I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned I was about to quote some figures. The figured furnished by the Division of Economics and Markets governing production for 1940 and 1941, revealed the following: Average production of Natal farmers 27,000 gallons; average cost of production 7.037d. per gallon. Deducting credits representing stock sold amounting to 1.96d. the nett cost was 5.08d., and the profit was calculated to be 2.15d. These figures included milk and butter sold or consumed by the farmer’s household but gave no allowance for interest on capital, the farmer’s labour, management, the cost of bulls, or the replacement of cows. With the daily average of 75 gallons and a profit of 2.15d. the farmer’s profit was 13/5 per day; and that was his real earnings with no interest on capital. This morning in opening my post I came across a circular which has apparently been sent to all the small storekeepers in the country in connection with “rationing information services”. This circular states that rationing is now before Parliament, and that the trader who prepared now and registers his customers is the trader who will get the required goods for his registered customers and do the turnover and make a profit; that the trader who leaves things to the last minute may find himself without customers and without rationed goods.

From whom does the circular come?

It is from Box 9232, Johannesburg, and the address is 45-48 Asher’s Buildings, 114 Fox Street, Johannesburg. But the sting is in the tail. “Send your £3 3s. to us now.” I wish pow, through you Sir, to warn all the small storekeepers right through the country not to send their £3 3s. until they know whether any service is going to be rendered by any such concern. To wind up now, I will mention the headlines of my pleas: (1) State legal services, so that rich and poor alike can get justice; (2) a solution to be found in connection with the notices recently given to temporary lessees on Government land, so as to ensure that no fighting soldier or his family suffers as a result of such notice.

Though we are being asked to vote this large sum of money, we are not of course acquainted with the details, but we shall be very disappointed if our war expenditure this year is going to be the same as the previous year. Incidentally I have seen that one of the newspapers predict that the expenditure this year will be a couple of million pounds less. But if we look round and see the money that has been distributed for the activities in the military sphere, then we fear that even this year much money is being expended unnecessarily, and that we may expend as much as we did the previous year. Everywhere we see lorries driven by other than Europeans going around, and we cannot see for what object. I really think it is not necessary to continue with military activities in our country on the scale on which they are at present proceeding, and I think it would be much better for the police force to be strengthened to prevent atrocities being committed, assaults being perpetrated on peaceful citizens in their homes, especially on the platteland by natives who are not kept in check. It will be better for us to have a strong police force, and more activity in that respect. But I would like to say a few words about the important matter that was touched on the other day by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and I want to identify myself with what he said about the price of cheese milk, butter fat and milk that is used in the manufacture of condensed milk. He has asked that the price should be increased, and the Minister then stated that this had been done. Let me state clearly to the Minister that the 2d. increase is not enough to induce the producers not only to maintain their production, but to increase it. To repair the harm that has been done already we shall have to go further than the giving of that 2d. While we are making a few observations in this connection, we want to give the Minister the assurance that we do not want to make political capital and that we are not specially pleading for the farmers alone, but more with a view to seeing also that there is adequate production to satisfy the consumers. If we are not going to improve the position, the time will arrive when there will be a shortage of cheese milk, butter fat and condensed milk. In this connection I want to read a letter that I received from my constituency. I want to say that in my constituency there are certainly two of the biggest creameries in the country. The one is on the Sundays River, and the other is on the Great Fish River. When I arrived here I received this letter from the chairman of the creamery at the Great Fish River. He knows what he is writing about, and here are his words—

That is a considerable quantity—

Together with that letter I received another one in connection with the condensed milk factory. This is from the lady who is secretary of the association, and she writes as follows—

This is what actually happened. I can assure the Minister that I know what I am talking about. When I was last in that quarter I was told, and I also came into contact personally with cases where the people had sold their cattle because it did not pay them to produce this milk. They had expensive land, and they had to do what paid them best. Even if they sell the lucerne at current prices it pays them much better than producing milk for cheese, butter fat and condensed milk. I want to appeal to the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter. I mean it sincerely when I say I know what I am talking about. I want to give, the Minister good advice, because otherwise we shall be faced with this difficulty that within a short period we shall have a much greater shortage of Cheese, butter and condensed milk. I will thus express the earnest hope that he Minister gives serious consideration to this matter and that he will go out of his way to meet us. The people who I have quoted here are people of standing who know what they are writing about and what they are dealing with. Then there is another matter I want to mention, and that is the commandeering of stock at the auction sales. I understand that at the last few auctions on the platteland this has not happened. In my own town this did not happen at the last auction sale. I put a question to the Minister, and asked him for a statement regarding the policy of the Government in respect of auction sales on the platteland. He was good enough to furnish a statement, but I want to tell him that that statement is by no means reassuring. It leaves the farmers in uncertainty. They do not know whether tomorrow or the next day the same sort of thing may not happen, although I understand it has not actually occurred in the last few auctions. The hon. Minister says here—[Retranslated.]

When I announced the introduction of the meat scheme last year I advised the House that there was no intention to interfere with stock auctions outside the controlled areas in so far as these auctions complied with their normal function of providing farmers with breeding stock, dairy cattle, store animals and draught animals, and butchers outside the controlled areas, with slaughter stock. It has been recommended by the Meat Commission and accepted by the Government that platteland stock auctions should be continued for these specific purposes, and no departure from this policy is contemplated. Where more slaughter stock is purchased at platteland auctions than the reasonable requirements of the areas that are served by these auctions, the Food Controller may take possession of the cattle that are surplus to the requirements for despatch to controlled areas where the supplies are inadequate.

In the first place, how do the Minister’s controllers know exactly what the population require, that is those who get their stock from a certain auction sale? Take, for instance, the South-Western districts, where no stock or very little is produced. How do the Minister’s controllers know whether the buyers are not buying the stock for those people, and how does he know how much is required? I know what happens in my town. Stock is sold of a very high quality, but it is not bought only for Bedford but also for the adjacent districts, where they do not produce sufficient. The statement made by the Minister leaves the position very Uncertain, and I have to inform the Minister that the farmers are extremely dissatisfied. This is one of the actions of the Minister which is just as unintelligible as his action in connection with the meat scheme was right throughout. When the Minister instituted it we warned him in this House, and the farmers outside warned him that he was heading towards disaster in the country, and that the country would land in a distressful position. If the Minister had only listened then the position would be much better today. Ever since then the Minister has searched for reasons for the failure of the scheme. He has alleged that the farmers would not send their stock to the controlled market. That is not the position. There is, however, one point that we must again make clear to the Minister, and that is that before the scheme came into operation the butchers went and bought stock, ran their slaughter-houses, and made a certain amount of profit, but from the time the Minister’s scheme was brought into effect, with all the absurdities in it, we were at once faced with great difficulties. There are various grades and the absurdities in connection with the grades. This was a big mistake. The second mistake was that the Minister fixed the prices at altogether too low a level. Previously the people could buy stock at the auction sales, and at the then ruling prices they could sell them at a profit. What do we find today? The prices that the Minister fixed are very much below those prices. The result is that the farmers are receiving thousands of pounds less than they did in the past. The Minister looked round for all sorts of reasons, and even threatened the farmers. Though he denies it he did threaten the farmers. He not only threatened that he would import cattle, but he did import cattle from outside, and not only from other parts of Africa, but also from other parts of the world. We believe positively that there is enough cattle in the country to provide for our requirements including Cape Town and the controlled areas. If the Minister will only listen and put his finger on the right spot, and take the scheme entirely under reconsideration, and if he secures the services of a few practical men, of farmers as well as of men who have been trained in business, and if he asks their advice the position will undergo a transformation within a short time, and we in Cape Town will not find ourselves every week-end without any meat on the table. As I have said, the Minister quoted all sorts of reasons to account for the failure of the scheme. We only want to give him the assurance that the position will not improve by commandeering stock at auctions on the platteland, or by importing meat from other countries. Let him take the whole matter into reconsideration and secure people who have knowledge of the business, take their advice, and within a short while the scheme will be on a sound foundation. The farmers are not opposed to the scheme, but unfortunately the scheme was simply announced, and now it is ending in failure. What hurts one the most is that a lot of sharks are lurking and watching. They are anxious that the scheme should be wrecked. I cannot see anything that is more calculated to help them than the action Of the Minister. He is playing into their hands. To sell by weight is sound in principle, and before the scheme came into operation I used to send my slaughter animals here from a long distance, because I could sell it here by weight and by grade. But the prices that the Minister has fixed are impossible. Before I resume my seat I only want to utter a warning that there is a bunch of sharks watching whether the scheme is going to be wrecked, so that they again will be able to speculate in stock, and exploit the position. The Minister eventually went so far as to promise us that he would give us a longterm scheme. I want to point out that one of the first requirements of such a scheme is that you should have cold storage accommodation. Has the Minister sufficient cold storage accommodation at his disposal to enable him to carry out a long-term scheme? No. I do not believe there is cold storage accommodation in Cape Town at the disposal of the Minister. There is none at Port Elizabeth nor at East London. I believe that in Johannesburg the Municipality have a little cold storage room at their disposal. But I am asking the Minister what cold storage facilities he has available. If he asks us to make sacrifices for the sake of a long-term scheme, then he ought to make it clear and he ought to make provision to be able to carry out such a scheme. He cannot carry out such a scheme without having cold storage accommodation available. When the war is over and he is not in a position, as he is today, to avail himself of certain cold storage space, will he be in a position to continue with the scheme? I have mentioned these few points not with the object of criticising, but because I feel that there are defects. The Minister ought to give serious attention to them and accept our advice. Then he will find out later that it is not bad advice that we have given him.

Mr. Speaker, the antiwar policy of the Opposition has led them into many queer channels, but I think the queerest channel of all has been that one which led them, during the past week, to become the protagonists of Poland, the protagonists of the future of Poland. I have a recollection that Poland was the first victim of German aggression and suffered very severely in 1940. We heard nothing then with regard to their interest in the future of Poland. We heard in 1941 that Norway was invaded. There was no concern about the future of Norway. The same thing applies as successive countries were invaded and treated in the most inhumane manner by the invaders, namely Holland, Belgium, Prance, Yugoslavia and Greece. Where today we have the Opposition concerned with Poland, we should realise this, that it is not the interests of Poland they are concerned with, it is not the fear of Bolshevism spreading over Europe which concerns them, but it is the fact of their friendship for Germany, and that they know now that Germany is a country for whom the day of reckoning has dawned. She sowed the wind and is now, in the next few months, going to reap the whirlwind, and she is going to receive everything she asked for. I submit that it is concern for Germany and not the fear of Russia or the concern for Poland which is at the bottom of the attitude taken up by the Opposition during this debate. I do not think it is necessary to remind this House, or the Opposition, but if they compare the attitude of the different countries, the fact that Russia, Great Britain and the U.S.A. have come to an agreement such as was come to in the Crimea, has dispelled all the hopes of the Opposition that there may be a split. There is no fear in Norway, in Holland or in Belgium or any of the other countries, of Bolshevist aggression over Europe. On the contrary there is admiration for the combination of Russia, Great Britain and the U.S.A. There is admiration for the Red Army equally with the British and American armies, and they will welcome the victories which are reaching their culmination at the present, moment. Therefore I say that these countries ought to know, as they suffered at the hands of the Germans, and if they are not perturbed or nervous about the spread of Bolshevism over Europe, we can wipe aside any of the objections made by the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters. I was concerned the other day when I saw that the Demobilisation Committee, through General Brink, had informed the country that they had completed the survey which showed that 60,000 jobs were required for discharged soldiers. One felt at once that there is a very serious position, in view of the fact that the Government does not appear to have any general policy with regard to the expansion of full employment. In other words, side by side with the discharge of the soldiers, of which, we are told that 60,000 will require jobs, we also have the fact that certain of the industries which provided employment, like munition works, will have to slow down gradually, so that in addition to the soldiers there will also be other people clamouring for employment, because we have accepted the position that people employed in munition works will not be allowed to leave to join the army, and therefore their interests must also be looked after as if they had joined up. Therefore I put it to the Minister of Finance that it is not sufficient to make these appeals and to warn the country about the requirements for employment, but it will be the duty of his Department and of himself, because it is primarily a finance matter, to see that the expansion of the employment is developed now. One must remember this, that unemployment is the foundation of poverty and of misery, and of bad housing; in fact, of everything that we speak of today as coming under social security. Everything that is included under social security is the result of unemployment. There is just one exception, and that is where people, as the result of illness or hard luck, come under that scheme, but full employment would ease the whole position of social security. But we have not full employment. We see nothing on the part of the Government to show that we are developing employment in this country to the fullest extent by means of an expansion of industry, an expansion of every possible activity, including agriculture. I would just remind the Minister of this, that just as work has been available for the purpose of killing, so work must be made available for the purpose or living, which is even more important. Therefore I put it to the Minister to come forward with a bolder scheme. I warn him also with regard to private enterprise that there again, wherever private enterprise is concerned the primary factor, of course, is profit, and that if private enterprise is not able under the existing system to keep the wheels of industry going and to afford full employment, it is up to the Government and the Minister to adopt a new social and economic outlook. If he does that he will be in a position to secure for us, when peace time comes—and I hope it is coming very soon—a policy which will meet the position, and that he will be ready to meet that position. The whole question of the balancing of his Budget will arise out of that. I think he need not concern himself too much with that, any more than he had to do in the war period, because the Minister’s system has been a very simple one, during the war, and that is that he financed the war half from loan funds and half from taxation, in doing that, what is the effect? It is this, that he borrows money, and the greater bulk of it comes from the big corporations and banks. Certainly there has been a substantial amount coming from the ordinary channels, from the smaller investor, but the great bulk of the money has come from these big concerns. Then what he does is this: To pay the interest on that money which he horrowed he then taxes the people. To carry on the ordinary expenses of government and to pay the interest on the loans he taxes the people. My point is this: I would not mind so much if he was getting that money from the same people who have lent him the money. He could also tax them to pay their own interest. Unfortunately it does not work out that way, and the bulk of it has to come from the very people who, in the ordinary way, find it difficult enough to meet their every-day expenses. He takes money from the lower-income group through various mediums, by taxes, the money to pay the interest on the loan funds. War expenditure has been roughly £80,000,000 per year over the last five years. I therefore submit that the Minister need not worry too much about the financial side in the development of our industries and in giving them assistance in a proper way. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) suggested having two budgets. I do not entirely agree with him because I foresee difficulties, but I do suggest that the Minister could incorporate in the one budget the new position which would clearly indicate that he is not so much concerned with the balancing of his Budget. I do not think any Government has the right to worry about the balancing of the Budget so long as a substantial number of its population are out of work, or likely to be out of work. We must remember that we have 60,000 men in the army who may be potentially out of work, when they are discharged, in spite of what the Government says it is doing in that regard. A large number of munition workers are in the same position also. Potentially, when peace comes, many of them may be out of work. The Minister therefore must realise that very soon we will be faced with this position, and it will be up to him to solve it, because it is a financial position. A scheme of full employment is the only scheme which can solve this difficulty; no other scheme can do it. No bolstering up will solve it. Therefore the Minister must tackle the problem with both hands, and I think he must change his methods. There are other places where he can still tax, but not the lower-income groups. He said some time ago that he had now taken all he could from the higher-income groups and therefore the lower-income groups would have to pay. Is that an indication of what is coming in his next Budget? I want to warn him that any man earning less than £400 per annum—I am just putting it at £400—is today unable to pay 1d. more in taxes; not a single penny-piece more.

