed at night, one does not know what sort of night one is going to spend before day breaks again. The individual has no protection. The business man has little protection. The situation has developed to such an extent that the public is beginning to feel that if the State does not afford protection, the individual will have to protect himself. Can the Minister of Justice inform this House how many cases of self-defence there have been during the past few months which have resulted in more than one death? The position has developed here to such an extent that the peace-loving citizen is beginning to feel that he has to redress and that he has to defend himself. I think it is a tragic state of mind which has developed as a result of the negligence of the State to protect the citizens. If there is one problem in South Africa, it is to maintain the mutual goodwill between the various sections of the population. As a result of the policy which is being adopted, it is impossible to strengthen that goodwill and once it has been lost, it will take generations to build it up again, and it will never regain its former strength. I do not want to accuse the police. I want to put it very clearly that I am not accusing the police of inefficiency. We know that the police ranks have been depleted. I accuse the Government in connection with the position which has come into existence in cities like Pretoria. I refer to the spreading of doctrines which have an adverse effect on the non-European population. I do not want to allege that the natives alone are responsible for this state of affairs. That cannot be proved by statistics, but a great portion of the crime which is committed, is due to the powerlessness or unwillingness of the Government to act. The unrestricted spreading by Communists of the doctrine of so-called oppression of the native by the Europeans is allowed to continue. If there is one country in the world where the Europeans have acted humanely towards the non-Europeans, it is South Africa and to allow this feeling of enmity to be spread bn the strength of false statements, is nothing but reckless negligence on the part of the State. It is a duty which rests on the State to intervene in this matter. And now I come to a very serious matter. In Pretoria at least we have proof from very reliable authority, that the young natives especially are systematically trained and prepared with certain objectives in mind. They are taken to attend the exhibition of certain films which are calculated to promote that state of mind which prevailed in the Wild West of America some time ago. Is it any cause for surprise that this position has assumed serious dimensions? Then there is the reckless uncontrolled migration of large numbers of natives. Last week more than 700 natives arrived here on one train from the Transkei. There have been other weeks when 600 to 700 natives have arrived here. Those people are allowed to get off the train wherever they like. The position in Cape Town is such that the health authorities have seriously warned the public against the danger to the health of the community as a result of this influx. But in the absence of the Minister of Welfare, where do these people find a refuge where they can be kept under control and supervision? Where are they housed? Is there any supervision over them until such time as they are placed in employment? Is it strange then to find that there is anxiety and concern in regard to this negligence? One of the most serious things in the State is a sound relationship between European and non-European. But with this reckless indifference in allowing people to go where they please the inevitable result is that an unhealthy relationship will arise. I am not accusing the natives only. But these conditions create an opportunity for every criminally minded person to give free rein to his inclinations. As a result of the fact that many of these new arrivals do not obtain employment, a certain number of them, driven by hunger, have to resort to illegal acts. In the first instance, it is not the fault of the individual. A large portion of the blame must be attributed to the powerlessness of the State. Then I should like to put a few questions to the Minister with a view to getting information from him. In the first place, I want to put a question to him in regard to international relationships. In a White Paper issued by the Prime Minister reference is made to international relationships which have been entered into. In recent times it has almost become a regular practice for some of our highly placed officials to be overseas in connection with negotiations. Officials of the Department of Commerce and Industries and of the Department of Finance go oversea, and it is becoming a common practice to send highly placed officials oversea. Those people do not go oversea for the sake of their health. They are sent for the purpose of negotiations. We know of various agreements which have already been entered into. I maintain in spite of the provision which was accepted by this House last year that the Government has the right to dispose of certain negotiations before they are submitted to this House, it is an inherent right of Parliament to be notified of those negotiations, if not in regard to the details, then at any rate there can be some indication as to the external negotiations which are entered into by the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the position of the dairying industry this morning. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not present—

He is opening a show.

Well, I should be grateful if the Rt. Hon. the Deputy Prime Minister will convey to him the views I shall put forward on behalf of my constituency. I am not going to attack the Government, I am a supporter of the Government, but I feel that it is a duty that rests on hon. members on this side of the House to convey to the Government and the Minister directly concerned, a picture of the real position of the dairying industry, and by constructive suggestions to endeavour to effect an improvement of the present position. I submit, Sir, that the dairying industry is the one agricultural industry that has not had a square deal since the war. I think I may say without fear of contradiction, that all other agricultural industries are on a very much better footing than the dairying industry. If you consider the rise in the price of dairy products compared with the rise in respect of other agricultural products, you will find that the dairying industry reflects a rise of only 13 per cent. as against 60 per cent. in other agricultural industries. We feel that the Dairy Control Board has kept down the price of dairy products to the consumer at the expense of the producers in this country.

Hear, hear!

I know that the Dairy Control Board are very sympathetic, but they feel that the consumers of this country are entitled to their dairy products, which are protective foodstuffs, at as low a price as possible. Now, due to representations made by the Dairy Control Board and by Members of Parliament in this House, the Minister agreed to appoint a committee to investigate the cost of the production of dairy products. That committee was appointed by the Minister himself. He chose the men whom he thought would best be able to carry out this investigation. That committee sat for a long time making its investigations, and it reported to the Minister, but it now appears …

That he had a deaf ear.

It appears that the Minister said that the investigations were not of a complete nature and that the report was not based on a full investigation, and therefore the Minister had turned down these recommendations. Now, the Minister has told us further that still further investigations were being made, but from the information at our disposal that committee is not continuing these investigations. The investigations are being carried out, I understand, by the Marketing Council and not by the committee. Now, Mr. Speaker, we made representations to the Minister and he told us that the consumers of this country could not pay the high prices of dairy products based on our costs of production of producing dairy products, and therefore the Government had adopted a system of subsidising the dairy producers of this country, to enable the consumers of the country to obtain their dairy products at a lower price. Now, Mr. Speaker, in Saturday’s “Argus” there was an announcement by the Minister, in spite of what he had said, that he could not fix a higher price for our products.

He is very changeable.

He made the statement that he is going to prolong the subsidy, the winter premium, which we were granted from May to June, and from July to October, to come into operation on 1st February. He does not make it quite clear what these subsidies are to be, whether it will be the 3d. we got from May to June, or the 7d. we received from July to October. If it is a higher price, it would go a long way towards meeting the increased cost of production. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister to understand that we dairy farmers are not in favour of the producers being subsidised in order to give cheap food to the consumers of this country. We are quite prepared that the Government should subsidise cheap dairy products for the low income groups in this country, but the people who can afford to pay for the cost of production of dairy products should pay the full price. We demand a fair price for our products. Now, I want to ask the Minister to carry out the promise that the Government made in discussing the question of price of agricultural products, that farmers, producers, would be paid a price, a fair price, which would give them a profit over and above the cost of production of these products.

Hear, hear! That is how it should be.

As I said previously, dairy products are the one class of product that have been kept down in price, 13% as against 60% for other agriculural products. Now, if that is the case why cannot the Government raise the price of dairy products so as to cover the rising cost of production and the living costs of the producer, and then subsidise the low income groups, instead of subsidising the whole of the industry to give cheap goods to consumers? I wish to say to the Minister that provided the Government will see to it that the dairy farmer receives a fair price for his products, you will have all the dairy products you require in this country, because farmers only increase production if it does not entail a loss.

We have told him that before but he will not listen.

The production of dairy products has gone down because the farmers cannot produce at the prices fixed for their products. They cannot feed their animals. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to understand that dairy farming is not an industry whose production can be raised or lowered at will by feeding or not feeding at different periods. This subsidy which the Government is now offering us he says, is to induce the farmers to feed their cattle to increase production. But in order to increase the production of your dairy cows you have to start a long time ahead. You have to start feeding your cattle before they calve. The animals must be in a good condition at the time of calving, and unless you do that these dairy cows cannot produce milk in large quantities.

Hear, hear! A practical farmer is now talking.

Now, the Minister hopes by means of this subsidy he is now offering us to increase the production of dairy products. Most of our cows today are in a condition where if you started feeding today it would take a long time to get them into condition. Cows do not come into full production when they have once gone back in production. I want the Minister to understand that, that if he wants stability in the dairy industry he must have a long-term policy. The farmers will have to know a long time ahead what their prices are going to be. These subsidies which have been offered to us are what is called winter subsidies. We do not know beforehand what they are going to be, and how long they are going to be continued with, and if we do not know beforehand what our winter prices are going to be and what our summer prices will be, and that they are permanent, we cannot arrange our feeding programme throughout the year. Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister not to put into force this subsidy scheme. Rather let him increase the prices of dairy products to what the subsidy scheme would amount to, but let it not be in the form of a subsidy, but rather in the form of stabilising the prices of the commodity. If the lower income groups require to be subsidised, let the Minister do that direct through the Department of Social Welfare.

That has already been done, as far as butter is concerned.

Yes, but that applies only to butter. We Want it to apply to all dairy products, because the poor people of this country do not require only butter, but they require milk, cheese, etc.

But not margarine.

There is a bit of an anomaly in the dairy industry at the present time. Fresh milk which is a very important dairy product, is not controlled by the Dairy Industry Control Board. Had it been controlled by them I am quite sure they would never have fixed the prices which were fixed by the Government at the present time. Now, why has the Government fixed the present price of fresh milk at the high price at which it is fixed, when the Government had the power to fix it at a lower price to conform to other dairy prices? The people of the country, taken as a whole, cannot afford to pay a high price for dairy products, they say. We are at present in this position that dairy farmers in an area which supplies fresh milk to the towns can get nearly double the price obtained by their neighbours who supply milk to the factories for cheese-making, etc. If that high price for fresh milk is justified, then surely the price paid for cheese and condensed milk for factories should have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of that price also. The result is that these other industries suffer to a very large extent, because the farmers who supplied the cheese and condensed milk factories, and the buttermaking factories, have diverted their milk supply to the towns, with the further result that there is today a surplus of fresh milk in some of our large towns. In the large towns much of that fresh milk is now being converted to the manufacture of other things in order to find an outlet for that surplus of fresh milk. The position is that you are going to harm the fresh milk industry through these high prices you are paying, because not only cannot the factories now get supplies of milk but the price of fresh milk in the towns will be reduced because there is a surplus and imposition of quotas, and that surplus will be sent to the factories at a lower price. Our fresh milk producers realise this danger with which they are faced and they are most anxious. They are quite prepared to accept the higher price for fresh milk but they are anxious that the price of milk used for making condensed milk and cheese should have some relation to the price of fresh milk. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have put this point to the Minister and I hope that he will take it into serious consideration. We feel today that our Dairy Industry Control Board is not functioning at all because they are not allowed to recommend the price. The prices which were fixed last November were fixed by the Government itself, after consultation with the Marketing Council, and, I understand, the Board of Trade.

Naturally the Board of Trade must be consulted.

These prices were fixed before the Dairy Control Board was consulted. What is the use of having a Dairy Control Board to protect the interests of proudcers in this country if they are placed in such a position that prices are fixed before they are consulted? The position is impossible and I feel that if that system is going to be continued it will mean the end of Control Boards in this country, because the Control Boards were intended to be for the protection of the farmer. We thought that as long as we have Control Boards, at all events we would have a square deal and a fair profit on our products. But if there is some other body which fixes prices and then goes to the Control Board and tells them that those are the prices on which the Government has decided and they must now confirm those prices, that is an impossible state of affairs, and if that course is continued I think all farmers, and the Control Boards themselves, will say that their period of usefulness has passed and that we have to look for some other way of protecting the interests of the farmers.

Yes, every word of what you say is correct. There are other ways of giving the dairy farmers in the country protection.

We know that the Government has decided on the manufacture of margarine in this country. We as dairy product producers realise that while there is a shortage of dairy products that may be necessary, but we do ask that that product should be under the control of the Dairy Industry Control Board.

Hear, hear!

Because it affects the whole of the dairy industry, and from what we are told today, namely that this margarine is going to be manufactured to be a substitute for butter and that the consumers will not be able to tell the difference between margarine and butter, it becomes a danger to us, because it will simply be used to depress the price of dairy products. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are going to be no restrictions on the manufacture of margarine, as to what it will be composed of and how it will be made to resemble butter. If margarine is going to have a certain amount of butter Or milk as component constituents, I maintain that it becomes a dairy product. I understand that in order to give it the flavour of butter they will have to introduce butter or milk into the composition of margarine. With regard to our dairy industry, we are not allowed to adulterate our dairy products in any way whatsoever. We cannot colour our butter, but I understand that margarine may be coloured like butter and will be made to taste like butter. But it will never have the food qualities of butter I believe that it need not be sold under the name of margarine, but can be sold under any other name, which will make the public of this country think they are eating butter instead of margarine. As I said before we are not opposed to the manufacture of margarine as long as it is for the benefit of the poorer section of the community, for the lower income groups, but it must be controlled and distributed to these people, for their benefit, at a lower price even than cost of production and they may have to be subsidised in order even to buy cheap margarine. If it is just made and sold by the trade without control, as I understand the position will be, and there will be no distinct identification as between butter and margarine, it will affect us adversely. The price will be the price of production plus a proit, but as the cost of production rises the price will go up. I am quite satisfied in my own mind that margarine will be sold at a price very little less than that of butter, because people will be willing to eat margarine when they think they are getting butter, and when once the manufacture of margarine gets into commercial hands they will demand the highest possible price. Maragarine is a product which will do the dairy industry great harm. It is not like a dairy industry which gives employment and a living to thousands of people. I understand that margarine will be manufactured from component parts, fats and vegetable oils imported from other parts of the world; and that there will be practically nothing which is produced in South Africa used in the manufacture of margarine; and if that is the case you will be introducing into this country an industry which is an import industry, and you will be killing a South African industry which is not only maintaining but giving purchasing power to a very large section of the population of this country. Margarine can never be as good as butter as a foodstuff. After all, margarine is a substitute for butter. If people can afford to eat butter they would not eat margarine, but if disguised as butter they may be imposed upon. We are quite prepared that margarine should be given to the poorer people, if it is necessary, but we are dead against margarine ousting butter from the market.

What about a separate Margarine Control Board?

I do not wish to go into that now. It seems to me that the only board which should control it is the Dairy Industry Control Board because it affects the whole of the dairy industry and will have dairy products in its composition, and if that is the case it should be classed as a dairy product. I hope the Minister will seriously consider the question of this subsidy he is now offering us. We farmers do not want to be looked upon as beggars and poor relations who are living on charity. That is a charge which has been brought against us by most of the townsmen in this country. We want the Minister to lay down the principle, which is the principle which we were given to understand was behind the policy of the Government, that every producer should receive the cost of his production costs plus a reasonable living, and that if any subsidisation is to be resorted to it will be done direct to the consumers who need it. If that is done, we will have no objection to subsidising dairy products in that way, but, Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister to realise that subsidising an industry will never build it up to an industry worth having. It should be put on a sound foundation so that when the farmer produces he knows that he will be able to make a living out of his products after paying the costs of production. That is the only common-sense way of doing it. The dairy industry is today in grave danger. I live in an area which is almost entirely a dairy farming area and I know people there who are very perturbed about the position of the dairy industry, so much so that many of them are selling their herds at present. They have taken to producing other things and the chances are that not only will butter disappear from the market but the dairy cattle-breeding industry will disappear, and milk will become a luxury for the rich. The production of foodstuffs will also be affected. I know that the Minister cannot understand that one cannot produce dairy products purely from the veld. The veld is only supplementary to other feeding and it is only for a short period of the year that the veld is in good condition, so that one can depend on it. In fixing the price of dairy products I feel that the basis of it has mostly been the value of the grass that the cows eat. The cost of the concentrates and of winter feed that has to be grown at great expense is never given its place in our cost of production to which it is entitled. I know that the Minister has, for that reason, fixed upon this system of summer prices and winter prices. He seems to think that the winter is the only time of the year when cows are fed, whereas I have tried to explain to him that in order to have a winter supply of milk you have to feed them not only in summer but when they are dry, and unless you have a long-term policy of feeding cattle right throughout the year you can never stabilise the production which is necessary for building up the industry. I hope the Minister will realise that I have not risen to attack him in any way, but I am trying to make him realise that the proposal of the Government to pay a subsidy now, and the attempt at keeping down the prices to the consumer at the expense of the producer, will never work in this country.

When a farmers’ representative rises in this House to object to the form of a subsidy, the farmers must be fairly prosperous because if they are not, they will accept every penny which is offered them, whether it is in the form of a subsidy or not. They will be only too thankful to take it in order to keep their heads above water. One of the funniest things that happened in this House is that a farmers’ representative rose to object to the form of a subsidy, but as I say, it proves that they are fairly prosperous. The remarks I wish to make in this debate are in the first place to ask the Government a question, namely the following: Why, since the outbreak of war, or since the Government found it necessary to appoint controllers and boards of control in the country, did the Government not take Parliament into its confidence and make use of all the members of Parliament, or at least of those who are prepared to do something for the country; instead of appointing an army of controllers who in many cases left the Government in the lurch, why did the Government not make use of the services of members of Parliament who are in close contact with the public, with the interests of the public, with the policy of the Government and with the requirements of the country? Why did the Government not utilise the services of members of Parliament in forming various committees and commissions which would have been of help to the Government in connection with its control? Eighty per cent. of the control exercised today at very high cost, as the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) rightly pointed out, could have been effected more efficiently and in a much better way, more in the interests of the nation, more in uniformity with the policy of the Government, than is the case today. In this respect, I think the Government did not take Parliament as such into its confidence to make use of the tremendous power we have in the House of Assembly, where we know what the interests of the country are; and I want to suggest that instead of looking for controllers, people who are perhaps not the most suitable persons for the positions, much better use can be made from time to time of the services of members of this House who are prepared and willing to work in the interests of the country and of the nation and who will execute a policy of control with success. At the same time you would then have a number of members in this House who are always au fait with conditions and who can assist the Government in an effective manner, which is not the case today. Time and again attacks are made on controllers and their methods, and in the majority of cases one finds that the Minister is not able to defend the actions of his controllers. I do not really blame them very much because the policy of control today is practically a secret business about which nobody on earth knows anything. We do not know what happens behind the scenes. One would have thought that conditions would have improved as the cotrollers gained more experience, and one would have thought that as complaints were brought to the attention of the Government, conditions would improve. But instead of improving they are getting worse. I will return to this point in a moment. I wish to point out that Parliament can be utilised, that the nation outside have different expectations of Parliament and that Parliament, as it is now, does not satisfy the expectations of the nation. I now wish to come to the Minister of Mines. Last year the House practically unanimously asked the Minister of Mines not to let the Session, i.e. the previous Session pass until he had made changes in the Miners’ Phthisis Act. The able Minister of Finance then rushed to the assistance of the Minister to explain that it was impossible for us to complete legislation in the previous Session of the House. That gave rise to a certain amount of dissatisfaction, but there was also some dissatisfaction on the other side because the Minister of Mines, as well as the Minister of Finance, gave the firm assurance that at least early in this Session, i.e. the current Session of Parliament, a Bill would be introduced which would indicate to what extent the Government intends amending the Miners’ Phthisis Acts. To our great consternation and disappointment we discovered that even in the Speech from the Throne no mention was made of it. You will remember that the first question on the agenda this year was whether the Minister of Mines was able to give the House an explanation of what his plans are in connection with changes in the Miners’ Phthisis legislation. The Minister said that he regretted that he was not yet able to say what the plans were. A further question was put to the Minister and he replied to that and said that he was not yet able to lay the Bill on the Table of the House. He said that he was not yet able to say when the Bill would be laid on the Table. In other words, this was in direct conflict with the assurance we received during the previous Session. I once more wish to ask the Government not to postpone such an important measure until the tail end of the Session. The country does not want that. The longer the Minister delays in connection with this measure the more the nation will be disappointed because it is a comprehensive and very important measure, and if the Minister is not able to tell us now when he will introduce the measure there will be great disappointment. I want to ask him again today whether he is now able to say when the Bill will be laid on the Table. There are many people interested in it. I do not know whether hon. members are conscious of the fact that we are concerned here with a number of workers who at one time were the pick and the flower of South Africa, and they are in such a position that if death does not release them and they continue working in the mines, then every mine worker is a potential miners’ phthisis sufferer. There has never yet been a man who completed his working life in the mining industry without contracting miners’ phthisis. And it does not end only in the untimely death of the unfortunate man, but has a wide influence on the future of his unfortunate family, his dependants, and for that reason I hope that nobody will blame me, but that I will have the support of everybody if I again ask the Minister to lay the Bill on the Table as soon as possible, to give the House a reasonable opportunity to study the matter thoroughly; and we do not want him to introduce the Bill at the end of the Session, so that it will have to be submitted to a Select Committee, after which the excuse will again be made that there is no time to complete the work. I earnestly request the Government not to wait until the end of the Session, and I wish to say that we will not be satisfied with the excuse that the Bill was introduced too late. That is as far as the Minister of Mines is concerned. I now return to the case of the controllers, with which I opened my remarks. We know that the Minister of Agriculture exerted himself and that he did, and is prepared to do, everything in his power in connection with the control of food, and especially of meat. Time and again we saw how the position was deteriorating from day to day. Let me tell the Minister that he will be able to execute his task very much more easily if he takes this House into his confidence, and instead of appointing controllers and inspectors who do not execute the work in conformity with public opinion and the feelings of the nation, he should rather appoint committees composed of farmers and consumers in this House, people who are in touch with the position outside. Let him appoint such committees to help him in the execution of a measure which is properly applied. As things are now the position is becoming worse. The producers are dissatisfied, the consumers are dissatisfied and one finds things happening such as for instance happened at Colesberg. If the Minister had had a representative there, any member of this Parliament, he certainly would not have adopted the attitude which was adopted by the controller at Colesberg. He would at least have acted with more discretion and would have made the people understand that the Minister is not acting arbitrarily but wisely, and he would have provided a measure of satisfaction and the people would not have been so angry. But what can one expect if the policy of control is executed by people who have no public responsibilities, people who are in no way directly responsible to Parliament, or to the producers or to the consumers? For the first time in their lives they now have the power of minor dictators and they treat people in this manner. The result is that the position is deteriorating hour by hour, and I now wish to request the Government in future to take the whole House into its confidence and to use members of Parliament on committees or commissions, committes which can consult each other as to how best to give effect to the Government’s policy and satisfy the public. We know the difficulties that exist today in connection with the controllers. There are some who do their work well. It is not necessary to mention names. But many of them, whom I think were second-grade clerks, now have power, power which one can almost say places them in a position superior to that of the Minister, and that is an unhealthy position. I do not think that anyone doubts the bona fides of the Government, not even the Opposition, but I think that even hon. members on the side of the Government will agree with me that as the position now is, it is deteriorating hour by hour, and that a completely new direction, a new policy, an active policy in connection with control is necessary. A new policy is essential.

A new policy and a new Government.

Just let me say that if the hon. members of the Opposition were in power and they were to appoint people who were not well-disposed towards their policy as a Government, they would also have landed in a hopeless position. People who are against the policy of the Government are today appointed in key positions.

Are they the saboteurs?

If the Opposition also were to appoint people who are against their policy it would also result in a fiasco. I cannot understand the Minister consistently appointing enemies instead of friends. There I differ from the hon. member for Ceres and his mild criticism. He wishes to convey that the Government goes out of its way to appoint selected friends to the positions. On the contrary, I say that the Government is making the greatest mistake by appointing enemies in key positions, thereby to create a spirit of conciliation between the Government and the Opposition. It may be that here and there a favourite of the Government is appointed, but it is a great mistake to appoint one’s enemies in key positions, or at least people who are not favourably disposed towards the policy of the Government. I do not say that the people who are appointed should necessarily be friends of the Government, but in any case they should be exponents of the political policies of the Government, or at least be au fait with the Government’s policy and execute its policy, and they should be people who come into contact with public sentiment and know it well, people who know what public opinion in South Africa is. We should not have the kind of controllers and inspectors we have today, people who defy the public. The Government receives the blame for everything. The Government should take active steps and should get rid of such people. Whether we know it or not, this Parliament is blamed for every mistake made by the little clerks of the Government. Parliament and the Government are blamed, even members of the Opposition and members sitting in the Labour benches are blamed, and Parliament is blamed for the ugly blunders perpetrated by the Controllers.

How do you know that the officials are not giving effect to the policy of the Government?

If they were executing the Government’s policy they would not adopt such an irritating attitude. Why should the Government annoy the public to its own detriment? If the hon. member were a Government supporter, would he purposely annoy the public against himself?

The Minister is so stupid.

You want people who are prepared to give effect to the policy of the Government.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When proceedings were suspended I was busy pointing out that the controllers today are provoking the public because they have no sense of responsibility, and I pointed out that the position, instead of improving, deteriorated by the hour during the course of the year; I pointed out how the controllers disappointed all the expectations we had of them and that it is not wise to any longer leave the country, the public, the farmers and the consumers to their mercy and tender care. Therefore I now request the Government to place that work which the controllers were not able to do and of which they made a fiasco, in the hands of this Parliament. The Government has the right to do so immediately. Each Minister has power to appoint committees from this House to help him. The most important reason why I insist on that is because Parliament has always had to take the blame for the mistakes; and I say that if we have to take the blame, then the time is ripe for us as a Parliament, to accept full responsibility for the institution of the policy for which we must take the blame. You will immediately agree with me that not a single scheme was submitted to this House for its consideration. Take the meat scheme, the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Dairy Board, the Wheat Board and the Maize Board—none of them was submitted to this House for consideration. Those schemes were instituted and after a while information about them filtered through here and there, but this House knew absolutely nothing about them. The only time we heard of them was when they broke down here and there and then we had to pick the bitter fruits together with the nation. For that reason I say that the time has arrived for Parliament to take full responsibility and not to vest power in people who know nothing about conditions in the country and who cannot be held responsible for anything. I therefore ask that the Government should immediately place all work in connection with control in the hands of Parliament. It is small wonder that there is so much dissatisfaction; it is small wonder that there is so much misunderstanding in South Africa. Things happen and we read about them in the newspapers, and then the Government tells us that what is in the newspapers is wrong. The whole world knows about these things except this House, which is not made cognisant of the true state of affairs. The House is kept in darkness in connection with any matter of that kind. I therefore say that we should make this House responsible; that committees should be appointed from this House, and then, if there are mistakes, we can be blamed. But now we bear the blame although we have no authority. We bear the blame although we do not act. Will any body tell me that if the Minister of Agriculture had had a committee selected from this House which could have advised him in connection with the meat scheme, the Deciduous Fruit Board, the Wheat Board, the Dairy Board, the Maize Board, etc., he would not have been able to initiate much more effective schemes than was the case up to now? If that had been done we in this House would immediately have been able to protect the interests of the public outside and matters would not have been in the condition they are at present. I make this claim and I say that if the Government does not do this it will reap the bitter fruit of the actions of people who are applying a policy in South Africa and are acting in a way which does not carry the approval of one of the Ministers but which yet happens. I say that that policy engenders bureaucracy. Bureaucracy and dictatorship are synonymous. Bureaucracy is a divided dictatorship, and that is what we have had in South Africa up to now in connection with this control. What we have in South Africa is a miniature dictatorship; and the Government will still pay through the nose for that miniature dictatorship if it does not change its policy betimes and if it does not call for the help of Parliament. Instead of the food question improving it is getting worse day by day. I say it can be solved but I also say that it will not be solved before the Government decides to nut it in the hands of Parliament. I have confidence in this House; I have confidence in the representative capacity of the members in saying that this is the only body which can solve that problem, and that there is no other body no composite board of control, which can do the work as well as Parliament can and ought to do. But has Parliament ever received that opportunity; has this Parliament at any time received the opportunity of proposing schemes in connection with these matters? No, we did not. The rights we are entitled to have consistently been withheld from us, but if things go wrong Parliament must take the blame for these mistakes. I wish to state that I am not prepared to shoulder blame for mistakes when I know that the people who must perform those services are not out to protect the interests of the Government, of the nation, and of individuals, but are only concerned with their honour as miniature dictators. Take the price of food. When did this House at any time have the opportunity to discuss the price of fruit, which recently was declared by the Minister of Agriculture to be the fixed price? The price of peaches, for example, was fixed at 10d. per lb. It does not take three big peaches, but three fairly small ones, to weigh a pound, and for that the public have to pay 10d. Is that the price Parliament would have approved of for the consumers? Is there a single member of this House who would have approved of such a scheme, that the public should pay 10d. for three peaches? If there is such a member I should like to see him. But in spite of that, the House permits the controllers to fix such prices, prices which would not be approved of by any member of the House.

Where did you vote the other day when our motion about the food position was before the House?

What did the hon. member intend by that proposal? It was nothing else but politics and the sooner the hon. member can give birth to a political mouse so as to get rid of the ideas with which he is pregnant, the better it will be. He may speak as he likes in this House, but he is pregnant with only one idea, namely political party capital. I am not speaking here in favour of any party. No single member can say that I have spoken here in the spirit of party politics, but that hon. member touches on nothing here unless he thinks that he can make political capital out of it. I am satisfied to sacrifice party interests for the sake of the nation. That is the cardinal difference between my hon. friend and I. I say that prices have been fixed for fruit, and perhaps that hon. member is the only one who agrees with those prices being fixed at such a high figure. Perhaps he is in favour of the price of meat being 2s. per lb. and perhaps he is the only one who agrees that the black market should continue. I say that if this House had had authority—perhaps my hon. friend the member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is the exception who does not want it—in a short time there will be no more black market, because each member will then protect the interests of his constituency and will be able to see to it that there is no black market in his constituency. That hon. member obviously wants a black market and does not want this House to have authority. He wishes those things to remain as they are so that he can continue making propaganda to keep his party going.

Was the motion we proposed wrong?

Let us take the housing position. In that matter Parliament was consistently disregarded as regards the making of plans and the drawing up of schemes. There is always one organisation or the other which deals with the matter and which is never held responsible. This House never had authority in the matter.

I wish to remind the hon. member of a motion dealing with housing which is on the Order Paper.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss it, but am only pointing out certain matters over which Parliament should have power, but has no authority. Let us take another important question. During the previous Session we continually asked the Minister of Economic Development what the Government’s policy is with regard to industrial development. Unfortunately the Prime Minister had on each occasion to tell us that they did not have anything like that. Has the hon. Minister completely isolated himself from the point of view of a large portion of the members of his own party? If he wants to ignore other parties, let him in any case take notice of members of his own party, the best men in his own party in that respect, and let him listen to what those people suggest. But we dot not even hear what the best man in his party has to suggest in regard to industrial matters. Hon. members on all sides of the House know the point of view of the electors in their constituencies, or at least of the majority of them, and the Minister ought to listen to the opinions held by those people as regards the policy of the future. But in that respect this House has no authority. On the contrary we leave the most important matters in the hands of an industrial dictator; I refer to the Director of War Supplies who does not hold the view that South Africa should develop industrially after the war, but who would like to see South Africa after the war in the rôle of a kind of El Dorado for American trade. We feel, and I think those are the views of the people of South Africa, that the industrial development of South Africa during the war should not be killed in embryo, as is the desire of the Chamber of Mines, but that the industries which develop during the war should be encouraged, and we ought to receive a declaration from the Government about what their standpoint is and in order that they might know what their position will be immediately after the war. Do they know it today? All they know today is that a tug-of-war is, in progress to see who will have the strongest pull with the United Party; the Chamber of Mines’ interest to have only a mining industry in South Africa and for the rest just poor whites, or whether there will be development on the industrial side as commenced during the war. What do we find? There are many industries today which have developed, there are a large number of valuable articles which can be manufactured in South Africa immediately, but the Director of War Supplies ensures that these people will not receive permits to manufacture these articles. South African industry must be smothered in infancy. The initiative of industry in South Africa must be smothered and no permits are awarded with the results that when the war is over the great overseas manufacturers will swamp South Africa and its industries, those industries which saw South Africa through the crisis and which well deserve a position in the South African economic structure. They are being smothered in embryo by people who look to outside interests instead of to the interests of South Africa. Therefore I wish the Government to declare that the industries which developed during the war must receive the assurance from the Government that we will do everything in our power to maintain those industries by means of the necessary protection against foreign competition. They should receive a reasonable chance to remain in existence in order to see South Africa through the coming crisis. The Chamber of Mines does not wish to do that, but wants as few people as possible to be employed. That is the only basis on which South Africa can meet the future with confidence, when there is idustrial development and expansion. Then we will be able to provide employment. But if we continue with the policy so far followed in respect of industry we have no hope for the future. That is why I say that these matters should be arranged by Parliament and should not be exposed to the fads of an industrial dictator. What is the position in the building industry? Why is it so hopeless? Because War Supplies refuses to give any consideration to any scheme which is proposed at present. War Supplies has only one idea: We will allow the manufacture of articles needed in the war but principally we will follow a policy which will turn South Africa into an El Dorado for American merchants after the war. The country wants an assurance from the Government that our secondary industries will have the assurance from the Government that they will not be smothered at birth, because of the interests of the Chamber of Mines and the importers from overseas. These things that I ask for now can be effected at once and without any legislation. All that is necessary is that the Government, the Cabinet, must have confidence in the House and must make use of the House. The House of Assembly consists of representatives from all over South Africa, but unfortunately they are never regarded as such by the Government. The Government has got stuck in the old tradition which was evolved years ago: Parliament is only a gathering of gentlemen who wish to talk. There are many gentlemen who wish to talk in this country, but I think the majority are imbued with one idea, namely the economic welfare of South Africa. They continue ignoring Parliament but lay burdens on the shoulders of controllers who do not realise their position vis-a-vis the country. I ask the Minister whether that is a reasonable attitude as against us who were chosen as the representatives of the nation. Members of Parliament are not elected merely to make speeches. You, Mr. Speaker, who are doing your duty as regards your constituency, know that this is not the case. There is no difficulty in the world which exists in one’s constituency which is not brought before the member of Parliament who must try to find a solution. As an individual he is regarded as the adviser in connection with all difficulties. When we gather here we find that we, as Parliamentary representatives, are put on one side and second-rate clerks play the rôle of master, in Durban as well as in Cape Town, and also on the platteland. If the Government wishes to give Parliament its full status to solve all the problems of this country, a radical change must be made. In the first place we should participate in committees and secondly we would like to see that all these measures carry the approval of Parliament, so that we at least know to what we are giving our approval. I think that is the feeling of all members here, at least of those who are not blinded by a political prejudice.