Hear, hear!

Therefore he must still look to the higher-income group and also to his method of financing by means of loan funds, and if he does that and he consults the figures given by the banks, which appeared recently—I have not got the exact figures but the Minister has them—he will see that our deposits in the banks are somewhere in the vicinity of nearly £300,000,000. At one stage I think it was in the vicinity of £200,000,000. Now, a good deal of what is on deposit with the banks may be used at present to be lent out by the banks to certain industries, but I may say that a very substantial portion of that money is lying idle and is not drawing any interest, even from the banks themselves. It is a sum of money which is, if I may use the phrase, on strike; or if it is not on strike, it is at any rate not working. It is frozen to the extent that its owner has frozen it—not the Government, but the owner, in the sense that it is being kept for some purpose or another. I want to point out to the Minister that he should consider some means of dealing with that money and of compelling that money to work, and if the owners will not let it work, I think he can at least tax some of that money for the purpose of paying the interest on his loan funds. I think that is a reasonable and fair thing to do, that where money is simply being left on call and not actually being used, and is left lying idle, he should apply his mind to doing something in that direction. Now, Mr. Speaker, I feel that when we consider the whole question of employment, the Minister must, in effect, realise that the responsibility on him is very great indeed, and that very little encouragement is offered to us to feel that we are secure; and we do not want the Government or the Minister to be able to say to us: “What have you done? What suggestions have you put before the Government?” I say that we are putting the position before the Government today, and not after the event has occurred, when a chaotic stagnation may occur, and all because there is an absence of that planning that is so essential at present, so very essential. We do so now because we wish to meet the difficulties we shall undoubtedly be faced with and that every country in the world will be faced with. We must say that we are prepared and that we do not wish to have a repetition of this old bogey of over-production which we have had in the past. We should realise this, that just as we have created a bigger market for our fruit and meat because people in the country are in employment and earn the money with which to buy more meat and fruit, so most of our problems will be able to be solved if we can keep the bulk of the people in full employment. That indicates that we can develop our agricultural markets to a still greater extent if you persist in seeing that our population are fully employed, and that they are in a position to buy the products of our farmers. Today a larger section of the population are able to buy meat than before; that is apart from the fact that they cannot always get meat even when they have the money. But when things are restored to normal we should, on the one hand, continue the development of agriculture and on the other hand the extension of employment schemes, so that the people will be able to buy the products of the farm. This whole question of over-production or under-consumption has worn very thin indeed. As I have quoted before, we have the opinion of the late Sir Henry Strakosch that there can be no such thing as over-production until the last Hottentot is living like a millionaire. Perhaps that is carrying the point rather to extremes, but I think we can say this, that there can be no over-production in our country until every person is able to have their full share of the products of this country. Another point I wish to make is this, and it is something that was raised last year, that there should be proper control over what has become known as unit securities. That designation covers a combination of shares held in different companies and which are pooled together and then sold on a certain basis to members of the public I notice that these advertisements are couched in such a way that many people who would not go to the Stock Exchange, who would not be interested in the mining market, are tempted to buy these unit securities, because the advertisement shows not a guarantee, it is true, but something that almost looks like a guarantee, that they will get 5⅓ per cent. or 5⅓ per cent. interest on their investment.

Which company are you referring to?

I am not picking out any particular company, because I understand they are all working on the same basis, so it would be invidious to take any particular one. My argument applies to them all, and it is this: When you examine those lists you will find they include the shares of some mining companies which we know have today only got a life of ten or twelve years; some may have less. What is the position in regard, to those securities when some of those assets lose their value; the shock is going to be very great to people who perhaps have not been fully aware of the risk they are running in buying unit securities. It is true these companies will tell you that you are not putting all your eggs in one basket, and that if the value of one share falls the other may go up, and that they are holding the balance. But I do feel there is a necessity for some action on the part of the Government and on the part of this House in order that the investments by the public will be on as sound a footing as possible, and that they will know clearly what they are investing or speculating in Then I want to put another point to the Minister, and that is the question of holding companies. A holding company is, we may say, in some respects similar to a unit security company, but there is a different sphere. The holding company is a big financial corporation that actually secures sufficient interest in working companies to gain control of those companies, though directly they do not work the companies. They have their holdings and are therefore called hoding companies. They own the shares or a substantial portion of the shares, at any rate sufficient to give them control. Those holding companies do not tell their shareholders what companies they are interested in, and the amount of the shares that they hold in these different companies—with one exception the Rand Mines. The Rand Mines does every year give its holdings, the number of shares and the particular company, and of course the value is there for one to see straight away The Rand Mines give that information today, but no other holding company does so. The result is that investors who have bought shares in these holding companies because they have in the past only concerned themselves with gold mining investments, suddenly find on examing the position more closely, that these companies have become interested perhaps in cement, in various commercial or industrial undertakings, that they have been taking up shares in different industrial enterprises and commercial businesses. They are becoming interested in, shall we say, bazaars. I think the Minister should take steps to see that every holding company shall at least once a year publish to the world the holdings that they have, the number of shares, the name of the company and the value of those shares.

Hear, hear.

That I feel is in the interests of the whole country, and certainly in the interests of the investing public. I am sorry to have to concentrate all the time on the hon. Minister, but I must turn to him again in regard to the old age pensions. He has indicated, and we have it before the House, that something is going to be done to raise the means test, so that it will not apply to incomes under £90 a year. I think the Minister will recall that when the means test was first applied it was in respect of incomes over £40 a year. He raised the figure to £72, and now it is £90 that he proposes. Personally I think it is a great pity that the Minister has not had the courage to abolish the means test entirely. Why I think it a pity that he has not abolished it entirely is that we are arriving at the stage now when the means test is dropping out in respect of smaller pensioners, particularly in the case of a Phthisis widow where she has just herself and one child; she can get her old age pension without the means test. But I would like to see the Minister scrap it altogether and if he has not the courage to do that, why not take the round figure and make the income limit £100, and thus exempt from the means test a substantial additional number of poor people. In regard to the food question. I do not propose to address many remarks to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture, because he has already heard a great deal on the subject. I would, however, remind him that he has received some very sound advice. For instance, the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Latimer) told him the other day that one of the troubles in connection with distribution has been that the Control Board immediately tries to find new channels instead of utilising existing channels of distribution, that while he might introduce new channels he should have retained the old channels. I think that is something that it would pay the Minister to retrace his steps on, and that he should use those existing channels and thus endeavour to secure better distribution. That is quite apart from the position we hold when we maintain that a system of rationing is the only fair method to ensure everybody getting his fair share. There again it was pointed out to the Minister that there is actually a system of rationing in operation today. That system of rationing has been forced on the retailer, it has been forced on the wholesaler, and it has also been forced on the manufacturer. The manufacturer calculates on the basis of the number of his customers, and the extent of their purchases, and works on a pro rata basis, rationing out the commodities that are available to him. The wholesaler rations his customers in a similar way, and the retailer does the same thing too. It does not always work out as it should because some retailers may favour some customers over others. But at any rate this shows that a system of rationing has by sheer necessity been forced on to the distributive trade. Accordingly, it should not be so much more difficult to establish a workable system of rationing under Government control. The point I want to make, however, is that I was grievously disappointed when I heard the Minister say the other day, as a result of the introduction of margarine, he was going to withdraw the subsidy that had been made available for butter to the lower income group. He has told the country that because margarine is going to be available, the lower income group is now going to be denied the preference for butter. There will still be a number of people in the lower income group who will still prefer to buy butter, and why should they, because there is not enough money in their pockets, be restricted to the purchase of margarine only? I think it would be much fairer for a proportion of the butter to be made available to the lower-income group and that they should not be compelled to buy margarine, while it may be that the higher-income group will not buy any margarine at all. Let us put margarine on the market and let it stand its test, but at the same time let us see that those members of the lower-income group who prefer butter get their subsidised butter. Incidentally, it will be proved in this country as in other countries that margarine has never yet injured the dairyindustry, as far as butter is concerned. On the contrary, it has put the dairy industry on its mettle with the result that it has produced more butter and the prices have been good.

Where are you quoting from?

I am giving you that as a fact from the experience of countries in Europe. If the hon. member wishes to dispute it he can get up and tell the House. I consider that that is the position, and therefore I am very sorry indeed that the Minister is now going to compel the lower-income group that did enjoy butter to take margarine instead. He said he would withdraw the subsidy on butter for the lower-income group—

He did not say that.

I understood that quite plainly. The hon. member must have beer fast asleep at the time if he did not hear that. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I made a note at the time, and it is quite plain to me that is the effect of it. In view of the sale of margarine, the State-aided scheme whereby a subsidy was given for butter through the welfare organisations is to be stopped. Butter will be sold, but if there is no subsidy it means there will be only one price for butter, and that is the high price, which means in turn that the lower-income group will not be able to buy butter, and will consequently have to buy margarine. If the hon. member does not see it now I am afraid I cannot help him further. The position with regard to miners’ phthisis has been dealt with by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) and by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), and I do not propose to say more except to emphasise to the Minister of Mines that the patience of the miners is almost exhausted. During the past few years they have had promises of an improved Act, and that all their difficulties were going to be solved. The Miners’ Phthisis Commission report was received well over a year ago, and the miners are still waiting for this Bill. The Minister has informed us that the draft is in the hands of the parliamentary draftsman, and that when he has done his work the Bill will be available. I want to spur him on, because time is pressing and the miners are getting into a state of impatience, to put it in a mild way. There is another matter I should like to bring forward, and this is really a matter of Government policy, for the Minister of Finance is directly concerned. It relates to the position of officials who are pre-Union men, and this applies particularly to the Transvaal and to Natal, to those members who joined the public service before Union and are due to retire at the age of 55. It appears that almost on every occasion, without exception, they are invited to carry on in their posts to the age of 60. They have the right to decline to do so, and they would then go on pension. They have not the right to claim to be allowed to stay on in the service until the age of 60, but the Government can ask them to stay until they are 60. Their complaint is this, that in the case of annual leave a man who has to go on to 60 can accumulate leave between the ages of 57 and 60. If, however, he decides to retire at 55 he cannot accumulate leave between 52 and 55. The result is that many men in the public service who come under the 55 retirement age, are not allowed to take the leave that is due to them because of the pressure of work. Many of them have accumulated a substantial number of days, some of them running, I believe, to the limit that they can accumulate, which is, I understand, six months. But if they retire at 55 they will not get the benefit of that leave. They will get no benefit at all. It would seem as if there is almost something like pressure being exerted on these men to carry on another five years; if they accept the Government’s offer to carry on, they are enabled to save the accumulated leave already there before they are 55 and they will be secure until they are 60. I think that that matter should be very carefully dealt with. I have examples showing that the leave actually accumulated by two of these people is 236 days in the one case, and 295 days in the other. The amount permitted is 180 days. These men will be in the position that they will lose the leave entirely if they decide to retire at 55.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) when he talked about the manufacture of margarine, drew a very gloomy picture of the future of the dairy industry, and he predicted that dairy farmers would be going out of business, and so on. He hinted that it might be necessary to introduce another subsidy in order to keep the dairy farmer on the land. I hope later on to deal with that aspect more fully, but I think that when we speak of subsidies the Minister of Finance ought to be able to give us some outline of the policy that will be followed in connection with subsidies after the war, whether the present subsidies are merely a war-time measure, or whether these subsidies are going to be retained in our peacetime economy. As for the benefits that flow from these subsidies, it would not appear that today, either the producer or the consumer have anything very much to be grateful for. The producer complains bitterly that he has not got enough, and the consumer maintains he receives no benefit, and on the other hand the prices of primary products are steadily rising against the consumer. These subsidies were intended, first of all, to keep the farmer on the land, and secondly to bring our primary products within the purchasing power of the consumer. Has that been achieved? It definitely has not been achieved? Why not? It has not been achieved on account of the maldistribution of both the subsidies and of the products of our land. That is the trouble. The whole system of distribution introduced by the Agricultural Department has failed owing to the breakdown of our policy of subsidisation. Whereas these marketing policies should have been built around existing channels of distribution, new and fantastic ideas of distribution have been devised by people who really know nothing about the science of distribution; they know nothing at all about it. This is being perpetuated in all the new schemes that are being introduced. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has suggested that we shall not have any remedy until such time as the Agricultural Department confines itself to supervision, and distribution is left in the hands of people that know something about it.

Do you want to distribute margarine?

I will tell you all about margarine later. We have today in this country first of all a producer’s subsidy, and secondly a consumer’s subsidy. A new subsidy has been introduced, because these other subsidies did not serve the purpose they were designed for A new subsidy has been introduced, a distribution subsidy, which in this case, fortunately for the consumer, is administered by the Social Welfare Department, and we do definitely have some benefits from the distribution subsidy. As far as the Deciduous Fruit Board subsidy is concerned, the £280,000 which this House has voted, that is in regard to the export grape farmer, ask him if he gets any benefit from it; he does not; ask the producer for whose benefit it is intended, and he fails to see any benefit. On the other hand, ask the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) who represents the consumers on the Board, whether the consumers gain any benefit. The only subsidy that is really effective is the indirect subsidy that is paid to the wheat farmer, and that has succeeded in stabilising the price of bread. It has succeeded in keeping the price of bread at pre-war level; and that is possibly the only successful subsidy. I might mention a very elucidative report has been published by the Citrus Fruit Board, and it is one which I think every member has, and this Board is to be congratulated on having placed their industry at last on an economic footing.

Do you think the retail price of dairy products has not been helped?

I will be coming to the dairy products, but I am definitely opposed to any further subsidy. I think there, too, the price has been stabilised, but at what a cost. We hear of an extra winter premium of 3d. being paid, going up to 7d. later on.

Why not?

I am not opposed to that, but if the subsidies are going to be paid, let there be some benefit to the consumer for whom they are intended, and let the producers share, but do not let them grab everything. I think it would be wise if we were given some lead on future policy from the Minister of Finance. Are these subsidies going to be permanent, are they going to play a part in post-war economics? I am not opposed to subsidies, providing they are effective. I think a pronouncement of policy in this respect would be of great help to the Distributive Costs Commission, who are sitting now. They should know on what to base their report, on what is going to become of subsidies that are existing today. Theirs is, of course, a longrange policy, and it will naturally take a little while for their report to come before this House. I think they are going into this matter very thoroughly. Because the Distributive Costs Commission will take a long time to bring forward a report, the Government appointed a committee, over which I had the honour of presiding, in order to devise some short-term policy to meet these present emergencies. The recommendations in the committee’s interim report have to a large extent been accepted by the Government, and I take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the Social Welfare Department for the assistance they gave to the Committee by giving evidence, and for their general willingness to co-operate, so greatly in contrast with the Agricultural Department. The Agricultural Department, which should have been very much interested in the position, have exhibited an unwillingness to cooperate. They are not only unwilling to cooperate but they refuse to come along, and the Food Controller and his marketing expert refuse to give evidence on the commitee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. I think it is a discourtesy by the officials towards the Minister in not giving evidence in connection with the short-term marketing scheme on vegetables and legumes—the only articles of food which have so far not been controlled. So I say that they were so successful in refusing this evidence that the committee as such has gone into liquidation and they could not go on with their work partly on account of the, shall I say, discourtesy of the officers of the Department of Agriculture.