After the interesting speech by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) we cannot understand how he can declaim and fulminate here while only a few days ago, when he had the chance to express his feelings by actions by sitting alongside us and voting against the system that he has now anathematised, he did not have the courage to vote with us. The people of South Africa are tired of this sort of talk, and they want deeds. All the deeds that the hon. member for Krugersdorp wants to know about amount to his pleading that the control system of the Government is good, but that the officials who administer it are bad, and that members of Parliament should be appointed as clerks on the control Boards to ensure that they work smoothly. In these days we hear so much about saboteurs, but I will say straight out that the biggest saboteurs of the Government’s policy are the members of the Government themselves, and specifically the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture, who are bringing the Government more and more into discredit. They are the biggest saboteurs of all. They are falling deeper into popular disfavour. I had the privilege of going into the platteland for a few days, and may I be permitted to say to the Prime Minister that the supporters of the Government are falling away like leaves from the trees. This is a matter of extreme importance. We had intended to mention it by way of a motion, but the matter is so urgent and the demand amongst the public is so urgent, that we on this side of the House consider it our bounden duty to direct the attention of the House and of the people to what is going on in the Department of Lands under the Minister of Lands. Before the last General Election, the question was frequently put to the Minister by this side of the House what his policy was in connection with land settlement. He was frequently told: At present there are temporary lessees on that land; these people must be given an opportunity by you to be able to acquire the land. The Minister said that he could not grant any land during the course of the war to any lessee, but as soon as the war was over land would be allotted and the person who is on the land would have equal rights to apply for the land with the person who had gone on active service. That was the policy announced, and during the General Election the Minister of Lands travelled round the whole country making propaganda for his party, and he gave the assurance to the lessees who were Government lessees, that after the war land would be allotted, that there was no need for them to worry, and that they would be treated on the same footing as the people who had gone to fight. The House was taken by surprise last year when the Minister of Lands’ Vote was under discussion, and he said: “Oh no, I have changed my policy, preference will now be given to those who have gone on active service, and the others may make application for land if there is any still available.

That is not so.

That was the policy of the Minister as announced last year when the estimates were under discussion. I can get hold of Hansard to read out to the Minister that he stated that the people who had gone off to fight would get preference.

Yes, that is what I said.

What does it mean? At first all were going to be treated alike. Now the Minister wants to give a preference. It is noteworthy that that came after the General Election. Especially after the last Session of Parliament when we went to our constituencies many people came and asked us what was the then policy of the Government, whether they eventually would have to move on. The Minister was at first very accommodating. In my own constituency the purchase was made of a big property Gariep Estates; that was under the previous Government. The ground was sold to give it to the people there. One of the first things that the Minister of Lands did when he assumed office was to increase the rental in respect of this farm. He stated that he understood the position there, and he believed that the people could pay more. During the previous Session of Parliament I told him that he should not place the people there on such a short temporary basis. Then a promise was made to me that the lessees would be allowed to remain there till the end of the war at least. We received a considerable number of telegrams and letters from people throughout the length and breadth of the country in connection with the matter. The matter was so serious that in the course of the Session I put a question to the Minister—

1. (1) Whether he has ascertained from soldiers (a) who have been discharged and (b) who are still doing military service, how many intend applying for Crown land in order to carry on farmin; if so, how much land will be so required for (i) stock farming, and (ii) other farming; and
2. (2) whether he has notified all lessees of Crown land that their leases would be terminated on or soon after 28th February, 1945; if so, whether he had the information referred to in (i) above when he decided to notify such lessees.

The question boils down to this, whether when the Minister of Lands gave notice to these people he had before him information in reference to the number of soldiers in the country who would be prepared to take up farming, in the first place as cattle farmers, and in the second place, other types of farming. This was the Minister’s reply: No, this matter falls under the Directorate of Demobilisation, and this department is obtaining the information. Neither the House nor the Minister is aware how many there are going to be, but he gives the temporary lessees notice that they must leave the farms. They are still engaged in obtaining the information. If ever there was a lack of planning it has been exceptionally so in the case of the Minister. He has a number of temporary lessees who have been Government lessees for 15, or 20 or 30 years. These are people who were pioneers in the districts that we represent, the pioneer districts, such as Gordonia, Kuruman, Vryburg, Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg, Marico. Those are the areas which are still undergoing development. There are people who have been there ten or fifteen years as temporary lessees. They are actively developing the soil and testing the fertility of the land.

In order to tame the land.

Yes, as the hon. member says, in order to tame the land; and now they have received notice from the Minister that they will have to quit within three months.

Do you know the people all have contracts?

The people have contracts, but will you be so soulless simply to chase the people off the land in view of the present circumstances? I should like to give the House a description of the conditions that are prevailing there today as a result of the drought in parts of the area; and the Minister wants to compel these people to leave the land on the 31st March and to sell their farms. Where are they going to sell their cattle, and where will they end up? On the waggon road? That is what we on this side of the House are always saying: If you want to rehabilitate you must rehabilitate the people as a whole. Here there are a large number of people who in many cases have been on the farms for years already and who have been active in developing the farms. With what object? They want eventually to settle on the farms. That had also been the intention of the section. The section was inserted with no other object than to give the people a chance on the land, and it was only when a man did not meet his obligations, if he was too lazy to develop his holding, that the right was exercised of giving him three months notice. That was the intention of the measure; the intention certainly was not to give notice wholesale throughout the whole country, with the result that thousands of people—we have not got the figures yet although the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) asked for them—but the result will be that thousands of these people, or let us say hundreds of these people, will be landed in the greatest difficulty owing to the wholesale termination of leases. What is going to become of these people? I maintain that the policy of our country ought to be general rehabilitation. You have people there who, under the most difficult circumstances, found a refuge and developed the land and got farming to progress. Those people are now to be uprooted after all their endeavours to effect improvements, and they are suddenly to be thrown on to the labour market. Where are they going? Can the Minister of Lands maintain that this is an intelligent policy? If the Minister of Lands had appeared before this House and said: Look, I have had a survey of all the soldiers, and I have found that this is the number of soldiers who want to engage in farming, and I have laid down how many will take up cattle farming and how many other sorts of farming; there are a thousand or two thousand of them that we must place elsewhere, and we shall gradually begin with that—then we would have understood it. But here the Minister comes with cancellation of contracts on a large scale and in many cases it will be the father of a home who will be affected, a man who for years has triumphed over the elements under the most difficult circumstances, and he will suddenly receive notice that he must go. Whither? He can only choose the waggon road. That is one of the most far-reaching policies that has ever been announced in South Africa. Everyone with a Christian and righteous feeling must disapprove of that. If a plan had been elaborated, we would not have had any objection to the Minister gradually bringing such a plan into operation. But now these people are to be chased off the land, and they do not know what their future is. The Minister has no plan for them. These people have attended to the holdings for years under the most difficult circumstances. Now a stranger has to take their place. Who will say that he is going to attend to things as well? And the man who has already taken root there is going to be uprooted and will be a burden on the land. He is only a peasant; now he has to trek and eventually he will become an indigent for whom the Department of Labour will have to care. I ask the Minister of Labour to exercise his influence, because he is going to pluck the bitter fruits of this policy. He will have to take care of the thousands who will be thrown on to the labour market in consequence of this policy. The Minister of Social Welfare will find them in the slums of our cities. If we had favourable climatic conditions at the moment, the people would be able to obtain reasonable prices for their cattle, and some of them would be able to get a bit of money together. But as far as my constituency is concerned, I want to tell the Prime Minister that I have had numbers of letters from people who ask: Where must I go; must I take the waggon road on the 31st March? Will the Prime Minister allow this? And the most remarkable thing is that even people who have been soldiers and who became temporary lessees have received notice to quit their holdings. The Minister of Lands nods acceptance of this statement. What does it all mean? We are in a mad house. One would say that the Department of Lands and the Minister have become mad. There is no plan behind the whole scheme. If we want to place the returned soldiers who have to be rehabilitated on these lands, then we should go to work gradually and cautiously. We have at present some of the soldiers there who are engaged in farming. They must now be driven off and make a fresh start in trying to get a holding. The Minister now says that the holdings must be given a rest, that they must not be worked out. I have letters here in which they say that caretakers will be placed on the various farms. The temporary lessees have received notice that they must go, and caretakers will be placed on the holdings. What does that mean? This might be intelligible where there is cattle farming, but I ask hon. members on the other side whether they also are not aware that you cannot let a farm that has been planted with lucerne, or vines, be left to rest. You must continually keep working on it. I have here letters from seven farmers in my constituency who have holdings of eight morgen. On these they are cultivating wheat and sultanas and lucerne and peaches. Now they must leave the holdings. The holdings will have to be left there to rest. What becomes of the vineyards? Who is going to cultivate the vineyards? If ever there was a policy that was purposeless it is this policy. I am convinced that hon. members on the other side who represent exactly the same interests are also convinced that the policy of the Minister of Lands is wrong. If they desire that the soldiers should have the land the Minister should first come along with his scheme to educate and train the people to work on the farms. Then he should also have a strict system of selection, because otherwise it is going to end in failure. What happened recently at Elsenburg? Hon. members should listen to that. Here there was a special short course introduced with an eye especially to returned soldiers, and I shall read now an extract from the “Landman”, an agricultural paper that circulates in the Western Province—

Not a single ex-serviceman reported, and I am not surprised either that not one should have turned up. If the plan was not explained beforehand so that the ex-servicemen could know what it was about, if they could not map out their future in relation to it, it was not to be expected that they would report for such a course. He is perhaps sent to Elsenburg to be trained, but he does not know what is going to happen to him; he does not know what holdings are going to be made available for him, and consequently the ex-soldier is of course not interested. The notice goes on to say—

Here we see that a special course was instituted at Stellenbosch for returned soldiers, and not a single one of them reported for it. Will the Minister of Lands repeat that this is not the case? Why did they not do that? Because they did not know what was going to be done with them, because there was no completed scheme. We would have expected that a white paper would have been presented to this House in connection with land settlement, that the whole scheme would have been contained in it, and that we would have had the opportunity to study it, so that the country could have been made acquainted with it. We would also have expected that the necessary legislation in connection with it would have been presented to us. That has not been done, but now notice has simply been given to the lessees that they will have to leave the Government lands. What will become of those lands that Will now lie unproductive? We have a shortage of food in the country, a shortage of meat and so many other things, and now we find that a few hundred, and perhaps a few thousand people—we do not know what the number is but I know that there is a considerable number in my constituency—are being compelled to stop their farming with the result that they will no longer be able to produce. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and to ask him to clip the wings of the Minister of Lands a bit in this matter. He should warn the Minister of Lands that he is engaged in uprooting a section of the people and in driving some of the people into poor-whiteism, and this, too, before he has elaborated a scheme and before we know what the particulars of it are. I want to go further in connection with the answer that the Minister gave to the question put in this connection. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) put this question to the Minister—

The Minister of Lands did not give the number, but he said that the people could make application under Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act. Now in these circumstances where the land is expensive, when the price is perhaps twice as high as in normal Circumstances and when it is practically impossible to get land, these people are told that they can be assisted under Section 11 of the Land Settlement Act. I brought a case to the notice of the Minister of Lands which was assuredly a deserving case. The Minister of Lands also referred me to Section 10 of the Land Settlement Act. I maintain that as the position is at present, and when the farmer has to sell lean cattle today at a low price, it will be impossible for him to accumulate so much capital that he will be able to buy an expensive farm under Section 11. I have always understood that Crown land, especially on the Border areas is land that is allotted on trial. If a man makes good there, and if he can make a living, the understanding is that the land will be allotted to him when he makes application. I have always understood that.

Yes, but you are wrong.

For what reason have these people got these farms? They are engaged in clearing the land. We cannot sell land to them outright in districts such as Gordonia and Kuruman and simply leave these people to themselves, unless we know that they can make a living on that land. But now that they are making a living, and after numbers of these people received land subsequent to their becoming lessees, the Minister has put a stop to it. I would crave the goodwill of the House to consider this matter seriously, because I believe that the Government is about to do these people a disservice. Now I come to a few instances that I should like to mention here. Here is a case that occurred on the 6th November, 1944. It relates to instances of farms that form part of the Gariep Estates, where the people received assurance that they would be allowed to remain there for a year. Now they have suddenly been given notice to quit. These are cattle farmers, and these are the people who are now experiencing difficulty in disposing of their cattle. I have before me a letter that was written on behalf of 19 farmers who went before an attorney, and he in turn wrote to me as follows—

I wrote that it would be a good thing if they came down here to speak to the Minister of Lands, and that the matter should be brought up. Then I have a further letter here dated 29th January regarding the same case. It was written by an influential attorney—

That is my objection to this scheme. These people are stock farmers but the Minister knows the conditions along the Orange River. He knows that there is a considerable number of islands which are connected with the banks by little bridges. Between Upington and Kakamas there is a number of them, and the people there are temporary lessees. They make a living, they have cultivated lands and a vineyard; they produce wheat etc. In connection with them I have also a letter here—

Here we have the special case of Phillips Island. Seven farmers are living there—

Then the letter points out further that when there is a normal flow of water in the river, these people have to cross the river to reach the market by 26 little suspension bridges. The letter goes on to say—

That is a different position of affairs. Now I want to ask the Minister of Lands, does he want to chase these people off those lands, and to place farmers there under the circumstances? The Minister of Lands is always holding forth about how well he wants to treat the soldier, but I think that if this state of affairs is investigated, and it is brought to the notice of the soldiers that it is part of the rehabilitation scheme, they will say to him: Keep it! I have here another letter that was sent to me by one of the lessees concerned. It is the letter that was sent to the various lessees cancelling their leases—

That is the notification that the Department of Lands sent to these people. It appears that under the contract the Minister does not need to compensate them for improvements on the holdings. Apparently, however, according to a letter that I received today from one of these temporary lessees the Minister is willing to consider the question of paying compensation. There will be a commission. I shall read the letter that I received from this lessee—

In the other instances we had to deal with stockfarms. This letter goes further—

The people are being driven off and a caretaker is being appointed. I do not know what this signifies, but the letter goes on to say—

It thus appears that the Minister of Lands is beginning to consider the question of payment for permanent improvements. The House would like to know on what basis this will be carried out. How is the Minister going to assess it? We should like to know whether he is going to pay the people what it cost them, or whether he is only going to pay a percentage of that? That is how the matter is viewed outside, and I request the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, to reconsider this matter, and not to continue along the course of terminating these temporary leases before they devise a plan or a scheme that will make provision for the absorption of returned soldiers and which will be based on equality of treatment to all sections of the community. A deputation waited on the Minister of Lands but he was engaged; he could not see us. This prompts me to take the liberty of submitting now what we should like to have placed before him—

That is the least we ask for in this connection. But let me also say this to the Minister of Lands. If his future land settlement policy assumes the complexion of this effort he is engaged on at the moment, then it is going to be a hopeless failure. He has seen how things went in connection with the land settlement policy that the Government followed in respect of returned soldiers after the war of 1914-’18. He has seen in what circumstances those people were placed on the land. He knows what happened at places such as Clanwilliam and on the Sundays River in regard to returned soldiers—how many were settled there and how many remained there. [Time limit].

I shall reply at once to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) who delivered this attack. I was surprised at the language used by him. The terms he used were that we had broken faith and I do not know what more. I interrupted him while he was speaking because he was distorting facts.

You distorted matters so much that you did not wish to appear before the Kakamas Commission.

He read letters here showing what his constituents had asked him. They asked him to do certain things for them. He did not do them and now he reads those letters in Parliament.

I went to interview you in your office but you could not see me.

That is not the manner in which to serve the interests of his constituency. I am one of the most accessible persons in this House. If he could not interview me at that particular time he could have seen me later. I admit that I could not see the hon. member at that moment. I was busy. But he could have waited until I had finished or else he could have come at another time. The hon. member did not do his duty and now he delivers that tirade we had from him, and he totally misrepresents the position. I want to say what the position is in connection with the farms of the Gariep Estates, about which the hon. member had so much to say. Those farms were let to people on certain definite contracts and on defined conditions. In some cases the first condition was that the contracts of lease could be cancelled on three months’ notice. The hon. member then spoke about improvements. The second condition in the contracts is that none of those lessees were to make improvements on the ground, and it was specifically stated that if they did make improvements the Government would not pay compensation for those improvements when eventually it took oyer the land. That was a definite condition. Now he wants me to bind myself by saying what I will pay for the improvements. The people who made improvements in those circumstances were trying to entrench themselves, and that is why we made the definite condition that lessees should not make improvements and that the Government would not pay compensation for improvements. He further said that he understood that the people who leased that ground could stay there for a year. Their contracts are subject to termination on three months’ notice. Then the hon. member further said that the understanding was this, that if the ground should be given out the lessees would receive prior consideration.

I said that that was the policy of the Government.

It was not the policy of the Government. The Department of Lands is not a letting Department. It is a settlement Department. We do not buy ground in order to let it. That is not the function of the Department of Lands. The function of the Department of Lands is to make ground available to people with the object of eventually making them the owners of the ground. When the ground is being leased we make the lessees understand clearly that these are temporary contracts of lease. Where we did not want ground to lie empty for the duration of the war we let it to people and we made them clearly understand that that ground would be allotted after the war and that we were only letting it to them temporarily. Each morgen of ground that was let, whether it is a large farm or a small one, was let on defined conditions, some of them with the conditions that one month’s notice would be given and in other cases that three months’ notice would be given, as in the contracts mentioned here by the hon. member for Gordonia. We had another condition, namely that these people should make no improvements.

What about the crops on the farm?

I had intended coming to that point later, but I shall answer it now. There is a large number of persons who entered into contracts providing for one month’s notice of termination. There are others who had to receive three months’ notice. My Department, of its own accord, then decided that in cases of those who had to receive one month’s notice, they would receive three months’ notice, and those who were to receive three month’s notice would be given six months’ notice.

But what is going to happen now to those people who have to leave?

Give me a chance to reply. My Department is there for settlers and not for lessees. My Department is a settling department. We know that there are people on the farms who sow crops. On 31st January we gave notice of the termination of the contract of lease. In many cases that meant that the lessee had to vacate the ground on 31st March. We then prolonged it to 31st May but we added: If by 31st May there is a crop on the ground we will give you the right, say to the end of July, to harvest that crop, but that must be done on the recommendation of the Inspector of Lands. If a man has a few bags of mealies on the farm we cannot be expected to meet him. But if there is a reasonably large crop he would receive a reasonable chance to harvest the crop, even though it took him until the end of July.

But that is the legal position.

But we said aslo that if this is done he would be allowed to keep only those cattle there which he needs for harvesting. Another misrepresentation of the hon. member is this. He said here—and it is a grievous misrepresentation—that I promised that the people who are already on the ground would one day receive the ground when it was allotted.

I did not say that.

He also said that the people on the Gariep Estates had the right to remain there for a year. That is not so. I deny it in toto.

Ask the Secretary for Lands.

Further the hon. member said that I had said that there would be an equal allotment of ground to these people after the war. I am not retracting from what I said. I declared in this House that when the ground is allotted after the war all these people can apply equally. I call upon hon. members in this House to witness that that was my statement. It is also the statement I made in the beginning of the war. I said that the Government decided to issue no ground during the war, in order to give soldiers who went to fight for the country and who are overseas, a chance, when they return, to make application for the ground. I said that we wished to give everybody an equal chance of applying for the ground.

That is what I said.

You said that I had given those lessees a promise that they would receive prior consideration. I actually said that everybody would receive an equal opportunity of applying. The question was then asked: But if everything is equal, will our sons also receive an opportunity to get the ground, even though they are not returned soldiers? My reply to that was clear. I said that I wanted no misunderstanding. I said that under the Settlement Act I had to advertise the plots and every person in the country has the right to apply. I said that people in the country who had not gone to fight could apply equally with the returned soldiers. But I added to that: Everything being equal, if a plot is advertised, and those boys or even a person who had a temporary contract of lease for that ground, apply, and if a soldier applies, all things being equal, the soldier would get the ground. Those were my words. And that was the question put to me.

But then everybody has not got an equal chance.

The man who sacrificed his life for the country, who went to fight for the country and also for the life of members on the opposite side, ought to receive preference when he applies for that ground because it is something which counts in his favour and does not count in the favour of the others.

That is another argument.

That is not equal treatment.

It is equal treatment. I wish to remind hon. members on the other side of the practice pertaining in the old republics, both in the Frees State and in the Transvaal. When a person had fought for the country, even though it was in the Kaffir Wars, a farm was allotted to him in preference to other people.

But then you must not say that it was equal; then you must say that there is preferential treatment for soldiers.

That hon. member on the opposite side twisted matters here and grievous misunderstandings have been published in the country for political purposes. It is said that we are busy cancelling the contracts of people on a large scale and that we are chasing these people into the night in an improper manner. You see, he makes no difference between people who hired ground from the Government under Section XI or Section XVI. The contracts of those persons are not being touched. But he is bringing the country under the impression that such contracts can be interfered with.

Nonsense.

That is what he does. The contracts which have been cancelled are those affecting persons to whom we leased ground on definite conditions. The hon. member now wishes to make capital out of this. To those people whose contracts are being cancelled notice has been given that as soon as the war is over we want that ground back and that their contracts can be terminated on one month’s notice or three month’s notice.

Some of them have been on the ground for twenty years.

There are a few. Let me explain the position. A system of letting has crept in although that is not the function of the Department of Lands. The Department of Lands is not a letting department; I wish to lay stress on that. Our function is to buy ground and to put settlers on it, not to let the ground.

But in some cases the people have been leasing the ground for twenty years.

Precisely They obtained farms and entrenched themselves, and when the Minister of Lands wants the ground they say that they made improvements and sacrifices, and in that way ground has in the past been let to people for a long term. The system of letting has brought about terrible damage to the country. In the first place it meant a total departure from the function of the Department of Lands in that we are a settling department, a rehabilitation department. We rehabilitate a man to whom we give ground, but it is not our function to let ground.

And if they want to buy it?

They cannot do so. I made that clear. If the hon. member is too stupid to grasp it I cannot help it. We cannot sell the ground. We can issue it under Clause XI.

Can they not receive preference?

They want preference but I cannot give it.

But you say you give preference to returned soldiers.

I say that the system of lease brought about terrible damage to the country. We now need ground for settlement and there will probabaly be thousands of applications for ground for settlement, and we shall need the ground which was leased practically in contravention of the law, because it is not our function to let ground. The fact that the ground was leased in this manner cost the country hundreds of thousands of pounds in damages. There is for instance the erosion of the ground. The lessee does not worry about that but lets the farm wash away. There was over-grazing. If a man has not enough cattle of his own he lets grazing to others, and Government farms are damaged in a terrible way.

But where is your inspector who should look after these things?

There are exceptions. But where you have plots under irrigation they ruin the top soil and render the soil brackish. They allow soil to become overgrown by weeds and neglect the ground in a terrible way. Only a fortnight ago one such case, which was very bad, came to my notice. They ruin the ground and you find instances where doors and windows are removed and even sheets of galvanised iron disappear.

Then the inspectors are not doing their duty.

Recently we took back a farm where there were six windmills. A man went there to take over the farm and found that not one of the windmills could work. Parts were missing from each of them. We tried to mend them. We sent somebody to estimate what it would cost and the windmill company told us that the spare parts necessary would alone cost £86. We found boreholes which had been filled in.

What are your inspectors up to?

An inspector in the Cape Province has an area as large as the Free State. How can he see to all these things? The damage to the soil as a result of the system of lease is surprising, and seeing that after the war we wish to embark upon the prevention of erosion on a large scale, my Department does not wish to let a single farm, because we want to prevent the erosion of soil and to follow a system of soil conservation. Therefore you need decent settlers who will look after their ground.

If they want to buy the farms will you give them a chance to do so?

The position is that the policy of the Department of Lands is as follows: We will comply with the Act of 1912 and Crown lands will be allotted to settlers by the Department of Lands. Our policy is that where we can allot ground our Land Board representatives, where we advertise the plots, must give us the assurance that the farm or plot is an economical farm or plot on which the settler who goes there will be able to make a decent living. If they tell me that there is a plot, whether it is in the area represented by my hon. friend or wherever it is, which cannot afford a decent existence to a settler, then my Department will advertise it and sell it by public auction. We are not entering into any more leases. We had so much unpleasantness in connection with farm leases and the way in which our soil and property were treated that the sooner we get rid of the system, which is not a function of the Department of Lands, the better.

What happens then to the people who have to leave?

These people came to us and asked to hire some of the farms and we told them that the lease could be terminated on one month’s or three months’ notice. We have already extended the time. Those who received three months we are now giving six months’ notice, and those who should receive one month we are giving three months. If I hire a farm from any man and he terminates the lease, what right have I to ask the lessor: What are you going to do with me? The Government is prepared as far as possible and within the limits of their capabilities to help people under Section XI. The money is available.

If the people can buy some ground it takes at least a year before your Department completes such transactions. What happens to the people in the meantime?

I am now being asked why I did not delay with these notices until the soldiers come back, and it is regarded as a terrible crime that we cannot say how many soldiers there are who will want ground. If 60,000 people have been overseas for the last five years, how can you say how much ground ought to be held available? My reply is that the demobilisation organisations are today busy making enquiries amongst the soldiers at the front, and classifying them in various categories into which they may fit. It does not mean that everyone who applies for ground will receive it. Perhaps somebody who has never been on a farm wants a farm. But perhaps there are five others who have had previous experience, boys who gave up their farms and farming operations, and they will receive preference over those who never went to the front. The demobilisation organisation is busy collecting data and then we will know more or less how many fall within each category. I am now being blamed for not knowing how many there are. Why do I give notice now? I have already said that their contracts were prolonged, but the war is drawing to an end. I do not know whether hon. members opposite perhaps still think that Hitler will win.

Stalin is winning.

Sooner or later the soldiers will return and the promise has been made that we, at all costs, and in spite of any pressure that might.be exercised on us to allot ground, will not make available one inch of ground before the soldiers return. We do not know how many will have to be considered in the allotment of ground. It may be a few thousands, and in the meantime these people are on the farms and are entrenching themselves, and when the soldiers come back and we advertise the plots and they are allotted to the soldiers, or to others, and these people are still on the ground, what will the position be then? I have already told you in what condition some of the plots are when we receive them back.

That applies to only a few people.

There are exceptions. There are plots which are trodden out and damaged to a fairly large extent. The farms must rest a little before they are allotted so that the settlers are not put on a plot which is a desert. Therefore we must start early and I do not think that the 31st May is too early.

Will the Minister admit that the people who must leave the ground are poor people.

There are rich people. I believe that most of them are not rich but the group about which the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) spoke are well-to-do people.

Will you come and tell them that?

Now the hon. member says that I am taking them away. They asked that the ground should be leased to them under the stated conditions. What right have they now to ask me what I will do with them?

Still, they are burghers of the country.

I know, and Section XI provides for those who are able to buy. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by the hon. member. Of all the reproaches of breaking faith no word is true. It has been said that sometimes political considerations influenced my actions, and that exceptions have been made. No exceptions have been made. We promised not to allot ground until the soldiers return, and not an inch of ground has been allotted. But as soon as our soldiers return the plots will be allotted and we have to give the lessees timely notice.

Last Session, Mr. Speaker, I gave notice of a motion which I then considered touched a subject of considerable importance. You will appreciate this when I remind you what it was. I proposed then to invite the Government to give earnest consideration to the very important question of providing for a change over from control by controllers to normal peace-time methods. I had intended to invite the Government to plan in advance for that essential change over. I should have urged them, if I had had the opportunity, that it was a matter which had to be planned well in advance, and it was a step which had to be taken as soon as the exigencies of war permitted it. But as you know, Sir, the facilities which come the way of the humble private member are extremely limited, and I did not have that opportunity, and the country was deprived, among other things, of a great intellectual treat. The question is still of great importance and is of greater urgency today than it was last Session. The importance of the subject increases as we get nearer the end of the war. It is no part of the problem whether control during war time was correct or not. For my own part I cannot imagine any person approaching the matter rationally who would question the essentiality of war-time control. Nor is it part of the problem to consider the future of control boards. I am concerned here with the replacement of controllers who were created purely as a war-time provision; and as far as I am aware, we have not had a Government pronouncement on the future of such control. President Roosevelt just a few months ago did make a pronouncement, and he made it in these terms—

It seems to me that what President Roosevelt then said in respect of his own country applies with no less force to the situation in South Africa, and that it is a problem of moment to determine how soon controllers set up to meet abnormal war-time conditions, can, with due respect to them, be got rid of. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that this is an essential part of our planning, and I have not come across any pronouncement on the part of the Government as to what its views are in this connection. It would be idle to say that it is too early for the Government to indicate that it regards the office of controller as purely a war-time measure which must be got rid of as soon as circumstances permit, because President Roosevelt found it possible to make an emphatic declaration on the same topic. There are, as you will appreciate, a variety of controllers and the problem of disposing of them is different in different cases. We have controllers whose function today is almost entirely one of controlling the distribution of goods in short supply, and it seems to me that as soon as we have a normal flow of these goods it would be a relatively easy matter to supersede such a controller. There are other controllers however whose functions are far more ramified. I want particularly to deal with these. But I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without saying, even in respect of controllers whose functions are limited to the control of the distribution of goods in short supply, that there has been during these years of war—and I say it with regret—room for criticism, room for fair-minded and legitimate criticism, and criticisms which are not answered by pointing to difficult war-time conditions, criticism in respect of the administration of control. I want to brng to your notice, Mr. Speaker as an illustration, what I look upon as one of the most glaring instances of of bureaucratic highhandedness certainly that I have come across in my experience, since control has been set up. I put it at no less than this, than the abuse of authority vested in a controller and a complete misconception of the limitation on the authority of a controller. It affords a very excellent example of the danger of vesting any official with authority the limits of which he himself is unable correctly to interpret. Circumstances have necessarily imposed upon him that authority, a fact of which he should be fully conscious. Control should therefore be administered by him with a full realisation of that fact. Controllers have been empowered today to deny to a man an approach to our courts. Controllers are empowered to punish a man and in cases far more severely than a court would punish him, so much so that controllers are enabled to jeopardise a man in earning his livelihood. Such a man is left without redress. For that very reason controllers should be aware of the tremendous power which rests with them, and should guard scrupulously against its abuse. I do not want to touch on the broader aspect of the subject which is covered by the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), to which I have given notice of an amendment which bears on this question, the whittling down of a citizen’s right to the protection of our courts, the right of an aggrieved subject to come to the courts for redress. The facts in this case can be simply stated. This is the case of a man who owns a garage. In connection with his garage he requires (as I believe all garage owners do) the use of petrol not in running cars, but for various services renered in the garage. I understand that for that petrol a specific coupon issue is made, a particular coupon quite distinct from the ordinary coupon for use in running cars. One day an inspector arrived at this garage and demanded that all such coupons in the possession of the garage owner should be handed over, the coupons for that month and I believe the preceding two months. The months do not very much matter. The coupons were handed over, and as you would naturally expect, the garage owner enquired the reason for his being asked to surrender coupons for what was an essential requirement in his business, and he was told that he would learn in due course. As he was not advised he went to see his attorneys, who wrote to the Petrol Controller in Pretoria, an ordinary businesslike letter asking if they might have furnished to them the reasons for their client being deprived of the use of his coupons. I have in my possession the answer to that letter, and I imagine Mr. Speaker that you will scarcely believe that these are the contents of a letter from the controller in reply to a very proper enquiry in respect of an action calculated to deprive that man of his livelihood. The controller’s reply reads—

That man had his petrol coupons withdrawn because it appears—it can only be assumed—he was guilty of some infringement of the regulations in that he had used a car with a garage number for private purposes. The extent of the use was, I understand, trivial. If it is true that he had committed an offence, then some punishment he deserved, but he had been punished, by having these coupons removed, far more severely than if he had appeared on a criminal charge before a magistrate or even before a judge. When through his attorneys he invited the controller to tell him what the trouble was, because he was entitled to know and because he might have had an explanation, the answer was: I am not prepared to discuss the matter, I have penalised you, and that is all that matters. I say, and I say most emphatically, that was a most arbitrary attitudue to adopt and nothing can justify the attitude of the Controller of Petrol in this case. And it is fair to assume that that action reflects the outlook of the controller. This man was denied the right of standing his trial in respect of this charge, and answering it. He was punished by the controller, and when he wanted to know what the offence was he was told the matter was not open to discussion. Well, that sort of control I venture to suggest the public will not tolerate for a moment after the war is over.

Why should they have to tolerate it now?

That is an example of a controller whose function is limited largely to the distribution of a commodity in short supply. I do no foresee any question of any new industry being opened up and falling under his jurisdiction, but even if for instance there were a new petrol industry, clearly it would be no business of this controller. But there are other controllers whose functions go very much further than the question of distribution, functions which have been permitted to become very largely integrated into our national conomy and which it will be very difficult to readjust unless the matter is given very careful and early consideration. These are not cases where, when you think the time has arrived you can merely depose the controller and reinstate the normal activities. I say this control has become part of the fabric of our economic life and that is why I am sorry I did not have the opportunity of urging the Government last Session to give this matter its early consideration. Just let me take one example of this other type of control to which I have referred. I cite the case of the control of leather.

Who is he?

I do not know who it is at the moment, but I am in any event dealing with the office of the Controller of Leather and not the person. These controllers, as you know, act in conjunction with certain advisory committees which have been set up, and these advisory committees comprising estimable gentlemen of ability, are all greatly interested in the industry however. That, of course, is understandable. They would not be of much use advising the controller on the problems of the leather industry if they were not in the leather trade. So I can see the necessity of having the advice—and I am all for officials seeking advice far more than is done today—of people who are directly interested in the industry; I concede that. But what is the result? The Contoller of Leather is concerned not merely with an attempt to distribute equitably the quantity of leather that is in the country from time to time. He concerns himself with, for instance, the licencing of new industries. You cannot open a shoe factory today without a permit from the Controller. Very well, my hon. friend here who is very thrilled with what I have to say, wants for instance to open a shoe factory. He goes to the Controller. What does the Controller do? He seeks the advice of his advisory committee. They make a recommendation but in effect it is their decision. And what is the natural reaction of a group of people engaged in an industry upon being invited to decide whether my friend can have a perimit or not? What are the prospects of my friend getting a permit from these gentlemen whose very interests they think will be threatened if this new permit is granted?

That is the point.