Does the Minister know this?

I am not here to attack the Department but I think the country ought to know why this committee on food, on such an important matter as food, did not complete their investigation. I do want to give credit to the Minister of Agriculture for allowing the manufacture of margarine. I think he must have had a great deal of opposition judging by the negotiations the commitee had with the Dairy Industry Control Board, but he overruled that opposition and I want to congratulate him on showing himself to be a strong man there. But what does he do? What does he do? He makes all sorts of reservations and conditions in connection with the manufacture of margarine.

Quite right too.

Yes, quite right, but some reservations and restrictions had already been decided upon in agreement with the Dairy Board. The compromise was that the output should be limited to social welfare requirements, which is, putting it on a low basis, in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 lbs. per annum, and secondly that the distribution shall not be done on the open market, but comes under the aegis of the Social Welfare Department. The Dairy Control Board has set up all the necessary safeguards that they require and these arrangements were understood to last for two years. So the Dairy Industry has all the protection that they required.

What did you recommend?

I recommended that in consultation. It was a compromise with the Dairy Board. It is in keeping with the recommendations of the committee that we did so. But I want the House to understand that it was a matter of compromise because if we did not compromise on that we probably would not have succeeded at all.

You wanted to take it away from the Dairy Industry Control Board.

I did not want to take anything away, but what I do want to take away from them is the distribution.

Yes you wanted to do that. Tell us why.

If the hon. member would only wait until I have finished he will probably know all about it. It was arranged that the Social Welfare Department should do the distribution. But what else? The Dairy Board even toyed with the idea of having margarine coloured. That sort of thing should not be left in the hands of the Dairy Board. We wanted to take the control of margarine out of the hands of the Dairy Board because they were interested parties. If they were going to handle it the scheme was doomed from the beginning. It is a different industry altogether.

Yes, that was the wedge.

I will tell you a little later what happened in other countries as regards margarine. I will tell you why we wanted to take it out of the hands of the Dairy Board, because commerce and industry have no confidence in the distribution system of the Agricultural Department.

Now you have let the cat out of the bag.

They have proved that they cannot handle it, and if they are going to handle that part of the distribution also, confidence is shocked at once. Commerce has no confidence in their distribution. You can go right throughout the Agricultural Department’s control—I am referring to their control measures only—and they are a failure. The Dairy Board also has not been very successful. They are a failure and they stand condemned in the eyes of commerce and industry in this country. That is the reason why we did not want it under the control of the Dairy Board. The only successful control you have is in the sugar industry. The price of sugar in this country today is the same as it was. Output has been increased. The distribution is excellent. But the control of sugar is in the hands of commerce and industry, where there are men who know something about it I doubt very much whether our sugar distribution would be as good as it is today, where both consumer and producer are satisfied at present, if the Agricultural Department handled it. Furthermore, you have to look upon margarine as a new industry. If the Dairy Board or the Agricultural Department are controlling it, will the Minister tell you why his Department does not control pickles and jam. Although primarily he is responsible for their production, why does he not also control them? Let me tell the Minister this, that we are making margarine in this country today, a cooking fat, which has the same substance as margarine.

It is being sold at 1s. 3d. You make it of the stuff we should have to feed our cows,

It is made of vegetable fats. Let me tell the House what the position is. The manufacturer objects to coming under the control of the Dairy Board, and he has the right to object, because the manufacturers, Lever Bros., have been most accommodating to this country The machinery was not obtainable. They dismantled a fairly new plant in England and it is ready to come out here. They are public-spirited men who wish to relieve the country in this national emergency. Of course, they will not make too much profit out of it because their profit is being controlled. That is the reason why these manufacturers who are going in for this manufacture have the right to say that they are not going to be interfered with by a Control Board which they know has not proved itself satisfactory. There is another matter in connection with the manufacture of margarine The Minister told us here in the House in reply to a question that margarine will be licensed under the emergency regulations. Why? Why not come forward and amend the Dairy Act, not only in connection with margarine but in connection with all the amendments that are necessary? I think the proper thing to do is to bring an Amending Act to the Dairy. Act. I am quoting from the Friesland Journal of January, 1945—

It is not merely in connection with margarine that the Act should be amended, but generally. I appeal to the Minister that this thing should be done in a proper way and that the people who invest money in the industry should at least have some feeling of security, by having an Act of Parliament to cover the matter. That industry is making a big sacrifice and will have to spend £100,000 on plant, machinery and raw materials, surely they are entitled to protection. That is why I appeal to the Minister that in view of the fact that the total production will be limited, and control is there, the manufacture should be safeguarded.

Will the bazaars distribute it?

No one seems to know what margarine really is, and that other countries also had a certain amount of trouble, and therefore, with the permission of the House I want to quote from a paper called “Fortune”, an American journal on economics, published in November, where on page 134 the writer says the following—

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

Afternoon Sitting.

When business was suspended, I was quoting from an American journal entitled “Fortune”. The journal goes on to say—

The price of margarine in this country has been fixed by the manufacturers at 10d. per lb. So if margarine is to be distributed by the Social Welfare Department, and distributed at cost, we will at least be able to supply the fat that is required to the lower income groups who have never had margarine before. This document goes on to deal with the position in America, and it is so typical of the conditions in South Africa that I may perhaps be allowed to quote it—

Then it goes on to give the history in America to oppose the fight that was put up by the dairy farmers against the manufacture of margarine, dating back to 1880. But eventually margarine has found its place in the market of the world. In Denmark, one of the greatest dairy producing countries, the comsumption of margarine is 47 lbs. per capita as against 12 lbs. per capita in America. In 1943 the farmers in America got 3.20 dollars per 100 lbs. for milk sold for fluid use, 2.60 dollars for milk sold for manufacture and 1.75 dollars for milk sold as butter fat. What is the position in this country? Today the butter producer gets very much less in return for his milk than milk sold for fluid use. Taking the value of skimmed milk into consideration, the best which the producer can expect is 10d. per gallon for milk. The farmer who sells his fluid milk either to condensed milk companies or to cheese factories is geeting 1s. 0½d. per gallon.

11½d.

1s. 0½d. per gallon is the price that was given to me. But take the farmer who sells his fluid milk for consumption in urban or rural areas. He gets from 1s. 9d. to 2s. 3d. per gallon. Compare that with the position of the farmer who makes butter. Making butter is the most uneconomic way of distributing milk, and on account of the great shortage of milk both for manufacturing purposes in this country and for distribution among the people, it is very much better to encourage the farmer to send his milk either to the factory or to sell it in the urban areas.

What about his transport costs?

Well, his transport difficulties would be overcome. It is an easy matter. There are certain areas where the farmers are a long distance from the market. In such a case the man could continue to make butter.

But those are the main producing areas.

They are not the main producing areas. One of the main producing areas today is in Bechuanaland. I have been associated with that country for many years. They have cheese factories there and the farmers can do far better by sending their fluid milk to the factory to be turned into cheese. It is left to the farmer to decide where he is going to market his milk, and I predict that our butter production will diminish as times go on; it will not increase, because it pays the farmer better to sell his milk rather than to make butter. The manufacture of margarine will not hurt the dairy farmer and, in fact, will help him in many ways. It will not only help the dairy farmer, but it will help other farmers as well, because it opens up a new form of industry in this country. It opens up a new form of industry in the production of oil seed plants, such as ground nuts. Take avocado pears which we have in this country.

You should feed your cows on monkey nuts.

I am referring now to soya beans. Soya beans can be grown and ground nuts, and margarine manufactured from it. So a new era opens up; and do not forget one thing, that when you manufacture margarine you are producing a by-product, like oil cake, which the farmers need.

And you want to make the money.

So, as I am glad to see, the opposition to this scheme is not very serious and is really quite selfish, being that of interested parties, and it does not answer the present situation. This of course should not stop dairying. The people of the U.S.A. need more fresh milk and nutritionists say that for an adequate diet they should consume one-fifth more fresh milk. Is not that the position here? There is a shortage of fresh milk.

You want to kill dairying.

Hon. members agree that there is a shortage of milk. The committee was in the Knysna district, where the poorest of the poor live in the forests. We were told that they did not get milk. They never saw milk and did not know its taste. When we told one man that milk would be available he said that he had a six weeks old baby which is being fed on black coffee and that he was afraid that the child would not take the milk because it is used to black coffee. Then the hon. member who is a dairy farmer asks me whether there is a shortage of milk. Of course there is a shortage of milk. In Paarl and other places they had to curtail the supply of milk to schoolchildren because there is no milk So the farmers have a wonderful field for selling milk and the manufacturer of margarine has an equally good field to sell his product. The “Fortune” article continues like this—

That is what this country wants. Who is not interested in the dairy industry? It is one of our main industries. It is not a question of killing the industry but of using it more efficiently. The article continues to say—

That is what they think in America. They say that particularly in war-time fats should be left to be produced from oil seed. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat reveals the anxiety of commerce in regard to the organised farmers. The hon. member told us here that he had no faith in agriculture as a distributing factor. When we throw our minds back to the commissions the farmers had to pay for the sale of their products to agents and auctioneers, and when we think of the commissions that are now being paid, now that co-operative companies of farmers take action themselves to dispose of the products, we can see in what manner these commissions have been reduced. That is perhaps why the hon. member wishes a body such as the Dairy Control Board to be reduced to a body that has merely to do with production without having any say on the distribution of dairy products. I want to join the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) in saying how sorry I am that the Minister of Agriculture intervened in the debate at such an early stage, because it must have been obvious to him that very little had been said about agriculture from either side of the House before he rose to reply. It is the procedure in this House that the Minister usually waits until his department has been discussed at some considerable length before he replies to the debate. We hear so frequently that we on this side of the House make politics of everything, but nevertheless we find that the objections that we on this side have advanced against the meat scheme, and the warnings that we have given the Minister in connection with it, have later appeared to be well-founded. These were not political speeches that we gave here, but the Minister was warned over what later actually occurred. I want to speak more particularly today over the position of the farming community as it was and as it is at present. Our position is that we have not yet been accorded our rightful share of what is earned in the country today. We cannot put it better than as we find it on page 13 of the report of the committee on the Reconstruction of Agriculture, a committee that was comprised of seven experts of the Agricultural Department. Last year I asked the Minister of Agriculture to read this report and to re-read it, and then to carry out the principal recommendations. I told him that if he did that he would really be achieving something for farming, and in the direction of improving the position of the producers in our country. Let us see what appears now on page 13, paragraph 97, of this report. I hope that the Minister will give some attention to what I am saying.

I am listening to what you say.

On that page we find the following—

Assuredly he must have more security, not only because he is an average man, but because he so far has enjoyed practically no security. Over and above this he is entitled to security on account of his contribution to the security of the people as a whole. The country requires a fairly large percentage of people on the platteland. For the benefit of the community, to maintain the stabilising influence that flows from a strong platteland population. The farming community must also have a share of social security because in his rôle of primary producer the farmer must furnish an inestimable contribution to the means whereby general social security can be obtained. Farmers constitute a body of persons who are prepared to contribute honourably to national service as a whole, bearing in mind the obtaining of a reasonable existence for all, but in this respect their efforts are impeded. The safety of the farming community must accordingly be assured, because it is vitally important for the attainment of security for the people—there can be no social security for the people of South Africa unless all the farmers have a part in that security.

Those are strong words, to show how necessary it is that the farmers of the country should be retained on a sound foundation. But we find further in the report on page 8 paragraph 47—

Here in a few words the position that farming has assumed in South Africa is crystallised and it is stated that the farmers do not get their rightful share of their profits. About £500,000,000 is invested in farming. The farmers produce about £60½ millions worth of the country’s products. Of that amount some £16,000,000 goes towards cash payments on behalf of labour, interest, rent and such items. In other words, as this report clearly shows, the farmers get about 13 per cent. of the national income. In times of war prices rise. Just as the price of all necessities rise, so does the production costs of the farmer rise, and now we find on the other side that by an Act of the State the farmers are prevented from obtaining the price which they would have got if there was not control. If we compare the present position with the position that existed during the previous war we find that the price of farm produce during this war has not risen to anything like the same extent as they did during the previous war. During that war the price of wool rose to 4/-, 5/- and 6/- a lb. Hides rose to 27/-, wheat to £4 a bag. I am merely mentioning these few figures to show how high the prices rose in the last war when there was no control. In this war we find that the State has stepped in and has laid down maximum prices. Because the State did this it is also its duty, when the tide turns, to see to it that the farmer does no lose, that the farmer will have again to sell at depression prices. Because the State has now prevented the farmer from obtaining the highest prices that he could have got, the State must ensure that he is protected against depression prices after the war. Take a country like Canada; we find that legislation has already been introduced there under which stable prices are guaranteed to the farmers. If the prices of products fall lower than those stable prices the State will purchase those products. America has also adopted legislation to stabilise current prices for the farmers for two years after the war. In England a guarantee has also been given to the farmers that the present prices will continue to be paid until 1948 at least, even if the war were to end now. Now I want to ask, what has the present Minister of Agriculture, or what has the present Government done with a view to our farmers not being put to a loss immediately after the war? What has the Minister of Agriculture done to prevent abnormally low prices recurring immediately after the war is over? I want to make an earnest appeal to the Government to introduce legislation during the present Session that will protect the farmers against post-war depression prices. But I want today to confine myself to the long-term meat scheme When I speak about this, I want to do so in a constructive manner. I want to offer some objections against certain sections of the scheme, and I shall do so with the object of effecting an improvement in the relevant sections, and I am convinced that the advice that I shall give to the Minister will more or less reflect the position of organised agriculture in the country. I am fully conversant with the position of agriculture, because I am a member of an agricultural organisation, and I am acquainted with their opinion on various agricultural problems. In the Government Gazette of the 17th November the Minister of Agriculture proclaimed this long-term scheme and that was the time for the lodgment of objections. Now we have heard here that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) asked the Minister not to be hasty in putting this scheme into effect. How long have the farmers already been waiting for this scheme? Even long before the war the farmers agitated that there should be a permanent scheme, so that they would get for their products a stable market and also stable prices. An official was sent to Australia. Just before the outbreak of the war a delegation was sent from the Meat Board to Australia. From time to time they drew up schemes which were thrown into the wastepaper basket. Now the Meat Board has come with a scheme, and the Minister has published the scheme with the object of inviting objections, and in order to see whether the scheme would be acceptable. My first objection is that the organisation is unnecessarily large. Under this scheme the Meat Board will consist of 17 members; that is altogether too many. A maximum number of 15 members would be more than ample to do good work in connection with the scheme. It was decided that four of the members should be appointed by the various meat co-operatives. We have no fault to find with that. Then there will be four of them who will be nominated by non-members of co-operatives, but men who are members of organisations of meat producers. I fear that this is a premium that the Minister is presenting to people who fight the organisations. He appoints people to this Meat Board who are not members of co-operatives, and who are not organised.