I say it is not a matter which should be left in the hands of people who have a direct personal interest in the problem, and for which reason are devoid of that absolute impartiality without which control becomes intolerable. I have only cited the example in the leather industry as an example, but it applies to any number of these advisory committees. I happen to know of the case of a man, a returned soldier, who learned the trade in England and who believed that he could produce a shoe of a particular type far more cheaply than the factories in Durban, for instance, produce it today. He took the only course open to him and applied for a permit. It was refused. It might have been properly refused. But people who in their interest are obviously not prepared to have this competition, although it might be in the interests of the country, have denied him that permit and he very properly says: “What right have my would-be competitors to decide whether I shall be permitted in the industry or not?” The Controller of Leather and other controllers in the result are vested with power not only to deal with war time circumstances, but to determine the policy of this country in its practical application in respect of that particular industry. It is in the hands of these committees to determine whether there is to be expansion, whether we are going to have avenues of employment opened up or whether we are going to have restrictions, whether in other words we are going to have the door shut to returned soldiers and others. The practical aspect of this matter is in the hands of these committees. Here we have an instance, the case I have just cited, of a man who, if the facts alleged by him are correct, would have opened up avenues of employment and without doubt would have benefited the whole of the country, if he had been permitted to open up an industry. But the policy of the advisory committee prevents him, not the policy of the Government. The hon. Minister shakes his head. I shall be glad to have his answer to that. I conclude with this final observation. This matter of employment, as the Government White Paper makes plain, is fundamental to social security and the Government must see to it that its policy of providing full employment is not thwarted by any sectional interests in our industry.

I am sorry the hon. Minister of Lands is not in his seat at the moment. I hope some one will call him because I should like to say a few words to him.

The Minister of Lands or the Minister of Agriculture?

Both, but to begin with I want to say a few words to the Minister of Lands. I believe there are hundreds of settlers who will go to bed tonight with an uneasy mind if they know what the effect is of the speech which the hon. Minister has just made here. There are settlers who have been lessees for the past 44 years, and the Minister is now going to cancel the leases at the end of February or at the end of March, and scatter them far and wide over the country, leaving them to find a refuge for themselves. I have before me a list of names of 24 farmers who were temporary lessees for a peroid of 8 years, a period of 16 years, 29 years, 36 years, 43 years and 44 years, people who—one might almost say—were temporary lessees throughout their life time. They are now to be given notice that at the end of February or at the end of March they will no longer be temporary lessees. I shall be glad if the Minister can come because it is no use my exposing his misrepresentations if he is not here.

Cannot you go on with the Minister of Agriculture first?

I first want to speak to the Minister of Lands, but if he does not put in an appearance, I shall direct my attention to the Minister of Agriculture. I want to speak to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon, because I believe that his meat scheme is suffering from its last convulsions. I want to say that I propose to speak with great restraint this afternoon, because in my opinion the public of Cape Town will not be able to get meat at all in ten days. It is a very serious matter, and for that very reason I do not want to talk about it in an irresponsible way. The attitude which the Government and that side of the House have adopted is this: when one speaks of criticism which is voiced by the Opposition, one is told that it is irresponsible criticism. Otherwise they say at the beginning of the Session that it is the weakest Opposition which they have ever had, and for that reason the Government’s supporters have to criticise the Government. When we on this side criticise, we are told that it is not constructive criticism. But now that the position has become so critical and the Opposition is criticising, hon. members on the other side say it is irresponsible criticism and that our only object is to obstruct the Government. But it is not only hon. members of the Opposition who criticise the meat scheme. What does the Government’s own mouthpiece, “Die Suiderstem,” say about the meat scheme? In August, 1944, it used the following words and moreover in a leading article—

Which newspaper is that?

It is the Government’s own mouthpiece. If that was true in August, 1944, it is doubly and tenfold true today. The Minister’s meat scheme is on the point of becoming a failure. The newspaper goes on to say—

And it goes on to say—

It has gone so far that it is not only the Opposition which is criticising this scheme but also the Government’s own mouthpiece.

Which newspaper is that?

It is the newspaper of the Minister of Lands, which says in August that the meat scheme is on the point of collapsing. Today the position is much more serious and the members of the public want to know why it is that they cannot get meat. When one reads the Minister’s statistics where he says that the numbers of cattle have increased, that there are almost as many sheep today as there were in 1939, one cannot understand what has become of the meat. Why is it then that we cannot get meat in the cities? I want to say this to the consumers this afternoon. Between the sheep and the cattle which are as plentiful in this country as ever and the consumers who have to stand in queues in the cities, there is a stubborn and inefficient Minister. It is his deeds which are responsible for the fact that they cannot get meat. From the very commencement, the Minister could not make up his mind what he wanted to do with this scheme, whether it would be a permanent scheme or not. A year ago I said to him : “If you want to carry out this scheme successfully, you must see to it that you obtain the goodwill of the farmers, and in order to get the goodwill of the farmers, you must tell them in advance that it will be a long-term scheme.” The Minister hedged and struggled with words. The one moment he said it was the intention of the Government to make it a long-term scheme; the next moment he said the Government visualised this, or that that was the policy of the Government, but you could not get a definite reply from him. Just listen how he leaves the farmers in doubt as to whether it is going to be a long-term scheme or not. On the 6th April, in reply to a question which I put to him, he said in this House—

At times this very same Minister comes and accuses us of misrepresentations and he accuses the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of misrepresentations when we tell him that he could not inform us at the beginning whether it was going to be a long-term scheme or not. And this afternoon I am reading his own words which he suppressed so adroitly on another occasion by starting to read the sentence just below. One asks oneself this question: What is the reason for the failure of the meat scheme? Hon. members will recollect that on the day the prices were announced, the Opposition made a special appeal to the Minister. We had a special discussion here and we told the Minister that with the prices he proposed, it would mean a loss to the farmer of 5/- to 12/- per sheep and £2 to £3 per ox, and yet the consumer would still have to pay the same price. It is no use his quoting figures this afternoon. He juggles with figures. But I can give him practical instances where farmers have sent their sheep to the market and received less for them, and the consumers will tell him that they are not paying less for meat today. I want to give a few examples to show how the Minister told the public that the farmer was still getting the same price and perhaps even more than what he got before the inroduction of the scheme. The Minister is continually drawing a comparison between the indicated and the fixed prices, to make the people believe that the farmer is not getting less today. If there is one man who is trying to drive a wedge between the farmer and the consumer, it is the Minister of Agriculture. He should be held responsible for that because this is the type of thing he does. Outside as well as in the House he compares the price of beef on the Rand with the indicated price of October, 1942. He says the fixed price today is 69/- per 100 lbs. for prime beef; the indicated price is 68/5d. He says that proves that the farmer is getting more. Is he not aware of the fact that on that price the farmer need not pay a commission of 2½ per cent. If he considers that fact, the position is that the fixed price today is 69/- per 100 lbs. for prime beef and the indicated price 70/2d. per 100 lbs., including the 2½ per cent. commission.

That is a new sum to him.

Yes, that is a new sum to him. What I am saying here is Greek to him. I want to put this question to the Minister. He made a comparison in connection with beef. But he as Minister knows, and every farmer in this House knows, that if you take the price of oxen over a period of years, the market is always at its lowest in the month of April. Why does he draw that comparison? The Minister comes and compares the fixed price for mutton with the indicated price. It is one and the same. But when he draws this comparison, he takes the 2 weeks immediately preceding the 15th May, when the market was in a state of chaos, and then he tells us that the stipulated price was 10¾d. per lb. and the indicated price 10⅜d. per lb. He compares these prices with the open market prices. Then he says it is one and the same thing. The Minister can look at the prices of his own Department, and he will notice that for January and February the price for mutton in Johannesburg was 12d. instead of 10⅜d.

Order, Order! I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into that matter, because there is an order of the day for next Friday which deals with the food question. Then there was also the motion of censure by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) which has already been disposed of and which partially also dealt with the food question. (*Mr. BOLTMAN: I would like to bow to your ruling but I was brought under the impression that it would be allowed here. I made enquiries in advance and I was given to understand that arising out of the commandeering of sheep in Colesberg, I would be allowed to discuss this.

Possibly the hon. member can discuss the commandeering of sheep, but he must not go into the details of the food question at this stage.

The points which I noted here are, in the first place, the failure of the scheme and the fact that it eventually resulted in the commandeering of cattle on the platteland, in Colesberg and elsewhere. What gave rise to the failure of the scheme? I just want to say that the factors which gave rise to those points are, firstly, the fixed price level, the manner of grading, and finally the commandeering. I think I have now explained to the Minister that when he tells the people in the country that the price level is the same if not better than the indicated price, he knows that that is not the case. But in passing I just want to say this to him, and I hope you will allow me to do so because I want to lead up to the question of commandeering, that the main cause of the failure is the line of demarcation which exists in connection with the grading. When one looks at the indicated prices and compares them with the fixed prices, in respect of mutton, it will be seen that the grades were first, second and third and the prices were 10¾d. for first grade, 9⅞d. for second grade and 9⅛d. for third grade. The difference between the prices was approximately 1d. and ¾d. respectively. As the Minister has now fixed it, the difference in his fixed prices is 1d. between first and second grade and 2d. between second and third grade. The reason why no sheep are being sent to the market today is that there is a drought in the country and there are very few prime sheep in the whole country. There are only second and third grade sheep, and in the case of second grade and third grade sheep one is faced with this ridiculous position that while the price of prime mutton is 9¾d. the price for second grade is 8⅜d. and 6¾d. for third grade. If a sheep which is not prime sheep is classified as third grade, and it weighs 44 lbs. the farmer gets 7s. 4d. less per sheep if he gets 2d. per lb. less. That is the reason why the people are not sending sheep to the market. The consumers in the Cape want to know why there is a great quantity of meat at places outside the big cities, at Stikland, for example, but in the controlled areas one cannot get meat at all. The price for second and third grade mutton is ridiculously low, and the people outside are getting better prices and consequently they sell at Malmesbury, Wellington and Stellenbosch—and not at third grade. There they have only one grade. Now the hon. Minister is taking the foolish step of commandeering. What is the result? The farmers are not sending their cattle to the market. The Minister has driven them out of Cape Town and the adjoining areas. But the matter does not end there. It is now going further. He has now gone to Cradock; he has gone to Wellington, he has gone to Cathcart, and he went to my own constituency, Colesberg; and what did he do there? His representative, one of the buyers of the Controller, attended the auction but did not buy; he waited until the butchers in that vicinity had bought and then he took a number of sheep away from them.

The Minister is amused.

Yes, the Minister is amused. When his Leader gave him a testimonial to say that he was qualified to be Minister of Agriculture simply because it so happened that he was born on a farm and that he therefore knew the mentality of the farmers, he made a great mistake. One asks oneself this question. If the Minister sees that he is driving the sheep out of the Western Province, why does he want to do it in the platteland? He is not satisfied that the people on the platteland should have mutton, and now he is starting to take a certain percentage of the sheep away from the platteland. Let me say this to him. The Minister does not know the psychology of the farmer and I want to tell him this afternoon in all humility that he is going to kill the auction sales on the platteland ….

He has already killed them.

…. because the farmers are no longer going to send their cattle to the auction sales. The other day at Colesberg the farmers went so far as to take 2,000 sheep and drive them back for a distance of 40 or 50 miles in some cases. And they were not only Nationalists. Let me say this : the hon. Minister of Lands knows the farmers of Colesberg who are supporters of the Government well. I want to say to their credit this afternoon that if there are honest and upright supporters of the United Party it is the farmers of Colesberg. They have given thousands and thousands of pounds for war funds. They are people who believe in their cause, but when they saw that the Controller was interfering with their property they became dissatisfied. They do not even know where the meat is going to be sent. If they had known that the meat was going to be sent to the poor people in Cape Town or some other place, they would not have minded. But when they know that that meat has to go to other countries in order to fulfil contracts with allied countries, then they are no longer loyal; then it goes against the grain. They prefer to drive back their sheep for distances of 40 or 50 miles. Immediately after the auction, they asked almost unanimously, with the exception of two votes, that the Food Controller should discontinue comman deering sheep immediately after they have sold it. What is the reason given by the Minister? The hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) asked the hon. Minister last Friday what the reason was for his action and what his policy was, and the Minister then asked for the question to be postponed.

For the policy to be postponed.

In heaven’s name, can the Minister do such a thoughtless thing and then still not know why he did it? Is the Minister surprised in these circumstances when we tell him that he is unqualified to occupy that position? What is the reason which he gave to the auctioneers who came to see him last week? The reason which he gave was this, that the Meat Commission is supposed to have said that the local auction sales should only be held in order to provide the local butchers with meat, and that they were selling a number of animals, trek-oxen and stores. It is true that the Meat Commission made such a recommendation but it seems to me the Minister wants to put a stop to the country auctions entirely. I want to say this afternoon that I remain a supporter of the meat scheme. I support this scheme in principle, but then the Minister must not come here and distort the facts and shield behind that as a pretext for commandeering the meat. The hon. Minister’s policy is this. He tells us that he is in favour of control. His Prime Minister says that he is in favour of private initiative and, as he said at Bloemfontein, control is something of a temporary nature, which will last only while the war is on. It seems to me he is determined to make control as unattractive and as repugant as possible in the eyes of the farmers as well as of the consumers so that he can ultimately discard the scheme and say that the consumer does not want control and that the farmer wants it even less. What does the Commission say of the local auction sales?—

Let me say to the Minister of Agriculture this afternoon that when I look at his methods, it seems to me that he is condemning this scheme to a total failure. For that reason I want to ask him on behalf of my constituents what his policy is going to be in the future in connection with the commandeering of sheep. If the farmers do not send stock to the auction sales as the most loyal supporters of the Government at Colesberg did in sending away their sheep, rather than sell them by auction, how is he going to get hold of sheep? Will he go so far as to send his representatives to the farms to commandeer sheep and cattle on the spot? I want to make this prediction. There is the Minister of Lands who knows the psychology of the farmers and I want to say this afternoon that he knows the psychology of the farmers to this extent that he Will agree with me on this point that if the Minister of Agriculture sends his controllers to the farms to commandeer sheep, there will be bloodshed. I also want to say this this afternoon. The Minister comes along and takes second and third grade sheep for which the farmers get low prices, and at the same time the consumers in the cities are without meat. The result is that those people, when they are able to obtain a piece of meat, do not care what grade the meat is. If the Minister thinks that is not the case, I would refer him to a statement by his own people in that connection last week. The Minister told us that the consumers were still paying the same prices, but let us see what his own people who raided the butcher shops have to say in that connection—

The farmer has to hand over his stock to the Minister of Agriculture at the low prices which obtain for second and third grade. For the third grade he gets 6¾d. or 7¾d., as the Minister assesses the price, but the housewife in Cape Town does not care whether she gets first, second or third grade meat as long as she obtains a piece of meat for her children, and then the butchers do what is described in this quotation. They only indicate whether it is pork, beef or mutton, and not the grade of the meat nor the price If that is so, how can the Minister tell us that the consumers are still paying the same price? They cannot get meat at all, and if they do get a piece of meat, they pay any price. He says too that the farmers are getting the same price. Let me just say this, that a farmer in my constituency could get £1 18s. for his sheep just before the Minister’s scheme came into operation. He sold them under the Minister’s scheme and he obtained £1 5s. for them. Fourteen days later, when his sheep had lost weight, he sold them on the farm at £1 13s. 6d. per sheep. That farmer could not believe that his sheep weighed so little. He went to Johannesburg and there he met one of the graders who knew him well. The grader told him that he was glad to see that his sheep weighed 45 lbs. But the agent had given the weight to the farmer as 37 lbs. This is not a position for which the Minister can be held responsible, but in that case he must not talk rubbish by saying that the farmer is getting the same price as he got previously. I notice that this scheme is on its last legs. What is the Minister going to do to alleviate the position? I want to tell the Minister that there are numbers of sheep of medium grade in the Eastern Province, but there are no prime sheep. There is only one course which the Minister can adopt to prevent starvation in the cities. He should allow his buyer to operate on the auction sales and not to do what he is doing now. He might say that in that case the principle of his scheme will be destroyed, namely the principle of sale according to grade and weight. He can apply it as a temporary measure instead of letting the people starve. Then I also want to give him this advice, that he should reduce the gap between his grades. He should increase the price for second grade and third grade because after this drought there are no prime sheep. He should pay decent prices for the third grade and the second grade. The third point is that the Minister should introduce a seasonal change. In the grass areas the farmers have to feed their sheep during the winter in order to fatten them. The Meat Board made the same recommendation. Then I also want to ask the Minister not to be so stubborn. In the evenings when I think things over, I wonder who advises the Minister of Agriculture. When we talk to his officials, we hear that they do not agree with him. Who is this secret—I am tempted to say mad person—who persuades him to do all these insane things? I want to ask him to listen for once to practical people, to listen to his Department. They are not ignorant people, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) would have us believe. What that hon. member said here is sheer nonsense. I want to conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will allow his buyer to take an active part at auctions, to move the grades up, and to do those things which I have recommended. That is the only way, or else this scheme will be doomed. Now I would like to come to the Minister of Lands. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning, namely that I do not believe that the settlers will go to bed tonight in an easy frame of mind. I have a list here of settlers who have been temporary lessees for a period of 20 to 44 years. Now the halter is simply being taken off and they must go. I listened carefully and seriously to the lengthy speech of the Minister of Lands. I was reminded of the words which I read in the “Sunday Times” three years ago—

It is the most stupid speech that I have ever heard from a Minister. He simply put up skittles to knock them down himself. In the first instance he accused the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) of having said that before the Election the Minister stated: “We are not going to make land available; we must wait for the soldiers to return, and then everyone will be placed on an equal footing”. The Minister of Lands said that that was the greatest untruth and he started to give an explanation. But his explanation amounted to exactly what the hon. member for Gordonia had alleged. He then went on to say that the hon. member for Gordonia had stated that the returned soldiers would get preference. The Minister said that that was an untruth and a distortion of his words. Again he gives an explanation and what does it amount to? He said that everyone would have an opportunity of applying on the same footing as the soldiers; but although all applicants have the same claims and all things are equal the soldier will get preference. That is my reason for saying that the Minister ought to get the first prize for the most stupid speech. And Mr. Speaker, you must remember that when those words which I have quoted, appeared in the “Sunday Times” three years ago, they had not heard of this speech of the Minister of Lands. We now come to another socalled distortion. I was not in the House when the hon. member for Gordonia spoke, but I heard the Minister saying that the hon. member for Gordonia had stated that the Minister of Lands had told the people who were temporary lessees that they could stay on till after the war. The Minister got up and said that that was a gross untruth. Now I would like to read a letter which was written on the 25th March, 1943, by the Minister’s department to a temporary lessee—

And here the Minister of Lands says that what the hon. member for Gordonia said, is an untruth. Here it is stated in a written document from his department.