It is the thin end of the wedge.

These are people who will help to wreck the object of the scheme. Furthermore, it is laid down in the scheme that one member will be appointed in respect of each province, and that he will be nominated by an association or associations representing cattle farmers and sheep farmers, and who are not members of co-operatives. Why has it been provided that he should not be a member of the co-operatives? I want to suggest that the Minister should depart from this procedure, and that he should state that the members will be elected by the various agricultural unions. Then we have the organised farmers who can choose, and they can make a nomination. We have no objection to the representative of the department, nor have we any objection to the three representatives of the consumers. We believe that it is only in the interests of the Industry if the producers and the consumers meet jointly in such a board so that they can get closer together. But our objection is to the representative of commerce. We simply cannot understand why commerce should be represented on such a body. We also object to the representative of the auctioneers. The whole thing envisages a new marketing system for stock which will automatically eliminate the auctioneers, and why then should they be represented on the Meat Control Board? Accordingly, we ask the Minister to take into serious consideration the reviewing of the composition of the board, so that the producers will have a definite majority, and not a minority of one. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) would never dream of allowing a farmer to serve on the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Mines would never permit a farmer or anyone else to sit on the Chamber of Mines. I think that the time has arrived when the farmers are able to come to judgments themselves about their own business, and that they can conduct their own business as producers, and consequently they should have a majority on such a control board. But my biggest objection against certain of the provisions relates to the powers that the Minister assumes under this scheme. This control board that has been appointed can virtually not draw breath without the consent of the Minister. Look at Section 12. It reads—

Section 15 (a) also has a reference to “the approval of the Minister” and (b) “with the approval of the Minister,” (c) “with the approval of the Minister,” (k) with the approval of the Minister.” So it goes on from A. to Z. This board is absolutely in the hands of the Minister. If one has a Minister who has little sympathy with agriculture, then we can understand that he will thwart the scheme as much as possible. But to return for a moment to the composition of the board. The Minister should not have the right to appoint the members of the board. If the various organisations have selected their representatives then the Minister should not have the right to say that he will not have any. I say this, because these boards of control are becoming more and more the resort of the political agents of the Minister and the Government. When it comes to an appointment regard is had more and more to the political opinion of these people, and that is responsible for my suggestion. Then I want to ask the Minister in heaven’s name not to appoint people who are dependent on the salaries paid to them by the Government, which they receive as members of such boards. We have people who serve on a number of these bodies, and the only means of existence that they have is the salaries that they get there. We want to ask the Minister not to appoint such people on the boards. When an organisation nominates a man he should be approved. It is only when an organisation omits to appoint someone that the Minister may act. I say that our objection is that the Minister has all the authority under the scheme, and we find nevertheless that the Minister comes here and he shelters under such boards. Let me cite an example. The Mealie Control Boards suggest a price, and the Minister does not accept it. The Wheat Control Board suggests a price and the Minister does not accept it. So we pass from one board to the other and mention the price suggested by the organisation and what the Minister adopts, because these are people representing the producers who make the suggestion which is thrown overboard by the Minister. He does not fix these prices. Accordingly, I maintain that the Minister should not be granted these large powers which he will be vested with under the scheme. When it comes to accounting for the money that will be used, we realise that the Minister must give account to Parliament, and we can realise that there he must have the power in order to maintain supervision. I want to ask the Minister to take these few points into serious consideration. I know what attitude is taken up by agriculture. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has stated that the Minister should not be hasty with the scheme. I want to tell the Minister that the farming community is anxious to have such a permanent scheme which will not fall under the war measures of the Government. We want a permanent scheme to be nut into effect, such as our own people have suggested. In connection with the prices that have been determined, I want to bring to the attention of the Minister what a commission of his own department stated in connection with the Marketing Act. You find this on page 31, paragraph 170—

Today the Marketing Act is being used not to give the farmer a say in the fixation of prices of products, but it is merely used by the Government as a war measure, to give the farmer what the Government is prepared to grant, and not exactly what the farmer wants. I want to ask the Minister, although this scheme does not make provision for it, that the Government should take steps to take the abattoirs out of the control of the municipalities and to place them under the control of the Central Government. On page 33, in paragraph 179, the same committee of the Agricultural Department states the following—

We know that an alteration of the South Africa Act will be necessary, nevertheless the report is that the abattoirs and the meat market should be taken out of the hands of the provinces and placed under the Central Government. In connection with the Marketing Act we find that there is a provision that the producers of a specified product can be compelled to deliver their product through the one channel, provided 75 per cent. of the members who also produce 75 per cent. of the product, ask for that. I want to ask the Minister to modify this to an ordinary majority. We shall never have organised marketing in South Africa of a specified product, until the producers have full control Take the tobacco industry; take the wine industry, where the people have the entire say in connection with their product. They themselves control the marketing, not the Government. The prices are fixed by the representatives of the producers, and things are going well in those industries. The other day the Minister did an injustice to the hon. member for Alberts Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) when he said that the hon. member did not take into account the 2½ per cent. commission that the farmer would have to deduct if he sent his stock to market. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg did not make a comparison between the fixed prices of the Government and the prices at the abattoirs. He spoke about prices for stock that were sent to the Food Controller. In that case he does not pay abattoir fees, only railway freight and not commission. The Minister did the hon. member an injustice.

Yes, but he does not know about these things.

We are talking a lot here about the fixed prices, and the farmers are bitterly dissatisfied over the prices having been placed so low, with the result that neither the farmers nor the consumers derive any benefit from the scheme. What has happened in connection with that? I make bold to say that the Imperial Cold Storage suggested the prices that the Minister fixed. They are behind the control, and the fixing of the prices. I go further and I allege that the Minister fixed the higher prices for the platteland after the chairman of the Imperial Cold Storage had visited him. I want to ask the Minister to deny that when chilled meat came down from South West Africa the Imperial Cold Storage refused to accept the price that the Food Controller wanted them to accept, and that they threatened to make sausages out of the meat unless their prices were agreed to. I also want to ask the Minister to give us a list of the officials of the Food Controller’s Department, and to inform us how many of these officials are or were connected with the Imperial Cold Storage. The majority of these people were officials of the Imperial Cold Storage. Even the Deputy-Food Controller was previously an official of the Imperial Cold Storage. We can see how events are shaping. The Government is in the hands of the Imperial Cold Storage, and consequently we can understand how the Industrial Development Corporation has gone so far as to give £96,000 to the Imperial Cold Storage for an extention of its business.

The Government has no fewer than four directors on the Industrial Development Corporation. The Government is thus responsible for how the money of the Corporation is being expended. We know that the purpose of that money was the institution of new industries, but here we find that a company that is rich and was already in existence is being helped to expand. I now want to put two requests to the Minister. The first is that he should increase the price of meat, especially in the present critical period which the farming population are experiencing as a result of the drought. They cannot obtain fodder and things are becoming difficult. I want to ask them specially to increase the prices of grades 2 and 3, and to make them more closely approximate each other. Today every farmer knows that we cannot put fat sheep on the market. When a sheep is fat it weighs possibly 40 or 45 lbs., but if the same sheep is in a moderate condition then it weighs only 30 lbs. The farmers lose a good bit on the price, and they also lose on the weight. They lose not only in grade but also in weight, and it makes a big difference to the farmer who has to send such sheep to market. The consumer still pays the same price. We know that the Minister’s inspectors who instituted an enquiry found that the butchers noted in the books “5s. for meat” without giving the grade or the weight. There was a delegation from the Southern Free State which met both groups of members of Parliament who are concerned in farming. I may say that all these people are people who share the political opinion of the Minister, and they pleaded for precisely the same thing as that which I am advocating, namely, that the grades must be brought nearer each other and that the price should be increased. But the Minister is in possession of a letter from the Central Meat Corporation which was sent to him on the 9th February. It represents 30 branches, and it has a membership of some 60,000. During the year 1943-’44 they marketed small stock amounting to round about half-a-million. The number of cattle that was marketed by them during the year was 8,800. The return in respect of the small stock and the large stock was in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000. The Meat Corporation consequently speak with authority, and heed should be given to what they say. In November of last year when we had such a shortage, they marketed on the controlled markets no fewer than 65,000 small stock. Thus if you receive a letter from the chairman of such an organisation you can take some notice of it, for it is a powerful organisation that is speaking. They refer here to a resolution that was taken at a conference at De Aar by the “Central Meat”, the Cape Eastern and Northern Cape Stock Owners Association, F.C.U., the B.S.B. and others. They took a resolution on the 14th December and forwarded it to the Minister. What did they ask? They said that they were worried about the shortage in the supplies on account of the drought and conditions on the controlled market, and because most of the stock consisted of low grade meat, the Minister was respectfully asked to increase appreciably the price for the grades until such time as the supplies had improved. They refer there to the first to the fourth grade as far as concerns cattle and to the first and second grades in regard to sheep. Already at that date this great organisation that speaks on behalf of the farmers asked the Minister to grant improved prices in view of the drought conditions. Now months later the prices have not yet been increased. What is the position today? I want to give the figures for the week ended 3rd February, 1945, that is to say the week before last. At Maitland the number sheep slaughtered was: Super 126, prime 761, first grade 2,346, second grade 972. Out of a total of 4,200 there were only 900 prime. In regard to the lambs, the position in regard to slaughtering was: Super 213, prime 698, first grade 2,473. The number of cattle slaughted was: Prime 10, first grade 104, second grade 279, third grade 238, fourth grade 28. Out of a total of 659 there were only 114 first grade. The farmers have the right to ask the Minister to meet them in regard to the average class of meat, and to ask that for the lower grades a better price should be paid. It will not be necessary for the consumers to pay a higher price. We only ask the Minister to see to it that the black market is no longer allowed to flourish in the towns. Last year when the Minister announced his scheme he said that the consumers would benefit because the black market would be broken up. Never has a black market flourished to the extent it has done in the past year. There are members sitting here who say that they pay any price for meat, and they do not complain, because otherwise they would not get a bit of meat. No one complains, and the black market flourishes under the nose of the Minister and his officials. They know it flourishes but no action is taken, nor are steps taken against the people in the black market.

Before I pass on to other matters, may I refer briefly to the remarks made by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition in reference to native soldiers and people and Communism. There is no evidence to show that Communism has had any real effect on the native people of this country or that they have had any special reaction towards it. There is much that is communal in native life, but I know of no section of our people that are less likely to embrace the tenets of Communism than the native people. The hon. member has misinterpreted the cries he has heard from them. The cries that the hon. member hears are the cries of a people in travail; a people who have no constitutional means of improving their economic lot; a people whose services to South Africa both in peace and in this and past wars entitle them to be heard and who, in my submission will be heard. It is easy to lash these people with economic whips, until they cry, and then to beat them physically because they cry, and to interpret their reaction as agitation and Communism. That may be a very potent way of inflaming European public opinion, but to my way of thinking it is neither intelligent nor statesmanlike. I sincerely hope that the habit of attributing every reaction of the native people to their economic condition as Communism has run its course, and that we shall not hear of it any more for a very long time to come. I do not think that people in the Peninsula realiset what a strong connection there is between the influx of the native people into this and other industrial areas and the state of economic life in the resrves. But there is a very strong connection indeed, and it is regarding such conditions in the reserves that I wish to speak. I should like to refer briefly to the proposed rehabilitation scheme for the Transkeian territorities and other native reserves. I have been wrongly described as an opponent of rehabilitation. Such a charge has no foundation at all. I am as anxious as the Government to preserve the Transkeian and other native territories, but I am not prepared to co-operate in a scheme which fails to recognise and legislate for the fundamental cause of land deterioration whilst insisting, as a first step, in depleting the herds of the African people. It is almost ironical to describe the Transkei as a rural area. You have nearly one and a half million people, only half a million less than the entire European population of the Union. The density of the population in the Transkei is between 80 and 90 to the square mile as against between three and five per square mile in the rest of rural South Africa. So the first question we have to ask ourselves is not whether the country is overstocked, but whether it is overstocked in the sense that the inhabitants have more stock than their reasonable minimum needs. If you examine the figures I think you will find that this is not the case. An examination of the figures shows that large and small stock expressed in terms of cattle give an average of ten head per family. Is that number too much for the needs of a people who, in order to live, must have oxen to plough with and cows to provide milk, with in addition, a small surplus as savings against times of special stress? It must be recognised that the native people practice and will continue to practice for many years to come, a cattle economy which affords the most satisfactory investment for their small cash resources. I would warn the Government against any hasty and ill-timed interference lest we add to an overpopulated land a destitute people and destroy their last vestige of decency and self-respect. It is obvious that the original cause of the trouble and the crux of the position is not so much overstocking as an over-population which cannot be cured by a scheme which seeks to limit stock while overlooking the real fundamental cause of the deterioration. Agriculturally, the position in the Transkei is equally disturbing, because certain overriding factors are ignored. It must be remembered that the individual family land grant is more or less five morgen in extent, cultivated under seasonal conditions without irrigation and without rest. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Is it possible to provide enough food for a family from so small a plot under such conditions without irrigation and without resting the land? The answer is emphatically no, for not only are the agricultural conditions against it, but it is a fact officially admitted that it was never intended to do so, but was and still is regarded as a form of subsidisation of workers engaged in mining and other industries. The establishment of a native peasantry producing enough for themselves and contributing to the general South African larder has never been the policy of any government. Rather has it been the policy to create a labour pool from which the people are forced, through want, to migrate to some distant industrial occupation. Apart from this, the impact of our agricultural policy in the Transkei has shown itself to be ill-conceived, half-hearted, and over a period of 40 years quite ineffective. It is an amazing commentary that the maize crop of the Transkeian Territories today is unable to supply the people with more than a bag and a half per head of population per annum. That seems to be an amazing figure after 40 years of agricultural instruction. I want to know what has happened to the policy of development of this country, what has happened to the water supply schemes? What has happened to the irrigation schemes that we were told would be brought into being? I know of no irrigation scheme that is at present being worked in the Transkeian Territories. I want to know the reason why It has been said that the natives have no experience as irrigationists, and that they really destroy the land. There are however, instances of irrigation by natives in this country, notably at the Olifants River, where successful irrigation schemes are in progress. I should like to know why no such development has taken place in the Transkei. The Transkei is literally a South African Tennessee Valley, a beautiful country with perennial streams, the waters of which have never been used for irrigation or power but in times of floods rush headlong to the sea, eroding the out-trodden land and carrying with it the soil. That is the use we are making of this South African Tennessee Valley. Is it too much to hope that development under the Act will be stimulated and that some efforts will be made to assist this country? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the success of any rehabilitation scheme requires new blood, new methods, real leadership, and above all, imagination. All of these I regret to say, have, in my opinion, been signally lacking. What is required? First and foremost the density of the population must be lessened and the land must be turned to fuller use. We must be prepared to face a more equitable division of the land as between European and African. The present basis of distribution is 13 per cent. and 87 per cent. I think that these figures indicate that there is a margin for a more equitable distribution to enable us to disperse the native population over a wider area. We have the land, but it 1s being wastefully used. Under present conditions kraal sites, arable land and grazing land have been selected in a haphazard fashion, and under the most wasteful methods I have ever experienced. As a prelude to any rehabilitation it will be necessary to undertake a complete survey of the area on the basis of closer settlement and a scientific selection of arable land and grazing ground, so as to get the best results. That must, of course, be accompanied by adequate fencing. Irrigation must be taught, especially for the production of vegetables, and plots intended solely for that purpose should be made available under suitable conditions. It is no use to say that native people cannot irrigate; they must be taught to irrigate. I am told that in some parts of the Transvaal natives with no more than three acres of irrigated land under cultivation win from the soil as much as others do with ten or fifteen acres under cultivation. What can be done in the Transvaal could surely be done in the well-watered valleys of the Transkei. Unless we have irrigation to make these five morgen plots more productive, it will be absolutely essential to have larger plots. We must have lands of sufficient size to enable a peasant family to live on its own productivity. That is one side of the picture. It is only under those conditions that the limitation of stock will be justified The alternative method of the relieving of congestion is in line with our proposed industrial development. It is clearly necessary that in order to carry this out we have to use the services of our native people in skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled occupations. The essential requirement of that development is a settled labour force—as distinct from the peasantry—as part of an urban native working population permanently engaged in industry and living under decent family conditions in reasonable proximity to the industry in which they are engaged. This part of our native people would quickly lose their rural identity and thus relieve the pressure on the reserves to some extent. Such a change would require a bold reversal of existing restrictive laws and the provision of adequate land and housing for the urbanised native population, of which I regret to say there is no present indication. The wage basis of this urban population and their general condition of life must be such as to make them content to live permanently under urban conditions. The success of this rural migration will depend on two things, the satisfaction of the native people living in the urban areas, and the stability of those living in the rural areas, for the danger is this, that the urban areas may be flooded out by people who cannot live in the rural areas, and who are seeking to augment their earnings in the urban areas. The peasantry will in these conditions flock to the towns to augment their agricultural income. I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, there are many people who will agree with what I say It is my own opinion; I express it; and some, at any rate, will listen and see there is something in what I am advocating. In the case of others it would mean they would have to change their whole outlook. I want to emphasise that there are men in this House who, if they are given a lead in the direction in which we on these benches have often asked them to proceed—it has nothing to do with social life, but a general commonsense outlook on the welfare and future of this country—if they were given such a lead by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, they would do their utmost according to their ability to assist their country in time of peace as they have done in time of war. Is it too much to hope that our people who have devoted themselves so courageously in war to the cause of their country will turn in all seriousness and without prejudice to the solution of so important a national problem? I believe that if the right lead is given real support will be forthcoming from some of our younger politicians.