Give us the name.

The Minister of Lands will get the name. There are many other names here as well, and they will be submitted to him by a deputation, if he is not too busy again to meet the deputation.

But give us the name now.

I might almost say the Minister should not be so “excited”. He will get the name in good time, together with 24 others as well.

But give me the name of the person to whom that letter was addressed.

The Minister will get these names in proper time. He will get it from the hon. member who will lead the deputation to him. A further letter is dated the 29th November, 1944, and in that letter the people are notified that they have to leave the holdings on the 31st May of this year. The reason which the Minister mentioned in support of that action, really astonished me. I also have temporary lessees in my constituency. They wrote letters to me, and on Saturday they asked me what the Minister’s reply was. This afternoon I know what the Minister’s reply is. I want to ask him this. This afternoon he cast a reflection on temporary lessees, on people who have been temporary lessees for as long as 44 years, and I want to ask him to withdraw that reflection. The reflection is that they neglected the land and allowed it to be overstocked. Why does the Minister cast such a senseless reflection on the people? His inspectors of lands continually examine the holdings, and if the people neglect the holdings, why do they not report it? But the Minister is now running away from the original reason which was given. To begin with it was the soldiers; now he abandons that excuse and casts a reflection on people who have farmed on that land for 44 years, and who have farmed well. I know the Gordonia constituency because I had the honour of going there last year. Let me tell the Minister that those people who were making a living there notwithstanding most difficult climatic conditions aroused my admiration. But I also want to tell him this, that if he places soldiers there who are not accustomed to those climatic conditions, he is going to render them a great disservice. They will not be equal to the task. One must realise that it is not every individual who can live in a country where one has to bath before 9 o’clock in the morning, otherwise the water in the tank is so warm that it burns one, and where it is just as warm after 7 o’clock in the evening. You will do the soldiers no favour by puttting them there. A soldier told me : “I hope I will not find on my return that I am to be given the farm of my neighbour who is a temporary lessee and a Nationalist. That man at least had principles; he did not believe in the war and he believed that we should remain neutral; and next to me there is a Government supporter who is as young as I am and who did not go and fight, and now I have to take my neighbour’s farm and the United Party member is allowed to remain where he is.” But I want to say to the Minister that the public outside want to know what he is going to do with the people who are driven from their land. That question was also put to the Minister in the House and his reply was: “I am Minister of Lands; I do not lease land. That is the advice which he is giving those people. Then he goes on to say that they are able to buy land under Section 11. This is the same Minister who invited people from oversea to come to this country and to buy land under Section 11. Does he propose to give them preference as well? That is what he should tell us. May I also be permitted to say to the Minister of Lands that there is another aspect of this action on his part in saying to people who have been on leased land for 20, 30 and 40 years, that they must now leave. He is not looking after the produtcion in the country. Then I also want to say that the Minister is not taking pity on the wives and children of those people. As a practical farmer the Minister knows what it means to a farmer if he is compelled to sell his goods in times of drought. He also knows what it means to a farmer in times of drought to take his stock from one farm to another. He knows it, because unlike the Minister of Agriculture, he is not without knowledge of practical farming. He knows all this. The animals may still pull through on a farm to which they are accustomed, but if one takes them to another farm during a drought, they suffer and many of them die. [Time limit].

I should like to bring a few points to the notice of the House. In November of last year, application was made by a certain company the Tonetti Canning and Preserving Company (Pty.) Ltd. for a permit to establish a factory at Kaapmuiden. That is in the district where we have the largest vegetable farms. Those vegetable gardens provide work for many people, and a canning factory of this sort would be of enormous value for the farmers in the neighbourhood. Unfortunately, the Minister concerned in this matter is not present. As I have stated, application was made last year in November, and I have here a copy of a letter that was sent to me on the 9th February, in which the person that made application for the permit writes me as follows—

We must remember that the “just received” indicates the period between November 1944 and February 1945—

The last passage is the most interesting of all—

I should like to know whether the time has not arrived when the machinery in connection with these matters can be speeded up a little, and that these matters should receive attention more promptly than they have in the past. We are living on the platteland, but we see how in the cities big blocks of flats are being erected; we have seen that well-to-do farmers who keep their farms as holiday resorts have building going on on these farms. It appears to me that there is only one class of people who are still being assisted with permits. That is as far as concerns the Controller of Building Material. Now I should like to exchange a few thoughts with the Minister of Lands. It was very interesting to listen to his statement in the House. Legally the Minister of Lands is absolutely correct. He is also perfectly correct when he says that considerable damage has been done on these leased farms, but where the Minister is wrong is that although there has been a law against theft in our country for the last couple of centuries, we are not all thieves, and although certain lessees abuse their position and destroy Government property, that does not apply to all of them. I would ask the Minister of Lands to give serious consideration to the position. This request that I am making is not designed to strengthen the venomous attacks that have been made by the Opposition. I am making this request because as a practical man and a farmer, I know what the effect is going to be. Some of these lands were held by the Department of Lands for years and years. People made repeated requests to be placed there as settlers long before the war broke out. The answer was the usual typed letter, that the land was not then available for allotment; and then I come to what the Minister stated in connection with the improvements To sit there for years and years on a leased holding with a family, and to live in a shack or in a hart beesthuisie is also not profitable. If a vegetable garden or an orchard is not laid out it looks as if the people have no initiative, and we must take off our hats to these people, because although they were only temporary lessees they developed the farms so that they would leave something of value to those who followed them. According to the Minister of Lands the land will be allotted after the war. In my opinion a considerable time will elapse before those plans that are being made can be carried into effect, and in the meanwhile hundreds of families will have to move. They will have to look for ground amongst other people, and they will be exposed to exploitation by land-owners who will demand heavy rent, knowing that these people are in a bad way. It is obvious that many of these people will lose heart and in despair they will give their cattle away and go roaming round the country. They will come to the Government to ask for work. Then I want to bring another aspect of the matter to the attention of the Minister of Lands. The impression that I gained from his speech is that he wanted to advise us that a stop was being put to the leasing of land. Has notice also been given to the natives who live on the same sort of farms, on farms that have been leased by these natives; have they also been notified that their leases are being terminated? If this has not happened, is it fair that a difference should be made between the two classes of leaseholders? There are in my district big blocks of land that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Lands, and on which natives have now been living for many years. I arrived there in 1911, and during all those years no European has lived on those lands. They have always been leased to the natives. I can tell the Minister that those natives are ruining the land. They chop down the trees, they plough and sow, the land is washed away, and nothing is done about it. We cannot draw a distinction. We cannot make fish of one and flesh of the other. I therefore ask; in all seriousness that this matter should be reconsidered. I also wish to bring to the notice of the Minister the state of affairs that prevails in his Department, and I want to read two letters that emanate from the office of the Minister of Lands. Both letters refer to the same plot of land, but each reveals a different policy. They do not harmonise with each other, and I should like to read them out. The first is a letter dated 31st October, 1944—both letters were posted on the same day and relate to the same piece of land—

That is perfectly in order according to the statement of the Minister of Lands. But I have before me another letter relating to the same piece of land, which is written on the same day by another official—

I repeat that both these letters refer to the same farm, and they reflect entirely different lines of policy. What is happening in the department? It only shows us that everything cannot be in order. There must be something wrong with the machinery in the department. Now I want to say a few words about the unfortunate position that has arisen for the second time in the Barberton and Pilgrims Rest districts, and which has now been extended to Letaba, and that is the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. You will recall that in the years 1937 to 1939 we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Barberton and Pilgrims Rest districts. On that occasion we blamed our bad neighbours, the Portugese, for the introduction of the disease. Two different policies were followed in connection with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. It is very unfortunate that the Minister of Agriculture, who has to deal with this matter, is not present.

He is never here.

Of course, he has other work. The Union at that time adopted the policy of shooting the animals and burying them. About 18,000 animals were then shot. The Portugese Government in Mozambique, where the disease spread right up to Mohamba, did not pursue this policy of shooting the stock. They let the disease die out. It was just in those very dry parts that the disease prevailed. For the information of the House I want to say that the loss under the disease is under. 1 per cent. If your veld is in good condition the loss is less than 1 per cent. Last year in November we unfortunately had a recurrence of the position, and foot and mouth disease again broke out; it broke out all along the Crocodile River, from Hektorspruit to Kaapmuiden, and the most peculiar thing about the outbreak was that the disease did not rage on farms where intensive vegetable gardening is being carried on down to the river, but it did appear on adjoining farms where the grazing ran down to the river. On one farm, a very large farm of nearly 5,000 morgen, “Riverside”, where the stock was divided into two different groups, those oxen that worked on the cultivated lands have not had foot and mouth disease right up to date, but the stock on the dry lands that were running separately on the pasture down to the river contracted foot and mouth disease. We as practical farmers, arrived at the one conclusion, namely, that the disease emanated from the wild animals, because as I have already said, the outbreaks occurred along the river. It was dry, and a large number of game came through from the Kruger National Park to the farms and conveyed the disease in that way. The Pilgrims Rest district, which to a certain extent is on the border of the National Park, on its western side, had the disease, because the Kruger Park was dry. I believe the last rainfall there was last year in February, and that part of the National Park had the appearance of a desert. The game streamed out bringing the disease with them. Now the question arises, how is it that the part that adjoins Pretoriuskop on the western side of the National Park did not have the disease. The answer to that is that that part of the park at Pretoriuskop, along the Segaas River had sufficient old grass, and the game remained on the other side. Alongside that there is a native reserve, where there was nothing to be had to eat, and that is why the game did not trek in there. Now I come to my question, why the department, in those seven years, never made any plan to go and see what happened in the Portugese territory, where they did not follow the policy of shooting the stock. We who carried out the shooting policy have again got the disease, but those who did not follow it had not got the disease right up till December. At a gathering in November of last year, after the discovery of the disease, one of the veterinary surgeons discussed the matter with a few others and the farmers of Hectorspruit. There Dr. Alexander told us that animals that once contracted the disease lost 20 per cent. of their milk production; young animals that contracted it do not multiply so readily, and oxen who get it do not again fatten up. That may be so in theory, that may be the case in Germany or Holland or England, but what did they find in Portugese territory? We sent a couple of practical farmers as a delegation to Portugese territory to look round, and we obtained information from the Director of the Department of Veterinary Research in Portugese territory, through our Consul, that until December last they had not a recurrence of the disease. We went to Mohamba, to the owner of the animals that had foot and mouth disease in 1937, and he entirely repudiated the statements made by Dr. Alexander. He said we could go and look at his stock, that he had a big dairy, that he delivered milk to Lourenco Marques, and that during the period the cattle had a temperature the quantity of milk was reduced, and he did not milk, but that later the animals got better and the milk output was restored to normal. His animals are again in normal health, and he says that amongst his stock that are nice and fat, there are some which at that time were young but which today are well developed fat stock. Now I think that we are entitled to ask what policy the Government is going to follow. Already it is the middle of February. The farms in the southern area are clean. Under our climatic conditions it is only a matter of three or four days, and then the disease is gone. What is the Government going to do now? The answer that I received from the department is that up by the Olifants River a wire fence will be erected. With all respect I would just say this, that it will be just of as little use as was the wire fence up in the Limpopo, and which is today lying on the ground. It is a waste of the taxpayer’s money. Keep the stock under supervision, place a cordon round for a month or two or three, then there will not be a scrap of danger. A meeting of farmers at Hectorspruit sent a telegram to the Minister of Agriculture at the end of November, urging that an investigation must be instituted in order to ascertain what the position was in the Kruger National Park. I want to tell the House what happened since that time. In December a deputation went to Pretoria. Unfortunately the Minister was ill, and the deputation met two of the officials. Then we were told, in December, that the intention was to send one or two trucks with stock to the Kruger Park to determine whether they would pick up the disease there. The first stumbling block was that Mr. Stevenson Hamilton refused to admit the veterinary surgeons into the park. Consent had to be obtained from the board of the National Park, and two weeks were occupied in this. When I boarded the train on the 20th January, no stock had up to that date been sent into the park. I would like to tell the House what our objection is to this procedure. The disease was discovered on the 22nd November. On that date it was located by the veterinary officer on the farms Symington, Riverside and Rockvale and higher up as well, and the disease had then been prevalent in those parts for a period of six weeks. That signifies that the source of the disease had already been infected in October, and if we are right that the disease came from the National Park the game must have had the disease in October of last year, while it is only now, at the end of January, that experts have been sent there. I want to say this to the Minister, that he can tell his officials, with all respect to them, that they will not find the disease there now because in this warm climate the hooves dry up and the animals get well. Further, we object to the method in which the regulations have been applied. If, for instance, a bag of mealies or mealie meal is obtained from Pretoria or Johannesburg, and it is off-loaded at the station, a permit has to be obtained from the veterinary officer to cart the stuff to your farm. This is the measure that has been adopted as a safeguard against the bag of mealies conveying the disease. We get a number of pin-pricks of this sort, which rather go against the grain, because we as farmers realise that the officials are ignorant of what is going on. There are people amongst us with the same academic learning, and with more experience than any of these veterinary officers, cultured men who have been to colleges and who have gone farming, men with a practical knowledge of things. One thing we take strong exception to is that the veterinary officers have gone out of their way to ask the farmers whose cattle were infected, not to doctor the feet of these cattle, but Jim Fish who walks along the road between the wire fences, where no stock is seen, when he comes to the cordon his feet have to be disinfected in the bath. The time has arrived when it should be realised that we are not children but grown up men. If the disease has to be combated, let us take measures against it, but let us not do stupid things. Some of the people there were prepared to make a footbath for the stock to be driven through. The answer from the veterinary officer was: Do not doctor the stock, because that will contribute to the spread of the disease. Can you imagine anything so crazy as the suggestion that if the stock were driven through a footbath containing disinfectants, that we old people used in 1892 when the whole of the Transvaal and Natal was infected, is something quite wrong. What is the idea? I ask, and my neighbours ask, and we are entitled to ask, what is the policy of the Government, what is it going to be in the future? This is not a trival matter. No fewer than 40,000 to 50,000 cattle are involved. What does the Department propose to do? As farmers we want to know. The district has been beaconed off, and there is an infected area, a prohibited area and a semiprohibited area. The infected area has been defined since last November. The cattle are all examined, usually twice a week, and their mouths are examined. In this way the infected area has been demarcated all this time. In the prohibited area the stock are being confined all this time, and the people are sitting there with herds of healthy cattle. Amongst these people are some who have children at school and who have to meet financial obligations. What is it proposed to do? Unfortunately the infection has spread all along the railway line. We have asked what it is proposed to be done, but we can get no answer. No one can tell us. In the case of some people they are dependent on, this. They have no other income for subsistence. How long are you going to continue to confine these sound cattle? I ask the Minister if he cannot consider whether a plan can be evolved with the co-operation of farmers’ associations and the Veterinary Department, so that we may, for example, obtain trucks from the railways to convey the stock out of the prohobited area. Blood smears can be taken to find out whether the germs are still there, and the stock can then be allowed to go to market. We cannot continue in the way we are doing at present. But the Veterinary Department has only one object, and that is to wipe out the farmers, and that is the line they have followed since 1937. How do they set to work? Eight miles from Komatipoort we have one of the biggest stock farms, Coopersdaal. These people are not in the infected area. There is no sign of foot and mouth disease in their neighbourhood. During the drought in September last year, they obtained a permit to trek to the Lebamba Flats with their cattle for grazing. Curiously enough, they leased ground for the purpose from the Department of Lands. Now the Department says that they must return. These people are anxious to return. Why? Their farm in extent from eight to ten thousand morgen, had been gradually cleansed of bushlice by dipping, and owing to the trek through the Lebombo Flats they suffered losses from heart water, and when the first rains fell they asked for a permit to return; and that was just at the time of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. Any reasonable man would understand that a reasonable time would have to elapse before the infected area could be demarcated, but it has been fixed for a long time now, and these people cannot yet leave to return to their own farms. What is the result? They have already slaughtered between 350 and 370 animals on account of heart water. One cannot allow such a state of affairs to continue. There is no one to whom one can appeal. There is no appeal board. If Mr. Veterinary Officer say that you cannot move, then that is the law of the Medes and the Persians, and you can do nothing about it. The result is that these people are suffering heavy loss. I want to relate to the Minister an experience that we had some years ago. It was in connection with East Coast fever in Sabie. On that occasion equally drastic action was taken, perhaps it was even more drastic, and then the Minister agreed to recognise a small commission of farmers, and they foregathered once a week, together with the responsible veterinary officer. All the applications for permits came before that committee, which had the right to ask the reasons for the application, and why this movement or that movement could not be permitted. That gives far more satisfaction than merely a peremptory “no”, when you are concerned as to how you will pay your debts and make ends meet. I should like to have an answer as soon as possible as to what the Government is going to do in respect of these areas. For my part they can hold over the investigation in the National Park. After the period that has elapsed from October to the end of January no infection will be found there. I am almost prepared to stake my life on it that no infection will be discovered in the park. The practical step that ought to have been taken was to have placed some clean, healthy stock on the railway for conveyance to Komatipoort, and then to send them via Krokodilbrug Siding to the park, so that they might trek along the Krokodil River, with a couple of natives ahead to erect kraals as a precaution against lions. A practical man would have done this, but the theorists go right away up to Skukusa, where there is no infection that they know of, and the test animals have been placed there. They have not had the courtesy to reply to us, and to pass on what they discovered. We have heard about impala being shot, and that they were not infected; they were healthy, and only the hooves and the toes had small signs. We should like to know what the Department is going to do. The people are camped there in the prohibited area, and the semi-prohibited area; they have been confined there and they cannot remain confined there. A plan must be made so that the farmers can market their stock, and investigation has indicated that the farms are quite clean.

Mr. Speaker, the permissible scope of this debate is wide but it is essentially a financial one, and therefore it is perhaps not inappropriate to take the opportunity it affords of raising the question of the extent to which the Government is prepared to utilise the financial machinery, the financial controls, which lie in the hands of any government in modern times, for the purpose of economic reconstruction and long-range planning. It is all the more appropriate in view of the Government’s preoccupation—in my opinion very praiseworthy—with the subject of post-war reconstruction. The Government, in its declarations of policy, if I understand them aright, has made promises not only to serviecmen but to the country as a whole, that the disorganisation caused by the war shall be uitlised for the purpose of building up for the future a more secure, a more progressive and a more prosperous community. I myself do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of the Government’s declarations in that regard. I do not think the country as a whole does. Where, however, I have doubts, is as to whether the means of attaining those objectives are sufficiently recognised, and it is on that aspect of the matter I want to say something in this debate. It has become a platitude that no progress, not even the maintenance of the existing standards of the European population, is possible without an increase in the national income. That view has been expressed by the Planning Council, and as far as I know, as a principle, it has been accepted by the Government. Means to increase the national income has also been impressed on the Government by its economic advisers and these involve full employment in the sense of the full utilisation of the country’s human and material recources. That principle also we have reason to believe has been accepted by the Government; in fact they have said so in a recent white paper they have issued. This white paper deals with the Government’s proposals in regard to social security, and although I know you will not allow me, Sir, to discuss these proposals in detail in this debate, I simply want to refer to this white paper for the purpose of indicating what the Government’s view is in this regard. “The Government therefore aim,” it says, “at the creation of general economic conditions which will provide for a high and stable level of productive employment for all classes of the community and will both as a national policy and in common with other nations, persevere with measures calculated to ensure the attaining of this object.” Full employment and measures to obtain this object are therefore declared to be the policy of this Government. What are the measures they refer to? They have, as I have already indicated, been impressed upon the Government by its own advisers, by the Planning Council, and have already been established in the experience of countries older in industrialisation than ourselves. In the first place, full employment involves a total financial outlay that will be sufficient fully to employ the resources of the community. Inherent in that is involved the stimulation of investment for the purpose of improving and extending the capital equipment of the country. In this connection I want to make it quite clear what I mean when I refer to investment; by what I mean the diversion of human and material resources to the production of more capital goods; not simply the expenditure of money on the transfer of existing capital goods, but on the creation of new capital goods. Also involved in the policy of securing an adequate outlay, is provision for an adequate volume of purchasing power to absorb the total product of the community. Therefore there is an investment side and a consumer’s side, and as important, if not more important, than the financial measures are measures for the efficient utilisation of the labour of the country. Involved in this is proper distribution of the labour supply of the country, a proper location of industry which conforms with existing sources of labour, where they are not mobile; and also an increase in the qualitative productivity of our labour by development and training. All these things are sufficiently well recognised by everybody, but I want to examine what they involve for this country in the field of practical policy, and also as to what the Government has proposed in this regard. In the field of investment is involved advance planning on a fairly long-term basis for the appropriation of a proportion of our resources to the creation of capital goods, to the extention of the capital equipment of the country. That, in turn, involves the co-ordination of all public loan rprogrammes; both of Government and of local authorities, and of all public utility concerns over which the Government has control. It involves also an estimate, on the basis of returns required from private concerns, of the total volume of private investment. And where the total volume of investment, both public and private, falls short of the volume required for the purpose of employment of the available labour resources, measures should be taken to supplement it both by the extension of the field of public investment, and, through the medium of financial inducements and otherwise, by stimulating private investment. That again involves establishment of planning machinery which at present does not seem to exist. With regard to the stimulation of consumption, there would be involved a redistribution of incomes through the making of greater financial provision, through pensions and services of that nature, for the lower income groups, and the setting up of machinery to ensure that wages, more particularly the wages of our unskilled labourers, shall rise in relation to productivity. That has not been the case in the past. That that is so is evidenced by the unheathily large gap between the earnings of the skilled and the unskilled workers in this country. The fact that unskilled wages have not risen with increasing productivity is clearly evidenced in the evidencé led before the Lansdown Commission on native mine wages by the Chamber of Mines itself. In a memorandum placed before that Commission, the representative of the Gold Producers’ Committee stressed the enormous increase of productivity, due to improved methods adopted over the last quarter of a century, and yet the real wages of the unskilled native workers on the mines, on the showing of the Gold Producers’ Committee itself, have stagnated at very low levels An essential part of any policy which aims at reducing that gap is, in my opinion, to recognise the collective bargaining rights of the bulk of the unskilled workers of the country. The Van Eck Commission itself points out that as long as only a minority of the workers of the country have recognised collective bargaining rights, this wide gap in wage levels will be the effect. That was the considered view of the Commission. Another aspect of increasing the consuming capacity of the country is the pursuance of a cheap food policy. What country has ever industrialised itself except on the basis of a cheap food policy? That does not involve penalising the producers. The primary producer should get a price which it is found he requires after proper investigation. The consumer should be guaranteed essential foods, at all events, at prices within his capacity to pay, and any gap between the producers’ prices and the consumers’ prices should be filled by subsidisation at the expense of the higher income groups. That is the way to assist the primary producer, to stabilise the position of the primary producer, but not to do so at the expense of the consumer, as was the deliberate agricultural policy in the years before the war. In the field of the distribution of labour, a policy of full employment means, chiefly, decasualisation of the present labour force of the country. What is the position at present of the majority of the unskilled labouring population? The majority of them have their homes far away from where they work. They proceed, for periods of from one to two years in the case of the mines, for a shorter time than two years to work in these industries and then they return to the countryside in which they have allotments which are too small in size and to illequipped to absorb their full labour powers, and on returning to the centres of industrial employment they very often get work of an entirely different character from that which they had done before. I cannot see how, on the basis of casual labour, a systematic basis of casual labour, there can be any appreciable rise in the efficiency of the bulk of our working population. Organisation, therefore, of the labour market—to put it in economic terms—is essential; the setting up of a nationwide system of labour bureau or employment exchanges, through the medium of which labour can be transferred from one portion of the country to another—through the furnishing of information to men seeking work. In this connection the Planning Council has repeated what was stressed before by the Van Eck Commission, not only that the standard of skill should be raised but that there should be an adjustment of the balance of the population between town and country. Too large a proportion of the population, mostly natives, have their homes in the rural areas and are—partly, a all events—dependent on an overburdened agricultural industry. Some of them should be assisted to remove to the towns. The policy, therefore, of the organisation of the labour market is that it is something which should be planned on a long-term basis. There is no short cut to what is required. If there is still a surplus of manpower in the country, over and above the requirements of industry and the agricultural potentialities of the countryside, there must be a policy of deliberate location of industry near the sources of the labour supply. In the field of training, the Government are already in principle committed to a more extensive general education policy, but there should also be more facilities for vocational training, particularly of the non-European population, and the onpening up to them of opportunities of doing skilled work, work of a higher quality than the mere unskilled casual work which most of them do at present. That does not necessarily involve a policy of mixing up black and white in industry. It is possible to have it without that. But if so it is necessary to recognise that a policy of occupational separation results in higher costs which should be borne by the community as a whole and not cast upon the majority of the working population in the form of low wages and denial of opportunities A policy aiming at planned expansion of the country’s capital equipment, at planned improvement of consuming capacity and of planned distribution of labour is one which will meet with formidable opposition in certain quarters and this is something which should be recognised form the outset. Judging from past experience there will be no stronger opponent of such a policy than the mining industry. The mining industry showed its hand fully in this connection by its evidence before the Lansdown Commission, and what that evidence amounted to was this, that the continuance of a policy of employing casual labour at a wage below that upon which the workman can support himself and his family was vital to the interests of the gold mining industry. It is only by these means, it was contended, that the industry can continue its present lowgrade ore policy. It was argued further that such a policy was in the interests of the country as a whole, and it was pointed out that it was due to the enormous expansion of the gold mining industry in the ’30’s, after this country left the gold standard, that there was considerable development of other industries, industries subsidiary to the gold mining industry, and that the increase in the national income which undoubtedly took place during the ’30’s was due, therefore, to the expansion of the gold mining industry. That was the argument used before the Lansdown Commission and in fact I see that the Report accepted it. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are reasons why it is impossible to continue indiefintely with a policy of that kind. It has been pointed out that if the largest employer of African labour is to continue to base its labour policy on the employment of casual labour, that will determine the labour pattern of industry as a whole in this country. But there are reasons why this policy cannot be proceeded with indefinitely. Apart from the warnings which have been given by the Van Eek Commission and other Government advisers as to the limitation of the life of the mines—there must be a limit some time or other—however great the discoveries in the Free State may be. There is that fact, but In addition to that, there is the natural limit to this wasteful use of illiterate casual labour, and that is the limit set by the availibility of the supplies of such labour itself. Already the gold mines are obtaining, I think, more than half their labour from outside the Union. Already the supply of their labour, at the time the Lansdown Commission reported, was such that they were experiencing a shortage of labour to the extent of 20,000 or 30,000, and any development of or expansion in the industry will aggravate that shortage. If, therefore, the gold mines are to continue as an important factor in the economy of the Union, it will be necessary to recognise that it is only through economies in the use of labour, involving stabilisation and training, that the gold mines will be able in future to obtain the labour supplies they require. The Chamber of Mines have advanced the argument, which I think is a fair one, that if you stabilise labour, they must be permitted to employ that labour on work of a more skilled character than they are able to do at present in terms of the regulations under the Colour Bar Act. That is a matter on which I should like to hear what the Government’s policy is, as to whether or not they are prepared to meet the mining industry on this point and to permit them to employ native labour on more skilled work than they are doing at present. Mr. Speaker, I now want to examine what the Government’s policy is on these various matters, matters of planning investment and of increased consuming capacity, and on the policy of proper utilisation and distribution of labour. It may be that the Government has made plans, co-ordinating its future loan programmes, with the loan programmes of local authorities, public utilities and private industry. It may be that it has such plans, but if so, I do not know what they are. I have studied this White Paper, The Outlines of Post-War Reconstruction, and there is very little evidence in this document that the Government is thinking along these lines. On the final pages, page 13 of this Paper, under the heading “Industrial Development” we have the following passage—

Nothing, as a statement of policy, could be more admirable than that and one therefore anxiously reads on to find out exactly how the Government proposes to implement that principle which is stated. The report continues—

It is precisely that passage which gives food for thought, “to forecast intelligently what lies in the future”; not to plan what lies in the future! Between these two conceptions lies a world of difference. What that sentence comes to is a public works policy, and for the rest an attempt to forecast what is going to happen in the field of private investment and to expand or contract the Public Works policy in conformity therewith. That, I submit, is not enough, and if the Government is going to accept responsibility, as it rather implies that it will, in the former sentence which I read, of maintaining a high level of employment, it will have to do some thing more in addition. It will have to introduce measures by means of which it can assume control of the total volume of investment, both public and private. In the field of consumption we have the hopeful sign that the Government has in two months spent the sum of £70,000 in subsidisation of food for the lower income groups, and it recently extended old age and invalidity pensions to other sections of the community, the nonEuropean sections, which have previously been excluded. These, apart from being valuable measures in themselves, are valuable in the economic sense in that they help to stimulate consuming capacity. But, Mr. Speaker, they are going a very short distance along the road. In the White Paper to which referred at the outset, setting out the Government social security proposals, it is said that an additional sum of £6,000,000 is proposed to be spent on services of this kind, but that will be only a small addition to the total purchasing power of the lower income groups. In the field of food subsidies there also appears to be no coordination between that policy of food subsidisation and agricultural policy. In this connection I want to say that I hope the Government will not pay too much attention to speeches like that made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) this morning. The whole tenor of the speech of that hon. member appeared to be a plea for a reversion to the pre-war policy. What he was advocating was not a general extension of the consumers’ ability to pay or that the general level of the consumers’ demand should be raised, but a high level of prices for the primary producer and subsidies for the consumer only in respect of certain protective foods for the low income groups. I am not objecting to a policy of food subsidisation of certain commodities, protective foods, for the lower income groups, but what I am suggesting is that it is not enough. It will not really assist agricultural production. The Government White Paper on the Outlines of Post-War Reconstruction draws a clear distinction between these two things, between a general policy of increasing the consuming capacity as regards agricultural products, and securing a general level of agricultural prices within the capacity of the consumer to pay, and a policy of subsdising certain low income groups as a social welfare measure. The White Paper recognises that both policies have their place but there is a distiction between the two and the speech of the hon. member for Drakensberg advocated food subsidisation merely as a social welfare measure and not for the general purpose of keeping down the cost of living. Apparently the committee which the Government appointed to go into the matter of food subsidisation recommended three courses not mutually exclusive: (i) General subsidies for certain staple foods such as bread and maize, aimed at reducing the price to the consumer; (ii) special subsidies aimed at reducing the price for the lower income groups only of certain staple and protective foods, and (iii) distributive services, operated by the Govern ment, to ensure that essential foods reach the homes of the lower income groups. The Government has stated and accepted the policy of subsidisation for the low income groups and I hope that that will continue, but I hope that it will also accept, as a matter of policy, the necessity to increase the internal consuming capacity of the country, the first of these suggestions of its own committee. In the field of assistance to the low wage earners to increase their earning capacity, and in the form of increased bargaining capacity, the Government has still refused to recognise the trades unions’ rights and the collective bargaining rights of the native workers. An this despite the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission, based on purely economic grounds, the recommendations of the Smit Committee on natives in urban areas, and the recommendations, I understand, of the committee appointed to go into the industrial troubles at Marabastad, in Pretoria: all these investigators have recommended this step. The machinery of the Wage Board has been used for the purpose of laying down minimum wages for unskilled workers but it has to a large extent lagged behind the necessities of the case. The recent report of the Bus Commission in Johannesburg has shown clearly that in this, the largest industrial centre of the country, despite certain increases in wages through wage determinations, and despite the cost-of-living allowances, the real wages of the unskilled industrial workers in terms of a rocketing cost-of-living and increased prices of the necessities of life, have fallen. In the field of the distribution of labour, of encouraging the decasualisation and stabilisation of the unskilled labour force, if anything the Government appears to have gone directly contrary to the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission. The tendency is for the working population, including its largest community, the native community, to migrate in increasing numbers to the towns in order to get industrial employment, and the econmic necessity of that tendency was stressed by the Commission. Admittedly hardships are caused in its operation, but the way of rationalising it—if I may call it that—is through the organisation of the labour market, through the establishment of labour exchanges serving the needs of the whole labour force, and not only the unskilled workers. Instead, further artificial restrictions on native movement have been introduced which have gone entirely contrary to what the Planning Council and the Van Eck Commission have intimated are economic necessities in this country, and during the last Session of Parliament a Bill was introduced and became law putting further restrictions upon the urbanisation process, the Native Laws Amendment Act. I understand that in the present Session it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to consolidate the Urban Areas Acts. I would like to know whether legislation of that kind, conflicting directly with the recommendations of the Government’s advisers, is considered in its general bearing in relation to policy as a whole. It would appear to me that it is simply treated as a departmental matter and is not considered by the Planning Council or by the other organs of Government responsible for making recommendations as to, and for planning, the econmic life of the commnunity as a whole. As far as the increasing of the efficiency of labour through training is concerned, there, I understand, the Government has proposals in the field of education and will at a later stage propose certain measures. It would be particularly interesting to hear of their proposals in the field of vocational training and to see what they propose doing to increase the efficiency of labour in this country. Whilst it does appear on the one hand that the declarations of the Government are auspicious, we learn that in the building industry there is a shortage of 50 per cent. in artisans, due, I suppose, to the past long-term policy of preventing fourfifths of the workers in this country from attaining skill. Therefore I hope that the Government will see to it that at all events, as regards constructing houses for themselves, the African people will have the opportunities to perform skilled work which have been denied them in the past. As far as training in general is concerned, I believe that the Government has appointed a committee of investigation, but I do not think that, it is auspicious that the Government thought fit last Session to re-enact the Apprenticeship Act, despite contrary recommendations from the Planning Council. It has not been my object in this debate to criticise any particular aspect of Government policy. I have tried to stress what is hopeful, as well as what is not so hopeful. But what I do want to emphasise is this, that if the Government, as they say they do—let us accept that they do—are prepared to accept responsibility for maintaining the level of total expenditure in order to guarantee total employment, if they are prepared to accept responsibility for measures designed to raise the national income, for more efficient utilisation of labour, then I do ask that they should recognise what the implications of these responsibilities are, implications in the financial field, implications in what has been called in the past “native policy” and in the field of policy as a whole. The acceptance of responsibilities of this kind, such as have been clearly accepted by the Government in this White Paper, is something novel in this country. I am doubtful whether its implications have been sufficiently thought out and I would be less anxious if I felt that the Government, instead of tackling particular aspects of policy piecemeal, had a comprehensive policy into which every aspect of the problems of the post-war situation would fit in.