I do not want to lay myself open to a charge of repetition, but I think that I would be unfaithful to my own convictions and unfaithful to the interests of a certain section of my constituents, and also disloyal to the Minister of Lands unless I directed attention to one aspect or another which perhaps has not been emphasised here in connection with the new policy of the Department of Lands in respect of temporary lessees of land. We know that the new policy represents the replacement of the temporary lease-agreements by a more permanent system. But when one deals with this matter, it is in my opinion necessary to point out that these temporary lessees fall into two separate definite groups. The one group is comprised of the temporary lessees who obtained the lands on lease before the out break of war. These people were placed on the land with a certain object. It is not necessary for me here to repeat what that object was, but one thing is certain, namely, that the majority of these people were from the less-privileged class, and that they were placed on the land under this policy, in this way actually escaping poor-whiteism. The majority of the lessees, or at any rate a large number of them, succeeded by their labour and devotion not only in getting on to their feet, but in remaining on their feet and making progress, and some of them even before the outbreak of the war had endeavoured in vain to purchase the land from the State, and thus to become the owners of it. Furthermore, I want to point out that so far as is known to me, it was never the intention of the State to shift those people from the land, in any case not those who had done their duty and who had carried out the terms of their temporary leases. It is for that reason, in my opinion, that you find on some of these farms persons who have been farming there for from 14 to 20 years. On that account it is clear without going further into this aspect of the matter, that the present policy that has been taken or that is being followed, may lead to a large number of these temporary lessees, or some of them, reverting to the condition in which they found themselves before the State years ago assisted them to land on a temporary basis. At the moment land is expensive and scarce, and although the State, and this is a thing we appreciate, took steps to make the terms easier for the acquisition of the land by these people, we must not forget that this land will be sold at present under uneconomic conditions, and that the persons concerned may perhaps as a result of this policy, be compelled to buy land only to find themselves in difficulties later on. Then perhaps many years after the war they will have to approach the State again for assistance. As a result of the hire purchase price of land they will perhaps again fail. In our zeal to introduce the new policy, or to allot the land on a permanent basis now, or to have this land prepared for post-war settlement, we must be cautious, so that we do not make a mistake, especially in regard to the placing of returned soldiers. No one will stand by the Minister more firmly or longer than I shall in his attempt to place returned soldiers on the land, and we know that the Minister’s heart beats warmly for these people, that he will give land to these people, and that they will get land, but if we carry out the policy we must beware that we do not carry it out in such a way that while solving one problem we create another and even a larger problem. We shall not solve this land question or settlement question if we solve one problem and create another by the placing of these people, and as far as concerns the first group that I am referring to we find that amongst them there are also soldiers who are at present up North, or are doing military service. It appears to me that unless we embark on another policy in connection with them, their families will be landed in difficulties. What about the widow and the children of a person who has been killed, who has died on the battlefield? Those are questions which we must ask ourselves in the carrying out of our policy But without going into this question more deeply, let us take the second group, namely those persons to whom land was allotted during the war. This is the temporary lessee who knew that he was on a temporary basis. The people who received land as lessees from 1939 to the present date knew that the temporary lease of land would end immediately after the war. We have not much sympathy with these people, because they knew very well that they were placed on the land on a temporary basis. But here again we are confronted with the difficulty in regard to the soldiers who as a result of an honourable agreement, or a promise that was made to the Sixth Division that no ground would be allotted before the soldiers returned—the soldiers who as a result of wounds they have sustained or physical disability have returned. No land can be allotted to them and they must merely roam round the country and wait until all the soldiers return. It appears to me that we should also make an alteration there, to be able to look after these people. So far as I am aware, there is no other department that gave the promise to wait until the soldiers returned before they permanently placed the returned soldier. But I am convinced that the Minister of Lands is very sympathetic, that he is a man who will not permit that his department will introduce any policy that is to the detriment of the community or a certain class of the community, or especially to the detriment of the returned soldiers. We criticise the Minister and moreover our friends on the opposite benches criticise the Minister as though all those who fall under this policy should be treated on an equal footing. In our zeal to put our case, and frequently also to make political profit out of it we are silent about certain aspects of the matter, or because we have not made an investigation we criticise the Government strongly in this House without being able to review the circumstances of each individual. The Government is sometimes strongly criticised in this House, and we have seen there has even been a refusal to accept the Minister’s word when he explained what the position was in regard to temporary lessees and temporary leases. I think it is fitting that we should go into the circumstances of every case before we criticise strongly. It happens not only in this House but also outside this House that an erroneous impression is created in connection with this matter. I have before me “Die Vaderland”, I think of the 11th January, and there we find in large bold type—

You will forgive me when I say that I went fairly thoroughly into this matter. I am doing this because It is only just towards the Government and its policy that this matter should be presented in its true colours. I consequently wish to read out what “Die Vaderland” says about the cases referred to in this article—

That sounds very tragic to us, that there could be any conduct on the part of the State that should occasion such a state of affairs. Let us go into this case carefully, and see what the real position is, and whether these are facts that are contained in this article in connection with father and son. In saying what I have to say here, I do not pretend that everyone can be treated in the same way, or placed in the category that this father and son are placed in. But it is peculiar that this article appeared in “Die Vaderland”, and that it was put in such a way as to create a false impression. The facts that I want to give now are facts that were furnished to me through the office of the Department of Lands in Pietermaritzburg, that is to say, through the provincial representative at Pietermaritzburg of the Department of Lands. It refers to the cases of T. J. Botha, the father, and L. G. Botha, the son. We come first to the case of T. J. Botha, and regarding him the Department gives the following information—

So he got about 2,000 morgen at £1 a month.

On a monthly lease agreement.

Yes, I shall quote the facts further—

Then we come to the case of L. G. Botha, the son—

What emerges from this affair? That several misleading statements appeared in the newspaper report concerning these two Bothas; and that this misleading statement was presented to the public, as a result of which the whole truth was not disclosed to the public, and whether it was intentional or not the public were brought under the false impression regarding the Minister’s activities and intentions. Through, for instance, using the word “settler” instead of “temporary lessee” a false impression was created. It was stated that the son’s contract has already run for ten years, but it appears from the official statement that the land was allotted to him in March, 1941. Therein it was recorded that there were only 100 cattle on the farm, but we know that when the agreement was terminated there were 250 cattle. I think it is clear to us from what I have read out, that there are temporary lessees who as the Minister has told us, allow the land to be overgrazed and trampled out, and this can lead to the erosion and washing away of the soil, and that consequently they had good reason to go into the matter and to say what has been said here. Furthermore, it is clear to us, and we welcome it, that the Minister has stated that it is his intention to alter the basis of temporary leases. That is a sound intention on the part of the Minister. It is not sound for any department to have a lease system in the country. It is an unhealthy state of affairs, because the particular farmer never becomes the owner of the land, and he can any time again become landless. His agreement can be terminated. He is never boss or owner of the land. It is also an expensive system, because the department must always retain officials to see that the lessees comply with the requirements of the lease agreement. Therefore, as far as this is concerned, we have absolutely nothing against the Minister’s policy. As a matter of fact, we welcome it, but all that we ask—to be constructive and because it can be expected from us to make some suggestion—is that the Minister should take a few hints into consideration. I should like to submit for the Minister’s consideration before I resume my seat, in the first place that in respect of those persons who lived on those lands before the war and who fulfilled their obligations, who strictly complied with their agreements, who work themselves and improve their lands, that they should be given a chance to buy those lands.

That is against the law; I cannot do that.

We did warn you.

The hon. Minister of Lands will know what the position is. I suggest this with all deference, for what it is worth. In the second place, I would like to recommend that those who had not yet had an opportunity to get land, the soldiers who have returned from the North and who have not had a chance to obtain land where they can go, that those people should be permitted to remain on the land until such time that a farm can be allotted to them. I ask that, with all deference. In the third place, if in consequence of the first suggestion I have made, we find that there is a certain number of the better class of people who cannot get these lands, and in case there is not enough land, we ask that more land should be purchased. I know that my friends on the opposite benches will not agree with me here, but let us make the purchase of that land a part of the war effort.

Why cannot that be made to apply to all?

It is not for a man who has not done his duty. He has always been a plague and a nuisance, and we cannot assist him. What engenders big hopes in us is that the Minister has not stated here openly that he is not prepared to treat every case on its merits. The Minister is a responsible person; he is an intelligent person; he is a person who takes every aspect into consideration. He is also a kindhearted man. He will help if he possibly can help. If we are convinced that the Minister will find it possible to treat every case on its merits, we shall be satisfied knowing that a good turn is being done for these people.

We have heard a great deal of criticism, especially from the other side, but also from our own side, with regard to the Government’s administration, and I would like to deal with several of these points this afternoon, because sitting here as a back-bencher and listening to a great deal of what is said, I have formed certain views with which I think many of my colleagues will agree, namely that although the Government may be criticised on many points, in many other cases they have done a thoroughly good job of work. One sees that particularly in the Public Service. There one sees how far-reaching the Government’s policy has been. It is a great pleasure to me to find what an efficient body of civil servants there are to give effect to the Government’s policy. One point was referred to by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). He referred to something which occurred in the War Measures Accounts. There was an account there to which he took exception, where something like £194,831 was overpaid. Now, at first sight, that appears to be a terrible affair, and it certainly seems as if there was gross incompetence, but when one goes into that account one finds it is not anything like as bad as it appeared in the first instance. To begin with, the war expenditure up to that period, must have been quite £500,000,000. The actual loss on that account amounted to something like 10d. or less per £100. Now, I ask any businessman in this House whether he would consider a loss of 10d. in £100 to be anything to speak about. Then there is the difficulty of administration. You can imagine that when the war started men were given commissions to raise regiments. The men had to be recruited in a great hurry. I know that I have experienced it myself years ago, where you are suddenly called upon to raise a number of men. You have nobody but yourself to depend on and have to start from scratch. The very first thing a man thinks about in those circumstances is the training of these men. Then there is the acquisition of arms and the finding of uniforms and the provision of food. The pay comes last of all. You do not think very much about it because you are thinking of getting the men ready to fight. When you come to the pay you generally go to your men who have already enlisted and you find some who say that they have had accountancy experience, and you make do with them. In this war the pay system was most peculiar and extraordinary. In all the armies, as far as I can see, of the Allies, pay was a complicated matter. You did not pay a man so much a day; You made him an allowance for himself, for his wife, for his children, and a special allowance for men who qualified themselves in some particular line. All these different allowances have to be worked out There was also a system where once upon a time you had the last pay-certificate. Now the soldier is given a book. If a man needs money, through for example having become ill, he looks into the book and he can draw money by reference to the last payment he received. His wife, in the meantime, may have been drawing money for the children, and sometimes the unfortunate lady has lost a child but still goes on drawing money for the child, and the matter now becomes most complicated. Now, can you wonder at men who have never had to do anything of that kind before, making a great many mistakes? That is what happened in this particular case. In these War Measures Accounts we find that at one time there were many thousands of accounts which had not been supervised, and they had to make these accounts up again and to co ordinate them. There were close upon 100,000 of these accounts. The very efficient staff employed in the pay department today has brought down the number of these accounts gradually, until today they have all been worked off. That is a very great accomplishment, and what remains over is this amount of £194,000 odd. Now, if you divide the number of people who have received these extra amounts into the total amount it comes to something like £11 each, and the £11 has very often been paid to extremely poor people. It would take an army of clerks, even now, to be able to trace up these amounts and to extract it from these unfortunate people. Can any of us who have hearts at all commend a system whereby you have to press a wounded soldier and suchlike persons to extract these few pounds, because it only means a few pounds a head. Last year an attempt was made to recover these amounts, and they employed something like 350 clerks, and these 350 clerks in a period of one year succeeded in recovering only £6,000, at a cost to the State of £150,000. Can we continue a system like that? It is not desirable under the circumstances too, to deprive the accounts department of the State of the services of a lot of competent men who might safely now be released to rejoin their ordinary civil service duties, which they were engaged to do in the first instance. Then there is another point, and I may tell you that in our accounts department today, instead of having 300 auditors, we only have 100. The result is that many of our ordinary, normal peace-time accounts are far behind, and in every way it is most desirable that men should, be released to attend to these accounts. I am quite sure that I have made out a case to show that there was no mala fides in the disappearance of that sum of money and no idea of impoverishing the Government, or of doing anything to the detriment of the State. On the contrary, everything was done, on the whole, to further good administration. I think they deserve our hearty congratulations for what they have done. Then another thing about which we hear a great deal is the question of meat. There is such a great deal of talk about meat today that one almost feels inclined to become a vegetarian, and when one listens to these different debates, one cannot help coming to the conclusion that whatever might be said about the bad arrangements of supervisors, controllers, and so on, the real basic fact is that there is not enough meat to go round. Furthermore we find that a great many people who, before the war, were not able to pay for meat and other luxuries of that kind, because their earnings were too small, are now able to acquire more of the good things of life, and they have all come into the market, and it has therefore made the market more impoverished. That is particularly the case in connection with sugar. Last year we had a bigger sugar crop than ever before, and yet we find a sugar shortage mainly because there are so many more people who are able to afford it That makes one think what the case will be if we have social security and if we raise the pay of the poor people and we put them on a basis which will enable them to acquire the good things of life. It will be a good thing for the country because it will make for better health and better production powers, but there is no doubt that we will have to alter our farming system to a certain extent ….

You ought to say something about bricks.

…. because we will have to go in far more for mutton which is, of course, a sound thing too in a way, because there will not be sufficient meat to supply the whole country. We will not be able to cope with the demand, so we will have to alter our farming system to a certain extent. We will have to provide for a very large number of soldiers when the war is over. We have great schemes of irrigation under way It will enable many of those soldiers to turn to farming and to produce articles which at present it will not pay them to produce. So in a way it is a God-send. The other point that I wanted to raise was in regard to a question which we have heard discussed here a great deal, i.e. the war and the position in Europe. It amuses me very much to hear hon. members opposite talking about European countries acting as aggressors. When you think what happened in South Africa, it amuses me very much indeed because is there any man in this House—there may be one or two cranks but I hardly think there are—who would say that South-West Africa, for example, should not belong to the Union. Would any of the members of this House refuse to take Basutoland or any of the other territories into the Union, having asked for those territories for years and years—in spite of what the natives may feel? We are acquisitive enough to take those territories. But when some unfortunate country in Europe which many of us know little or nothing about, seeks to extend its borders in order to protect herself, we are up in arms. Some time ago I saw a very good idea in one of our big schools of the way in which geography was taught. Instead of making the maps in the ordinary flat way, they had the maps made in plaster of paris with all the contours and all the physical features showing. You can see where there is a river, where there is a marsh or a hill, and when you study that it is very interesting because it very often shows you why countries in Europe, when they were apparently aggressive, merely wanted their boundareis to be extended for defence purposes. In seeking to extend their boundaries, they were very often governed by geographical consideration. They were not aggressive merely because they wanted to acquire more territory; their only reason was to strengthen their defensive position; naturally every country has to think of defence, and they think of those boundaries more with the idea of defence, and rather than calling these people names, I think it is a matter for congratulation, because if they get their boundaries adjusted in such a way that they will be defensive boundaries, it makes for fewer wars instead of more wars. Then I should like to say something about the remarks made by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson). Time and again he has brought up the matter of the poor man’s lawyer. I think he should be recommended for what he has said, because there is no doubt that many a poor man is defrauded out of his opportunities in all sorts of ways. Some years ago when I was in the Town Council, I remember a case that was particularly hard, the case of an unfortunate woman. The story was this She was a woman who worked for a living. She had an invalid father who owned a house which was bonded. One morning when it was rather dark she walked against a wire which the municipality had put up. She tripped over the wire and was injured. She had to go to hospital. She was in hospital for some time and her hospital and doctor’s fees amounted to a good bit. I think the account ran into three figures. When the lady was well enough she sued the municipality for damages and she lost.

Was that in Germany?

No, it was here in Cape Town. She took the case to a higher court and she won. The municipality then took it to a still higher court and judgment was granted against the lady with costs. There was still the Appeal Court to which she might have appealed, but unfortunately her money was gone and she could not appeal. She had to pay the costs. Just about that time her father died. The house was sold and after the whole amount of the bond had been paid off, the balance of the money was taken to pay the costs of this action. That is a case in point. If we had some method whereby these people could sue, not in forma pauperis, but at all events if there were some legal machinery whereby the poor people could obtain redress of their grievances on a cheaper scale, it would certainly be a God-send to many of them.

Who are you addressing?

I should like to ask the Minister—I suppose he will turn a deaf ear to my request—whether something cannot be done with regard to the war insurance fees which were paid in. I notice that at present the fund amounts to very nearly one and a half million pounds—it is £1,400,000 odd—and the amount we have paid out is about £100,000. I do not know whether this total amount includes any money which the Government has put in, but I assume that that money was collected entirely from people who paid their insurance. Those people who paid their insurance were usually very loyal to the Government; they wished to support the Government in every way. The ordinary person who takes out an insurance policy for £1,000, would have got £1,000 if his house had been burnt down, whereas these people were not even certain of getting the full amount. I presume the £100,000 would also have come out of the War Damage Account, and I want to appeal to the Minister to return these fees to the people. I know the Act says that that money is to be paid into the Government funds, and go against war costs. But at the same time it seems very hard that the money should be seized by the State.

Seized!

Well, kept by the State. I should like to see an ex gratia payment made to these people. Refund the money to them which they paid in and which was not employed by the Government. I do not care how the Government does it as long as it pays it. Then I notice that there is a small fund which is held by the Public Debt Commissioners, an amount of something like £10,000 in connection with the Porter bequest. I am interested in that because the late Mr. William Porter was a friend of my grandfather’s. Mr. Porter was Attorney-General for many years and he left the bulk of his fortune to acquire a farm, Valkenberg where the mental hospital is now situated at Observatory. Some years after Mr. Porter’s death, this place was taken over as a mental asylum, and the reformatory boys were removed to Tokai. They were kept apart from the convicts, but still they were kept there, and a sum of money which was supposed to be the price of Valkenberg was set aside. That does not seem to meet the idea which the benefactor had, namely to assist those individual boys, and I wonder whether something could not be done to bring that scheme back to the idea Mr. Porter originally had in mind. I would suggest that that money might be used as bursaries to particularly clever boys who, while they went through the reformatory, are not so bad that they cannot be reformed, and they may then be taught a trade or profession. I wonder whether something like that could not be done. As a back-bencher one feels on these occasions when one makes a speech, the members of the Government benches will probably regard it as coming from someone who does not know too much about the subject; they may think a lot of it is nonsense. But I hope in the end a handful of corn will be found in this bushel of chaff and that our efforts to assist the country will be taken into account, even if it is only in some small way.

I should like to touch upon a few matters. In the first place I want to say a few words in connection with the alluvial diggings and I am very glad that the hon. Minister of Mines is here, so that I shall have his attention. I am very sorry to say it, but it seems to me there is very little sympathy in this House for the alluvial diggers. But since I am one of those who lived with them for many years, I have always had a soft spot in my heart for them, and when I can do anything for them, I shall always do my best. Last year I pointed out that the alluvial diggings meant a great deal to the State. I pointed out that there were times when the alluvial diggings became the refuge of farmers, in times of droughts and when the farmers experienced bad times. Today we are again in the position that there are many of our farmers who can scarcely make a living. I know that the Minister is sympathetic towards the alluvial diggers, but up to the present the hon. Minister has done nothing to show his sympathy by doing something for those people who are experiencing great difficulties today. The alluvial diggers are anxious to make their own living. There are some of them who have large families and who are also entitled to an existence. The hon. Minister stated last year in reply to a question which I put to him, that the alluvial diggings were a great asset to the State. I believe they are still a great asset to the State. By means of export taxes alone the alluvial diggings have contributed more than £6,000,000 to the Treasury. At Lichtenburg alone diamonds to the value of more than £18,000,000 were taken out. We know that diamonds constitute largely an export product. It is an export article, and it brings money into our country. There is a very great shortage of industrial diamonds in our country today. It was even mentioned in the course of the speech from the Throne that there is a great shortage of industrial diamonds today. Diamonds command very good prices at present, and if the hon. Minister uses his influence to open up diamondiferous farms, it will help to relieve that shortage of industrial diamonds. I know of farms which have already been prospected. For example, there is the farm Goede Vooruitsig which has been prospected. I do not know whether diamonds were found on that farm. But this farm was prospected in such a way that I should not be surprised to hear that the company found that it would not be a payable proposition. The manner in which the company prospected is of such a nature that it was almost impossible for the company to make it a payable proposition, because the costs of the company were far too high. I am convinced that if that farm had been prospected by diggers who have a knowledge of this matter, it would have been found to be payable. But the company really did not prospect for diamonds; I think they prospected for something else, because the holes which they made, Were made at places where there was no sign at all that these places were diamondiferous. I hope when the Minister replies on this point, he will tell me what is more or less the yield of the farm Goede Vooruitsig. Then there are other farms as well, one being in the district of Bloemhof—the farm Bosmanfontein. This farm has also been prospected recently, and I believe it was prospected in the same way. Where the farm belongs to the De Beers Company, they will do anything in their power to prospect the farm in such a way that it will be found not to be a payable proposition, because they do not want other diggings. I cannot see why the alluvial diggings should be treated so poorly. The alluvial diggers are entitled to a living. They also have their families to support. They try to be independent. One finds the best calibre of our Afrikaner people at those alluvial diggings. The children of many of those people are at university. They support themselves, but the diggings are more or less killed, and I think those people are being done an injustice. The alluvial diggings will undoubtedly become the refuge of many a returned soldier as well. I do not want to plead for the soldiers only. I make a plea on behalf of all those who find themselves in necessitous circumstances. It will be a refuge for a large number of returned soldiers. There are many persons in the diggings who enlisted and who are still in the army today. Their families are still on the diggings. I should like to know what the Minister proposes to do for our alluvial diggers. I think 12 months have elapsed since the Minister promised me that he would do what he could. He said he was sympathetically inclined, but I should like to see him doing something tangible, to throw open some of those farms to enable the diggers to keep their heads above water. There is another point which I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister and it is this. Last year I pleaded for amending legislation to be introduced so that when a digger dies, his family, his widow or his children, can retain the ground which he has discovered. I trust the Minister will still pilot such amending legislation through the House this year, so that those families can be protected. I want to plead very strongly that the hon. Minister should open up more ground as alluvial diggings. I maintain that the digger is entitled to an existence. They have proved in the past that if they get the ground they can make a living. There are three things which the diggers need. In the first place they require diamondiferous ground. In the second instance they want labour and in the third instance they want a reasonable price for their diamonds. As regards the price, we must admit that the price is fairly high today. Why must we wait till prices have dropped? Open those diamondiferous farms now and enable the people to make a living. That is all I have to say in connection with the hon. Minister of Mines. Once again I want to express the hope that he will do something to relieve the poverty which prevails on the diggings. Those people have contributed millions of pounds to the Treasury. The diamonds are there, and I cannot understand why the diggers are today being treated so unsympathetically. I trust the hon. Minister will be willing to do something to help the diggers to make a living in these times. While I am on my feet I would like to say a few words in connection with the Minister of Lands. I am very sorry that the hon. Minister is not here. Various members have pleaded on behalf of those temporary lessees whom the hon. Minister has treated too hard-handedly in recent times. I want to associate myself with hon. members who pleaded that the hon. Minister should repeal that decision of his, because I think he is undoubtedly very wrong in taking away from the farms people who are there today, who are making a living on the farms and who are producing food which, we need urgently. Various hon. members on the other side drew the attention of the Minister of Lands to the fact that he was ill-advised in taking this step. I am very sorry that it is always felt, when this side of the House voices criticism, that it is nothing but political propaganda. That is not the case. Various members have said that when we plead here it is not actually with a view to helping the farmers or the people concerned, but that we are trying to make political capital out of the situation. We must get away from that idea. It has been proved that there are members on the other side too who share our views that it is wrong to notify those people at this stage that they have to leave the farms. I cannot understand it. Various members, especially the hon. member for Port Elizabeth pointed out how important it was to have milk, cheese and butter. These are foodstuffs which the people urgently need. It is a well known fact that there is a great shortage of meat. There we havé the most important products which are produced by the farmer. The Minister of Agriculture said that he was the person whose responsibility it was to provide the people with food. But his colleague, the Minister Lands, is driving people off the farms who are producing food. Numbers of those tenant farmers have been notified that they are to leave the farms. They spoke to me and pointed out how unfair it was that the Minister should notify them now to leave those farms. I put this question to the Minister: In the first place, how many tenant farmers he had notified that they were to leave the farms on or before the 31st March? The hon. Minister told me that he had not notified tenant farmers to leave the farms but temporary lessees, I then put this further question: “How many temporary lessees did you notify that they were to leave those farms?” The hon. Minister’s reply was that there was a shortage of staff and that he was not in a position to reply to that question. The hon. Minister knew which persons had to be notified that they were to leave the farms, but he does not know how many persons were given notice to leave. Does the Department not keep a record of these tenant farmers? If I were to mention a certain figure and say that the Government is engaged in driving thousands of people off their farms, the hon. Minister would hold it against me, but from whom are we to get this information if the Minister does not want to give it to us? Is a member of this House and the people in the country not entitled to know how many tenant farmers the Government has? I am very sorry but I cannot accept that reply of the Minister. I believe the hon. Minister did not take this House and the people outside in his confidence in connection with this matter. I must therefore assume that the number is very great and since there is already a shortage of food in the country, I cannot describe it as other than mal-administration. We are experiencing a shortage of food, and the Minister is preventing these people from producing. He is preventing them from producing the most important foodstuffs which we need. I say it is very unfair. The man ner in which the Minister is treating these people today is extremely unfair. Many of those people have contracts which will not expire for a long time. The Minister is now giving them notice, through the Department, of Lands, to leave those holdings, in some cases quite a few months before their contracts expire. Where there is a contract which is still in force, cannot the Minister wait until the contract expires? And if he must take away these farms from the temporary lessees in order to give them to returned soldiers, why does he not wait until the soldiers return before giving these people notice that they are to leave? What argument can the Minister advance in support of this action against the people? A tenant farmer told me that he was hiring a farm, that he had spent £300 on it and that he expected a fairly good mealie crop. He told me that he had discharged all his obligations after being notified that he was to leave before the 31st May. He says there are farmers next to him whose stock is on the farm, and now he is called upon to leave it, and he wonders what is going to become of his goods. The Minister must expect dissatisfaction if he treats the farmers in this way. Another farmer approached me with the same complaint. He hired a farm; he expected a fairly good crop and he is now forced to sell his cattle. He told me that he had tried to get land, but land is very much more expensive today than it was in those days when these people hired crown land. They cannot get land. There is only one solution and that is to bring the stock to the market and to sell it. The result will be that some of them will drop out as poor whites. I am sorry the Minister is not here. I want to make a plea for assistance to these people. The Western Transvaal, my constituency especially, yielded good crops during the past few years, and if the Minister of Lands adopts this course of driving the people off the farms, standing crops will be destroyed and the production will drop. The hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) asked whether we on this side were prepared to concede that preference should be given to the soldiers. We do not want preference. We do not want to discriminate. Everyone should be treated fairly. If that is done it will not be necessary to practice discrimination. The man who remained at home and who cultivated his lands and produced, should also be treated fairly. If the Government starts to discriminate, it can only lead to dissatisfaction. I recently asked the Minister what he proposed to do for those people who were now being driven off the land? The Minister stated that they could apply for land, but in the same breath he said that if there were two applicants, and all things were equal, the soldier would receive preference. That causes bitterness and dissatisfaction, and I make an appeal to the Minister to abandon his policy of giving preference to one citizen of the country over and above another, not to neglect the person who could not fight owing to circumstances. When the motion of the hon. member for Aliwal (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) was under discussion, the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) made a remark that if there were men and women today who were unemployed it was due to laziness on their part.