I am very sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House, because a very big blunder has been perpetrated on the Johannesburg market in connection with deciduous fruit, one that will cost us fruit farmers in the Transvaal a few thousand pounds. We found out that the Deciduous Fruit Board was concerned, but on further enquiry we discovered that the matter originated in the Department of Agriculture itself. To enable you to understand what the position is in the Transvaal in reference to deciduous fruit, I should first make it clear that a section of our farmers have about 20 per cent. of then crop; another section have about 60 per cent. of the crop, and a further section have none of their crop at all. They could not despatch a single bag of peaches. A year ago the Marketing Board applied grading to peaches and plums on the Johannesburg market. Those that were packed in trays and wrapped in paper were graded as Grades 1 and 2. Those that were in bags were graded as Grade 3. Unfortunately the position is that a little while ago we had to deliver our fruit at the market, and the result was that we mixed our first, second and third classes all togther, put them in small paper bags and sent them to market in that way. We did not bother about it, because the people who buy the fruit understood and knew the fruit, and they saw that the fruit in the paper bags was just as good and nice as the fruit that was wrapped up and in trays. They gave us just as much as for the first grade peaches, and they were quite satisfied. This year the market was very high, but we had the unfortunate position that under the marketing scheme in Johannesburg peaches that had 20 per cent. hail marks were regarded as sub-grade and they could not be sold on the market. We delivered that fruit direct to the consumers, and other fruit as well, and we have made thousands of pounds out of that fruit, because as you know in the Transvaal we frequently have hail and it marks the peaches. We sell those peaches at people’s houses, and we also deliver thousands of pounds worth to the natives. We were satisfied with the price. Since I left home I have received a telegram which has come like a thunderbolt. I shall read it out—

The Government was not prepared to recede a step from its position, but I want to tell them this, that it costs the poor fruit farmers thousands of pounds. The people were bitterly disappointed. These are not rich people, but poor people, and worst of all, thousands of pounds worth of fruit went bad. We have a short harvest, from December to the end of January, during which period the whole crop must be sold. I received a letter from my wife to say that she had discontinued bringing in the fruit, and she was simply giving it to the pigs. In the Transvaal we are bitterly disappointed in connection with the control of deciduous fruit. The Transvaal is not interested in the fact that the Government gave £280,000 to the Deciduous Fruit Board for payment to the Cape fruit farmers who had exported fruit. But leave the Transvaal alone; then we shall be satisfied. I only want to put three questions to the Minister. I have received some nineteen letters from my constituency, and consequently I am very anxious to put these questions. The first is: In respect of Grade 1 peaches that are placed in bags, will we receive recognition of them as Grade 1 peaches? The second is: What should we do with the peaches that are more than 20 per cent. hail-marked? And then thirdly, and I am very anxious to know this : Will we be permitted still to deliver our fruit to the consumers? The people around Johannesburg who have small pieces of land take a great interest in this, because it is a serious matter to them, and we ask in all earnestness that the Government should meet us. The Government should try to satisfy us. The people convened a meeting, and Dr. Neveling, and Dr. Spamer were there. There was, however, not the slightest cooperation, and eventually those present nearly came to blows. They could not get on at all and the farmers were bitterly dissatisfied. It did transpire that deciduous fruit was sold for about £470,000 and in connection with that the Government had paid a subsidy of £280,000. I cannot understand that. That is the answer that Dr. Neveling gave, and if that is correct then the whole fruit board system is a hopeless failure as far as concerns deciduous fruit. I also want to tell the Minister of Lands that the people were very dissatisfied.

He is not here either.

Nevertheless I say that the people are dissatisfied that a man who has been on commando and who has done service should receive a letter from his wife: I must leave the land; I called on Jan, Pete and Paul, but I cannot find a place to trek to, so what must I do? I think that if I were in Italy and received such a letter, I would run amok. It is something quite unprecedented. A woman came to me; her husband had joined up, and she told me that she received notice that she had to move on, and that she was not in a position to get other land. I told her that they could not make her trek away. I said that I would tackle the subject, and that she should stay there till after the peace. The man allowed her to remain, and she is still there. What are these people going to say about me now? Now they hear that the Minister of Lands says that these people must trek, and Oom Jan Wolmarans has been presumptuous enough to say that the people must not trek before the end of the war. Then there are also natives who are in service, and they are not required to leave the land. I think that the Minister should have another shot at considering the matter, and that he should allow these women to remain on the farms until their husbands return from the war. Then they can make an effort to get land elsewhere; to make them trek now is unfair and unjust.

I am very sorry that the Minister of Lands is not present because there are a few things I should like to bring to his attention in connection with settlement. The Government was anxious that we should keep people on the farms and not allow them to go to the cities. Now the Minister of Lands is driving people to the cities, as has already been said by former speakers. People have received notice to vacate the leased properties. They have no other option. I myself received letters from persons saying that they are liquidating their farming operations in order to go to the cities. They go to the cities because they no longer have room on the farms. We feel that this is a very undesirable condition which is being created by the Minister of Lands, because he treats people in this way. They have been living on the ground for years and they lived there before the Department of Lands bought there ground. They applied, but could not obtain the ground, and now they have been notified that they must leave. Where must they go? They have no means with which to buy ground and they have to vacate Government ground. I feelthat the Minister should earnestly reconsider the matter and that he should allow these people to stay on the ground until the new owner arrives. The Minister has also said that it is not the policy to let more ground. I want to ask the Minister not to continue with that policy. It is an unhealthy condition. There are persons on the platteland who live there because they lease ground from the Minister of Lands and they cannot possibly buy ground. There is no place for them to go. They are used to those surroundings and they have some cattle with which they can carry on. If the Minister executes his policy, these people will go to the wall. In August I went to the Minister’s office in Pretoria to see him personally. I told him that those people wanted to plough. He said that he could not permit it; he called in Mr. Steytler, the Secretary for Lands, to listen to the difficulties I was submitting to him. They said they wanted the ground to rest so that it would not be exhausted, when the returned soldiers receive it. I then told the Minister of Lands and Mr. Steytler that this is virgin soil densely overgrown with bushes. The trees must first be taken out and instead of the ground being exhausted it would be made fertile and would be prepared for the next person who would inhabit it. The Minister of Lands then said he would consider the matter and inform me later what he decided. I waited from August to September and then again went to interview the Minister. Again I waited until November and then wrote him a letter. His reply was that they could not permit that ground to be ploughed and inhabited by the lessees any longer. The result is that those people have been sitting for two years now without a crop. I wrote to the Minister and also told him personally that the policy he is following is driving the people to the cities more and more, instead of his trying to save them. The result is that those people are now liquidating their farming operations. The Minister is responsible for it and he must change his policy. He must try to meet those people. I have a letter here from people who have been living on that ground for the last 13 years. They wrote te tell me that they received notice to vacate the ground at the end of May and they do not know where to go. I should like to ask the Minister whether there is no way out to give these people a chance. Those people made improvements and this man went so far as to build a dam and a cattledip. They had to do it in order to earn an existence but now the result is that they have to vacate the place. I hope that the Minister of Finance and all the other Ministers will do something. I expect more from him than from the Minister of Lands and I hope he will see that a change is made. Let the people stay on the ground but give them notice that they will be expected to vacate the ground as soon as the successful applicant arrives. I have already received letters from people who are not supporters of mine, but of the Minister of Lands, and also from other persons who say that they are obliged to sell their cattle and to go to the cities. I asked the Minister of Lands this question, and also asked a question of the Minister of Native Affairs. My question to the Minister of Native Affairs was how much ground had been bought in the last ten years for natives and at what price. The Minister of Native Affairs replied and said one million morgen at a price of £4,000,000. My question to the Minister of Lands was the following—

The Minister of Lands replied that he could not give me the information. Is that not proof of the fact that the administration of the Minister of Lands is in a sorry plight? The Minister of Native Affairs could reply as to what had happened, but the Minister of Lands is incapable of answering the few questions put to him and his Department. I expect that these people who havé now received notice to vacate the ground will be greatly embittered. I also asked the Minister of Lands in his office whether he could not help our district with drills. It is a dry area and conditions become very difficult if drills are not available. I also wrote to the Department and the reply was that there were more than 3,000 applications and as soon as drills were available they would consider how far they could meet us. For the district of Marico there are no drills available at the moment, and what is the Minister going to do, because in many cases the people there have no water for their cattle. What will be the result? Those people will lose their cattle and will become poor whites. Those are people who today are being chased off the lands. I hope that the Minister of Irrigation will give attention to this matter. I have already approached the Minister, in August, and he told me that they were manufacturing spare parts for the drills and as soon as these were ready they would continue drilling. I hope that the Minister will try to rectify that matter as soon as possible so that people can make use of the drills again. The dams are standing practically empty. There is not much veld and the position is very serious when the water supply fails. I want to direct another appeal to the Minister of Lands to allow these lessees to remain on their ground until the ground is eventually allotted, or else the condition will be created which will be critical to all in that area. It is not true that the soil will be exhausted if he allows those people to cultivate it. I hope that all the Ministers will act in order to see that we are given the opportunity to obtain drills to supply the people with water. I want to bring something else to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture. The butchers at Zeerust, the main town in that vicinity, have asked that they should be allowed more slaughter cattle, because what they now receive is insufficient to satisfy the demands of the consumers. I hope that the Minister will lend an ear to their appeal. It is the main town and it receives too few cattle. Then there is another great difficulty which I last year brought to the attention of the previous Minister of Agriculture, namely the question of measles in cattle and pigs. His reply to me was that as soon as the new meat scheme came into operation provision would be made for helping those people whose cattle and pigs suffered from measles, when the animals got to market. I do not know whether the present Minister has given his attention to the matter.

Under the meat scheme those people are being met.

Then I can reply to the persons who asked me about this that it falls under this scheme. They have already written to me twice about it. I now come to the question of food. A few days ago I was in French Hoek where the farmers were busy packing pears for the market. Some of the farmers are very dissatisfied. One farmer, for example, sent his pears to the market and received the reply that 20 per cent. was affected by codling moth and the other 80 per cent. was destroyed. I believe they were thrown into the sea, boxes and all. Can the matter not be tackled in another way? If the stuff is sent back to the owner he can at least use it to feed his pigs and everything is not lost. The people feel hurt over this system. More than one of them feels unhappy under this scheme and they say that they will go to the wall if a change is not made. I ask the Minister to investigate the matter and to see to it that an improvement is made.

I rise to make a few observations, that I think may in some measure effect improvements in the much-maligned meat scheme. It may seem peculiar that I should say “much-maligned meat scheme” when I was one of the most serious opponents of it last year. However, having been in a very small minority, I have gone out and made every possible endeavour to make that scheme a success. So I feel that today I am entitled to make these observations with a view to bringing about some improvement. There are five points that I want to touch on. In the first place, we find after eight months of experience, that we have a too complicated grading scheme, bearing in mind the composition of our stock. We have 13,000,000 large stock, of which 6,000,000 belong to natives, and these might all be regarded as scrub stock; 7,000,000 belong to Europeans, and 4,000,000 of those may be regarded as trek oxen and scrub stock; and the remaining 3,000,000 are comprised of dairy stock and super-prime stock. I think that a grading scheme on the basis of condition, age and quality is far too complicated a scheme and far too ambitions a scheme for us to undertake in view of the quality of our stock. I consider that a simplified scheme that would provide for a super-quality, that would make provision for that article we exported in the past, leaving a first, a medium and a compound grade to represent the remaining grades, would be preferable. When we come to take into consideration that our mutton sheep in this country is essentially the Persian sheep, we will realise that that sheep is now being degraded by comparison with the Merino sheep which has a good quality mutton, but is kept primarily for wool-production purposes. That is the first point. The second is the long distance transport that that stock has before it reaches the terminal markets. As you know yourself, there is much loss in transit in weight, in bruising and at times even death. That is one of the features which militates against the supplies getting to your terminal markets, from long distances, and we feel that if we had to impose a small levy on all livestock in this country to bring about an equalisation fund, it would do much towards bringing the stock to your terminal market that is not getting there with ease at present. My third point is the too small seasonal variation in price. It is well known that in the past seasonal variation amounted at times to as much as 25/- per 100 lbs. To make a provision of 5/-, as indicated by the Minister, I think, is altogether too small to meet the requirements that you have to meet, that has to be done by those men who produce stock for that particular reason. That is the third point which, if given effect to, would make a contribution towards eliminating some difficulties with which we have to contend today. My fourth point is the price gap between the consumer and the producer. I know I am to be challenged on this point, but I actually have figures to prove my contention so that I have no qualms about giving you these figures, in support of my contention that the price gap is too large. In support of that I may tell you that the instance I am about to give you is of 150 sheep sold at a particular price at one of your country markets, on which a loss of £61 was suffered by the butcher who bought it; but on getting those sheep back he was able to turn that loss into a profit of £126 less £61. When you come to take that into consideration you will find that the margin is too large. I can give you numerous other instances. I want to tell you this that I must confess that where you have a shortage of meat in the bulk of the terminal markets, as there is today, it is quite impossible for us to tamper with that price gap unless we have sufficient supplies of meat for the running of those terminal markets, before the adjustments can be made. The fifth point 1s one which I feel I am in duty bound to touch upon, and that is that we are desirous under this scheme of eliminating the speculator who, to my mind, has done a fairly good job in carrying stock to your terminal markets in the past. We want to eliminate him without putting anything in his place and I maintain that we are wrong in trying to eliminate the speculator before we have provided something that may reasonably take his place to carry those services from your outlying areas to your terminal markets. There are a few points on which I would like to go still further in respect of meat, and that is that I do not think the producer is getting a square deal as far as his hides and skins are concerned. If I have to give the details of what is taking place at some of these terminal markets, it will indicate to you that that is the position, but I do not wish to deal with personalities and the management of these abattoirs. I think it is enough if I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is some adjustment necessary before you will give satisfaction in that particular line. I want to indicate that I have made these observations purely with a View to trying to perfect the scheme that we have before us today, before embarking on a scheme that is advertised arid with which we desire to proceed at an early date. From here I want to go to the question of dairying. I have come in for a certain amount of recrimination on the question of dairy products, and I think that in fairness, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to clear myself of that. May I say at the very outset that I support the hon. member for Drakensberg wholeheartedly in what he said. I feel that we are entitled to a fair return on our outlay, as regards dairy products. First and foremost, if we take into consideration the cost of the products which are employed in the production of dairy products, it must be admitted that the bulk of these products range from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. higher than normal when they are available, and when they are not available, we are faced with the position in which we are today, a shortage of butter. We are perfectly prepared to admit that under present circumstances butter has been reduced very considerably as a result of the anomalies that exist. My plea is this: Give us a fair return for the product we are producing and we will produce. But the position that exists today, owing to the shortage of feed and the low prices offered to the producer, has brought about that shortage, a shortage which necessitates the manufacture of margarine. Now, I approach that subject with a certain amount of reserve, but let me admit at the very outset that no farmer in this House does not welcome the production of margarine to meet these deficiencies which are not filled as regards the lower income groups today, and if you have a still further reduction in the production of butter, we have absolutely no objection to those who still have a deficiency of butter, amongst the higher income groups, obtaining their requirements. But in the main I hold that the dairy farmer is entitled to some protection. We would never have provided for protection against the manufacture of this article in the original Bill in 1918 if it was not going to be a danger to the industry. I fear now that it is going to be a danger to the industry unless we can insist upon that industry being brought under the sole control of the Dairy Industry Control Board. If it does not, it will get into the hands of vested interests, of these monopolists, who will exploit the dairy industry to an extent whereby we will be practically eliminated, and I may mention at this juncture one of the items which I look upon as being an extreme danger. First and foremost, if you eliminate as nearly as possible your butter fat producer, the effect will be that you are going to reduce the stock that he produces for the fresh milk supplies and once you have done that you are creating a vicious circle which will have serious repercussions on the health of the country, by Curtailing their fresh milk supplies. I agree with the hon. member for Drakensberg that we feel that we do not want to be classed amongst that section of the community who are looked upon as spawns or feeders on the charity of the Government. What we want is a fair and secure price, a fair return fon our products, which will give us a reasonable standard of living on the farms without having to resort to subsides. The question was raised this morning of the—I will not say contempt; it was not contempt—lack of attention given to the fact that you have a board in existence in this country which has made the greatest success, a greater success than any other board established for the control of primary products, but we do not think that that board has received the consideration it should have received in stabilising the prices, nor has it been consulted, as it should have been, in the establishment of prices for the dairy industry. With these few remarks I feel that what criticism I have offered are in the interests of both the industries which I have mentioned, and I sincerely hope that at no long distant date the greatest amount of consideration will be given to some of these features, as well as to the features enumerated by other members.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) referred to instances of soldiers whose lease had been terminated. I want to bring a case to the notice of the Minister. It is from a man who is at the moment fighting in Italy, and he says: “Heaven knows what I should do about my stock.” This is an answer that he gave to “Die Vaderland”; I am referring to the father of this man, after the man was notified that he had to vacate the Government farm.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 13th February.