I did not say that.

The hon. member said they were too lazy to work.

The hon. member may not refer to the debate on, that motion.

Then I want to come to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry. Last year I made a plea that the Government should come to the assistance of the farmers in my constituency and construct a few small grain elevators at various places in my constituency. The Minister stated that he would go into the matter. I should like to know whether he went into it and whether he proposes to have grain eleva tors built. A great portion of the crop is lying and rotting. We notice that when farmers want to buy mealie meal for their stock, it is stated that they can only get the musty mealies, not good mealies. If the State grants more assistance and helps these people with sheds, it will not be necessary for the mealies to lie and rot. Then there is another small point which I should like to mention, and that is that I want to ask the Minister to fix the price of mealies early this year. He should tell us today what price he is going to fix. Last year we pleaded for £1 per bag in the grain elevator and a little more for mealies in the bag, but the Minister of Agriculture fixed the price at 17s. 6d. That was undoubtedly too low. This year we expect a very great shortage of mealies. I believe it is estimated that the crop will be from 15,000,000 to 16,000,000 bags, but I think that estimate is rather on the high side. I have just travelled through certain parts of the Transvaal, and I can give you the assurance that the mealie crop is very poor. Those farmers who are still going to have some sort of crop are very anxious to know what the price is going to be. The Minister should not wait until the latter part of the Session, but he should say at an early date what he proposes to do. This year the farmers have to contend with quite a number of problems. There has been a drought which has destroyed a large portion of the crop; we have had caterpillars, and many farmers have been obliged to cultivate their lands two or three times. In other ways too, the production costs were increased. I think the farmers will strenuously object if the Minister again fixes the price at such a low level this year. I hope the Minister will take the House into his confidence and announce at an early stage what the price of mealies will be this year. Then just a few words in regard to kaffir corn. The Western Transvaal Agricultural Co-operative Society wrote to me asking me to speak to the Minister in connection with the price of kaffir corn. They also sent a copy of the letter to the Minister. I approached the office of the Minister and I was told that the matter was still receiving attention. I hope it has now been disposed of. I just want to say that the prices of kaffir com would have been fairly good this year if the price of the farmers had not been pegged. The price gradually rose to £1 5s. 0d. The Food Controller then came along and fixed it at £1 2s. 6d. I cannot understand why the price of the farmer had to be pegged. When there is a slight shortage, the prices which the farmers can get are fixed, but when there is a surplus they have to sell for a mere song. If the price of the farmer is fixed so that it cannot go too high we should also like to see that steps are taken to ensure that the price does not drop unduly. Take potatoes for example. At certain times the price is high; at other times potatoes have to lie and rot, and one can hardly get a price at all If the farmer is prevented from getting a good price for his product at certain times of the year, steps should also be taken to ensure that, he gets a reasonable price when there is overproduction.

Several comments have been made on the work of my Department, and I think it is now time I replied thereto. First of all, with regard to the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludiek) it is quite true, as he said, that he raised the points that he made last year; but when he goes on to say that I have made promises and expressed sympathy but have done nothing, allow me most politely but most emphatically to repudiate each and every word of it. There is no promise which I have not fulfilled up to the very hilt, and may I point out to the House and to the hon. member that he has not indicated any promise that I have made and have not fulfilled. With regard to, may I call it so, his Jeremiad as to the condition of diggers in the Transvaal and at Barkly West, the question of alluvial diggers in South Africa, as the hon. member knows and as the House knows, is one with which I have been very greatly impressed and it is a question which was among the very first I tackled when I took this office; and I claim I have enunciated a policy and have carried it out which has gone further than anything which has been done by Governments in times past to alleviate the position of the alluvial digger. I did go further in my proposals, but first of all the Select Committee to which the matter was referred, and afterwards this House in its wisdom declined to authorise the proposals that I made. Had they been adopted they would by this time have led to the reduction of the alluvial diggers to such a number as would be able to earn a decent living on the fields and the rest would have been established in other walks of life. It is quite impossible for everybody who wishes to, to earn a living as an alluvial digger, and that has been recognised by the Select Committee, by this House, and I think by the country generally. The quantity of stones which can be recovered by the poorer class of alluvial digger is strictly limited. It is quite true that there are tracts which are supposed to contain a considerable amount of stones laid down under alluvial conditions, but as often as not they lie at a very considerable depth, and it is beyond the means of the poor digger (for whom especially the hon. member for Lichtenburg is pleading) to tackle such a proposition.

If they get new ground they will be able to make a living.

I am mentioning that we are faced with conditions like this where the ground that contains the stones is covered by the bed of a river, and again when it is not covered by a bed of a river it is so deep under the soil that something like 40 ft. of overburden has to be removed. That is quite beyond the possibilities of an ordinary alluvial digger. A man needs to be a small capitalist and to have a body of labourers at his disposal before he can tackle a proposition of that kind. I, in my capacity as Minister, tell the House that the State alluvial diggings are working under conditions that it would be quite impossible for a small private digger to face and to tackle. We can only tackle that proposition by having many steam shovels working to clear away the soil and with engines to carry the stuff away. We have to strip the soil to a depth sometimes of 40 ft. before we get to the diamonds. The old idea that anyone can go to the alluvial diamond fields with a dustpan and a broom or a shovel and a cradle and just pick up the stones is quite wrong. A great deal of the area, possibly most of the area which was opened and which could be attacked in that way, has become exhausted, and therefore I came to the conclusion, and I would remind the House that Parliament came to the conclusion, that the number of alluvial diggers had to be reduced, that no one should be allowed to get a new certificate except under very exceptional circumstances, which I had to certify; and for the rest they were to be directed into other walks of life and to make good there. It has been and still is the policy which I have been carrying out to try to feed—I use “feed” advisedly—the old professional alluvial digger as much as possible. I want to try to conserve what remains of the alluvial wealth of the country which can be tackled by small men, to reserve it for them, and I am doing so, and the conditions where any fresh ground is proclaimed reserve the opportunity for ballot to those claims to those who belonged to that old professional class, and who held diggers’ certificates in 1934, I think it is, and have been working as alluvial diggers for six months in the year immediately preceding. A condition of that kind is intended to give and it has succeeded in giving, an opportunity to that class of old professional digger, and excludes the class of person who wishes casually to leave the profession or occupation or pursuit that he follows and have a few months holiday or a change on the fields. We are trying to keep out that class of man, and we do keep him out very largely by these means. For the rest, wherever an opportunity occurs we do proclaim. But it does not lie with the Mines Department to prospect for alluvial stones and to find them and then to proclaim the land. The proclamation follows after prospecting has shown that there are reasonable prospects of finding stones in payable quantities, and that prospecting takes place on private land at the will of the owner, and only on the will of the owner; and prospecting elsewhere on open ground belonging to the Crown takes place also where suitable conditions exist. In the immediate past land has been proclaimed and it is being proclaimed, and I would like to give a few particulars in regard to that. In the Transvaal, in the mining district of Klerksdorp, in 1941 there was a farm proclaimed. In 1942 another farm was proclaimed. Last year, in 1944, another one was proclaimed in the Wolmaransstad district. There are certain farms in that district which are now showing some signs of possible alluvial capacity, and they are being investigated. In Lichtenburg, the hon. member’s constituency, the farm Uitkyk was proclaimed in 1940, and with regard to Vooruitsig that is one of the farms belonging to the De Beers Company and which they have been prospecting. The results of the prospecting are now being examined and the proclamation of that farm is under consideration at the present time. In the Cape Province, in Barkly West, two farms were proclaimed in 1940; another one, or portion of it, in 1944, and this year the farms Doornlaagte and Spitskop were proclaimed, and the distribution of claims have just lately taken place. There are other possibilities there. Therefore I think I have said enough to show that the policy which Parliament has approved is being carried out. It is being strictly carried out in the way in which I promised it should be carried out with a view to excluding as much as possible those who are not professional diggers, and to conserve the ground which is available and which does become available for the old class of professional digger. That, I think, is the right policy; that is what the Department has consistently done. In the face of that I hope the hon. member realises that to come to the House and say I have made promises and expressed sympathy and done nothing scarcely squares with the facts I have now put before the House and drawn his attention to. Sympathy, which I have, I have translated into action to the best of my ability, and I intend to continue to do so. In regard to throwing open the rich areas, or the supposedly rich areas, in Namaqualand, portion of it is already being worked by the State, and I am confident it can only be worked to advantage on a very great scale. The policy of working it by the State is one which Parliament has approved, and which the Government intends to pursue. I may say it has been worked with very great advantage to the state in times past. Last year the revenue was a very substantial amount indeed, and the Treasury and the whole country has benefited thereby.

What was the amount?

I am not going to give the exact figure. The hon. member may be able to gather some idea of it later on when the Budget statement is made. But the hon. member and those who think with him and who wish to help the alluvial diggers, must not come to the conclusion that it would be possible for all this wealth to have been distributed amongst alluvial diggers. Nothing of the kind. The only way in which this area can be worked is by a gigantic undertaking involving enormous capital such as is now being conducted by the State.

I did not ask for Namaqualand.

No, I am just warning those who might be desirous of attacking Namaqualand, that it would be impossible. There are two other points. I did tell the hon. member last year that I intended to introduce legislation to enable the relatives of a deceased digger to retain the claims held by him, and I am prepared to do so. I think on this question I shall be able to introduce a short measure to redeem my promise. The hon. member said further that what the diggers wanted was diamondiferous ground, labour and decent prices. I have dealt with the question of further diamondiferous ground. With regard to labour, what I have done is this. I have done my best to supply labour for the alluvial diggings by giving a certificate to enable any labourer to go there who wanted to go and work there; that has been given without restriction as long as the character of the applicant was satisfactory. So I have done everything I could in this respect. As regards the prices, I think the hon. member and all the alluvial diggers will be greedy indeed if they are not satisfied with the prices that are now obtained.

I stated that the prices are very high today.

They are high and very satisfactory.

That is why we want more ground.

I told the hon. member what the position is in regard to ground. He has this satisfaction, that the number of the certified holders who would be possible competitors and scramble for the ground that would be available, is being steadily reduced, so the prospects are correspondingly increased for the professional digger who survives. I now turn to the next question, the Phthisis Bill which I promised to introduce. I intend to do so. I am getting a little tired of the constant reiteration coming from all sides of the House about the non-appearance of the Bill at the present moment. I can quite understand that a large number of members in this House are very interested in this question. It would be very sad, indeed it would be monstrous, if they were not interested. It is a very very important one, but I have said exactly what the position is I think that hon. members should be content with that. I should be very disappointed indeed if a Bill is not placed on the Statute Book this Session. It will not be my fault if it is not. I hope it will, but from the language that has been used in several parts of this House—it is not confined to one side only—one would imagine that I personally have been negligent in this matter, or that the officers for whom I am responsible have been negligent and have been taking this matter casually. Nothing of the kind. Let me remind the House what is the position in regard to this body of legislation. For the last 30 years, for the last generation, this matter has been the shuttlecock of political parties in the Union: and one Bill after the other has been introduced, and amendment after amendment has been placed on the Statute Book until at last the mass of legislation is in such a tangle that it is something like a legal palimpsest, and it is almost impossible for anybody who does not devote himself to the subject entirely to make head or tail of much of this legislation. When I took office I made up my mind that I would tackle this tangled question, and I would endeavour to do something preceding governments had not done, and that was to consolidate the good parts of the existing law into a new measure which would enable the ordinary man to appreciate what the law was, and enable those personally interested in it as sufferers or dependants to learn in language that is plain and simple what their rights were, and how to obtain them. The task of doing that has been an extremely difficult one and an extremely tangled one. This legislation has been the subject matter not of one commission but of commission after commission. I have had another commission go into it to bring the matter up to date. I have not got what I expected and hoped to get, namely a unanimous report. I got nothing of that kind, and the suggestions which were put forward both in the majority and in the minority reports have been of a very far-reaching character and have been submitted to the observation of those who are most nearly concerned with the matter, these observations have been received. I have done my best to digest them and my own proposals are now in the course of being placed in legislative form, which I hope to have before the House before very long. I had hoped and planned that they would be in this form at any rate by November last and that the draft Bill would be before the House when it met. I have been disappointed. It has not been possible to do it. A great many of the features of this Bill will doubtless be the subject matter of very grave consideration and debate and difference of opinion when they come before the Huose here. I expect it. I know it. It would be extraordinary if it is not so But to imagine that one who is responsible for introducing legislation of that kind can do it with a stroke of a pen and can say: I will have that ready by the 5th of November and nothing will prevent me, is simply absurd. People who talk in that way simply do not understand the subject. I can only say that the hon. members who were so keen about this Bill will have plenty of opportunity later on of proving to their constituents how interested they are and how much they know of the subject. But to suggest, is it is suggested,—I recognise it right enough—that there has been delay and neglect on my part, is untrue. May I remind the House that the Phthisis sufferer at present is better off as far as legislation is concerned, and in a better position in the mass, than he ever was before, as the result of legislation which I introduced. All the legislation passed by different Governments, the Pact Government, the South African Party Government, the Nationalist Government, have all gone to make up this mass of legislation, and it has been my pleasure and duty to be responsible and for already having introduced legislation which was better than they introduced in certain respects. I will tell the House the way it has been done. First of all the native sufferer has had his reward, in round figures doubled by the legislation for which I was responsible. With regard to the white person and coloured men the amount of money which could be distributed through ex gratia payments has been doubled also; and by virtue of the authority given me, I introduced a new scale by which the funds so placed at my disposal could be and were distributed. And the method of distribution of these funds, and the scale on which they were distributed, is better than it has ever been. Further, by negotiation with the mine owners I have been albe to secure a substantial cost of living allowance for those who draw pensions, whether they are the dependants of these primary sufferers who died, or whether they are miners in the secondary degree, those drawing pensions. They get the cost of living allowance in addition, subject to a means test; and that is substantially an improvement on the position existing before this Government came into power and I became a responsible Minister. There is another respect in which an improvement has been introduced, which will show that I and my Department have not been asleep. We have discovered, through the activities of the Department and its very alert officers, that Miners’ Phthisis can be contracted in drill sharpening shops on the surface, something which no-one ever thought of before. There is no legislative provision at all which provides for compensation for such people. It is not feasible to introduce mining legislation all at once, so I went to the mine owners concerned, and pointed out that this was a matter which should be compensated on the same footing. They at once agreed. A considerable sum of money has already been paid out under that voluntary arrangement to certain sufferers in that respect. I would not have thought it necessary to refer to all these matters had it not been for this super impatience and the suggestion underlying the impatience that there was neglect on the part of myself and of those for whom I am responsible. I repudiate it entirely and say that the facts speak for themselves, and this legislation which will be introduced and which I hope will both extend the scope and improve the conditions under which relief is given, will be introduced in due course. But as a warning I must say this, that nothing which is said in this House, in whatever language it is couched, can do anything to increase the pace at which the preparation is going on or decrease it, because I am doing my utmost to do it in the quickest possible time. I hope that until the Bill is introduced I shall not have to refer to that again.

Did they not start 14 months ago?

A Whole generation ago. The Labour Party was very largely responsible for the Bills. You had a whole generation in which to tackle this question. Some of the things which you left undone I am hoping to put right. You took a generation and I have taken three years. I now turn to another matter, that is the speech of the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). He went very much further in attacking certain branches of my Department. First of all he attacked the Medical Bureau and accused them of being unsympathetic towards the Phthisis sufferer. Later on, he went much further and accused the Bureau not of working for the interests of the miner or the sufferer but for the interest of what he described as John Martin and the other capitalists.

Quite true.

Yes, he agrees to it, and I wonder he is not ashamed to do it. When a member of this House makes an accusation of that kind about men who are the servants of the State, who are not members of the House and cannot defend themselves, they have to be defended by the Minister responsible for the Department, and I expect, and I am sure that the House expects it, that when a charge of disgraceful conduct is brought there shall be some attempt to back it up. There was not one scrap of evidence produced by the hon. member to back up the charge being made.

They were incompetent.

That is the charge, that they were incompetent, and they are working in the interests of John Martin, the mine owner, and not in the interests of the mine worker.

Hear, hear!

That is the charge and I am shocked at the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) supporting his colleague in that respect because I have learnt to regard the hon. member for Krugersdorp as having some sense of responsibility. The hon. member for Mayfair, in his short time here, has not justified himself in that respect. I do not look to him for either restraint of language or for a relation of fact or any action in which reason has any place whatever. But for the hon. member for Krugersdorp I have, and I am shocked to hear him support this. Now, what is the evidence about the Medical Bureau? There were four cases mentioned by the hon. member and four only. I have gone through very carefully the notes of what he said and the facts relating thereto. At the outset I was struck by this, that whilst he attacked the Bureau, he did not attack the Medical Board of Appeal. I wonder whether that was just an oversight on his part.

They are part of it.

There was nothing in the note which rea.ch.ed me to indicate that there was any-attack on the Board of Appeal, and if he intended to do so I can only say that adds to the recklessness of his charge, because there was not one single word in all the four cases that he cited in support of his charge reflecting on the Appeal Board. The hon. member seems to think that it is an insult as well as an injury to tell anyone who dies, or his dependants, that he is not suffering from Miners’ Phthisis. It is an insult to say that as well as an injury. It is a matter of pride, apparently, to die of Miners’ Phthisis, and it is a matter of great envy amongst people to find that their neighbour’s husband has died of Phthisis but not their own. The charge of the hon. member is so remote from the facts pertaining to the legislation and its approach to compensation, that it is ridiculous. The legislation is for compensation for a particular disease, Miners’ Phthisis. The legislation does not pretend to compensate for other diseases. It only applies to Miners’ Phthisis, with one single exception, namely that simple tuberculosis, under certain circumstances, is also compensated. But apart from these two diseases there is no other provision in the law. What is the duty of the Appeal Board and of the Medical Bureau? They simply have to examine these people who come before them and say in the light of scientific knowledge whether they are suffering from the disease or not. The hon. member for Mayfair had the audacity to come forward, in one of the cases he quoted, to say that he could not say that one of the men referred to suffered from Miners’ Phthisis, but because the Bureau did not say that he is suffering from Phthisis, and he therefore did hot get the compensation provided for by the legislation, this Bureau is serving the interests of John Martin. Has ever such a dastardly and reckless charge been brought forward? It is reckless and dastardly, and there is nothing to support it. The members of the Medical Bureau have, in the main, with one or two exceptions, not been chosen by me The members of the Appeal Board have not been appointed by me. They were appointed by one of my predecessors, and they have had very long experience in their profession, concentrating on this particular aspect of the matter. We take care to see that they are supplied with the latest instruments which science can afford to enable them to give a correct judgment. I have the utmost confidence that they discharge their duties earnestly, faithfully and well. There has been nothing said by that hon. member or anyone else either inside or outside the House that would convince or would go any distance at all towards convincing a reasonable man that these doctors have not discharged their duties faithfully and well. I say it is a scandalous thing that a member of this House, without evidence of any sort, kind or description, should launch such a disgraceful charge against the distinguished gentlemen who constitute one or other of these bodies. But the hon. member for Mayfair has gone further and has made a charge in another direction. He attacked the inspectorate of mines in Natal and charged them with negligence and incompetence, the most grievous charges that can be brought against the inspectorate of any Government department. I am responsible for the officers of my Department to see that they discharge their duties faithfully and well, and moreover to see that they are competent to do so. When a charge of this kind is made I, now or at any time, would examine it with the greatest possible care and if it is justified I would take the most appropriate action. Here again I have gone into the case put forward by the hon. member for Mayfair, and I can only say that it was launched with the same complete disregard of fact which he showed in regard to his charge against the Medical Bureau, and here also he has been reckless in his charges against the Department in regard to the Northfield Colliery disaster last year which I exposed and which I hope will prevent a repetition of the accident. That has not proved to be the case. What is the charge made against the Inspectorate of Mines in Natal? It has been that during the past 40 years there has been something less than 12 explosions and disasters in the coal mines. It is quite true that there were 11 explosions. Mr. Speaker, is it to be inferred from that that because there were less than a dozen explosions on the coal mines for a period of 40 years, that therefore the inspectorate is to blame? That is not a natural inference. It may be true but if it is true it would need very conclusive proof. In all these 40 years I have not heard these charges brought forward against my predecessors. Most of these explosions took place in the time of my predecessors, but I have not heard anything of that kind. [Time extended.] I was dealing with this very grave charge, and I said that most of the accidents took place in the time of my predecessors. I have been in public life for a very long time, longer than that in which these charges are said to exist, and I have not heard about these charges of incompetence ever being made. It is brought now but without a tittle of evidence to support it. There are two explosions which took place during the time I have been in office, to which the hon. members refer, one at the Northfield Colliery where he alleged that the explosion was caused by the employment of rock miners without sufficient experience of Natal coalfields. I pointed out that I had given him, or placed at his disposal, all the facts at my disposal, which proves that it was not the fault of the miner but that of the miner who had had long training on the Natal fields, and who had not come from the Rand at all. The hon. member is now charging the Inspectorate of Mines in Natal with negligence or incompetence which he says caused the recent explosion at Hlobane. What are the facts with regard to that explosion? It was a most regrettably disastrous explosion but what are the causes for it? It was caused by the miner in charge who was given a miner’s safety lamp on a fiery mine, and he committed a grossly wrong act in tampering with the lamp while he was underground. He was given this lamp and because the lamp had apparently gone out underground, within a few feet of the face where he was working, he forced the lamp open. It was locked with a patent lock which is supposed to prevent wicked or ignorant boys from opening it, but this miner, who was a properly certificated miner, working in a fiery mine, actually forced open this lamp in an attempt to relight it. An explosion took place and he killed a number of native workers. He paid the penalty himself and he is dead. I dislike to refer to it, but a case of such gross neglect I have never come across. Yet that is how the explosion took place. That is the way in which these men were killed. But in the face of that the hon. member for Mayfair has had the audacity to come forward and say that this explosion would not have taken place but for the negligence of the inspectorate on the Natal Mines.

Shame.

It is a shame that a charge of that kind should be made. The reputation of the inspectors is very dear to me and it is my duty either to see that the negligent ones are removed or that those who are not reckless or negligent are protected if they are slanderously attacked. I hope the House will be as shocked as I am, and also the country, that a member of this House should make such a charge. The Inspectorate of Mines in Natal has been very alert to the ventilation question. This particular mine was visited by sub-inspectors the year before and no less than 18 days was spent there. There was some question raised as to whether it was necessary to class this mine still as a firey mine and after careful examination by the Inspector of Mines in Natal it was determined that the precautions should not be relaxed, and they were not relaxed, and not one regulation for a fiery mine was relaxed. But in spite of the care which was exercised the hon. member launches this attack. The only word he could find on going through the record of the case—I gather from his speech that he did go through the record of the case—was about the lamp and therefore I am astonished that he should have suppressed from this House the fact that this explosion was caused by the gross negligence in forcing open a safety lamp near the face. He suppressed it. He led the House to believe that if there had been better ventilation and the Inspector of Mines had insisted on better ventilation the accident would not have taken place. There is not a tittle of justification for that The Inspector of Mines inspected the place some months before the accident and came to the conclusion that the ventilation was sufficient, a conclusion which further investigation which I since caused to be done, has confirmed. The ventilation was sufficient. But because the sub-inspector said he could not remember the exact distance which the airshaft was from the working face some months before, the hon. member thought fit to make this charge. It is a disgraceful and unworthy charge and I am astonished that two members of the Labour Party, particularly the hon. member for Krugersdorp should have lent their names to that attack.

It is not my purpose to unduly prolong our sojourn in the realm of international politics into which we have been led by the Leader of the Opposition and his lieutenants In passing I would however ask them what possible interests of South Africa do they hope to serve by the introduction of this difficult and delicate subjéct in the manner adopted by them. If it is apparent to all then surely hon. members opposite too must realise that all they had hoped for and predicted about the war has not materialised. They may feel sorry that they have been disappointed, but it is in the interests of South Africa and of the world that they should be so disappointed. Now they come along and make an appeal to the Hon. the Prime Minister that he should intercede. All we can say about that appeal is that it is a compliment which they might render very grudgingly, a compliment to the important international status enjoyed by the Prime Minister, and in effect an admission that what he says in the councils of the world will be listened to and to this extent we entirely agree. Now only do they see in Russia the wolf clad in sheep’s clothing but whilst the German-Russian non-agression pact was in existence and whilst Russia honoured such covenant they saw no danger portends. However, it was the Prussian Vulture which tried to gouge out the eyes of the Russian Bear whilst it apparently lay asleep and unsuspecting and not Russia to break faith. Their attitude towards the war has not changed and they still have the political effrontery to maintain in spite of all that has happened that neutrality would have been in the best interests of South Africa. They remind us of the story of the two Irish Coast Guards. They picked up two German survivors from a submarine. When they brought them to shore, the one said to the other: “Pat, let us shoot these two Germans.” The other Coast Guard replied: “You cannot do that; after all, our country is neutral,” whereupon Pat said: “Our country neutral? Neutral against whom?” Well, that is the attitude they persist in, the attitude of neutrality, but against whom? The answer is obvious. But, Mr. Speaker, forsaking international politics, I want to come down to bread and butter politics and to discuss the dairy industry. This matter was introduced by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and I want to compliment him on the able, fair and reasonable way in which he dealt with the subject, but the subject is of sufficient importance to merit further attention. The Minister has already replied, and it is a pity that he thought fit to do so at such an early stage in the debate. If I may say so, and I say it deferentially, not only the Minister of Agriculture but also the Minister of Lands have very well deferred their replies until the debate had progressed further. To come back to the question of the dairy industry, the hon. Minister has told us in his reply that in fixing the price of dairy products the Government is guided by the principle of the costs of production plus a reasonable profit to the producer, and it is in that respect I want to deal with the matter. The spearhead of the attack in this debate has thus far been levelled at the head of the Minister of Agriculture, but he is not the only Minister responsible. As we all know, the Cabinet has a special Food Committee which, I understand, consists of at least four members, and it is this Food Sub-committee of the Cabinet which fixes the price of foodstuffs. Therefore when we disagree with their policy, or the prices they fix, it is not for us to direct our attack against one Minister only. That responsibility must be shared jointly and severally by all members of that Cabinet Committee. I have no hesitation in accepting the Minister of Agriculture’s assurance that in so far as he is concerned he is himself sympathetically inclined towards agriculture. But he is not the only Minister concerned in these decisions. He has not the last say. We must assume that where there are three other members on the same Cabinet Committee his voice is one against three, and it is quite possible for him to be out-voted.

We blame the whole crowd then.

The position is simply this: When things were not going well with the dairy industry the dairy Control Board directed a request to the Minister of Agriculture to appoint a committee to enquire into the costs op production. The Minister appointed an ad hoc committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Fourie; commonly known as the Fourie Commission. He appointed that commission charged with a specific mandate to enquire into the cost of production of dairy products. On that committee of enquiry there were at least two members of the National Marketing Council. There were other members who were practical dairy farmers. There was also a dairy expert from the Agricultural Department. The composition of the committee was such that we are entitled to say that it was a representative committee. The Minister is likewise bound to admit that that committee enjoyed his confidence, otherwise he would not have appointed them. When the Minister appoints a committee charged with a specific mandate to conduct a specific investigation, and that committee goes round the countryside and hears evidence from various farmers, visits different localities in all centres of the Union, when that committee makes a report and gives a considerable finding on the facts, we are entitled to ask the Minister why it is that he was not in a position to accept the findings of that committee. In terms of Marketing Act the committee’s report, it appears, had to be referred to the National Marketing Council and the Board of Trade and Industries. But I say that when this committee discharged its mandate and carried out the specific investigation with which it was entrusted, and when you have a committee constituted such as this, with special knowledge and experience, if their report is queried the dairy farmers cannot be blamed for protesting. The dairy farmers of the Natal Midlands, when they assembled in conference, charged the Government with breaking faith with the dairy farmers. To charge anybody with breaking faith is a serious allegation, but the Government must realise that when a responsible body of men come together and they put their cards on the table and they say: We make this charge because you, the Government, tell us that you are prepared to fix a price at a certain level, namely the costs of production plus a reasonable margin of profit, and you appoint a commission to give you the cost of production but you fail to accept the findings of that commission, we are entitled to charge you with a breach of faith. The charge is really against the members of the Food Control Sub-committee of the Cabinet. I would have hesitated to speak on this subject seeing that other members have dealt with it extensively, but in our particular area where the dairy farmers have formed themselves into a very strong association, an association which has recently become affiliated with the Natal Midland Farmers Association, we can claim to speak with authority. It is not an irresponsible and unorganised body of farmers, but a responsible body of men who have devoted a life-time to build up one of the most important industries in this country. At the risk of reiteration I feel that this matter is of sufficient importance to again bring to the notice of the Minister. The dairy industry is one of our most important national assets. Milk is by far the most important of all our protective foods; it is a food which is used from the cradle to the grave, and it is one of those foods which cannot possibly be imported. We may be able to import various processed dairy products, such as cheese and condensed milk, but you cannot import milk, and we must face up to the position. Does the Government want the dairy industry to survive? If it does it is incumbent upon the Government to recognise that the dairy industry is of national importance, and to give it the means of subsistence. We say to our consumers in the cities, we are not antagonistically inclined towards them. When we buy the products of industry we expect to pay for these products a price which will give industry a fair margin of profit over and above the costs of production, and that is all we ask for the dairy industry. The dairy industry must be treated on a basis of equality with other industries. The Marketing Council or the Board of Trade and Industries would never dream of saying to a manufacturer of boots: It costs you 10s. to manufacture a pair of boots, but the public can only afford to pay you 7s. 6d., and therefore we shall fix the price at 7s. 6d. No, they fix the price at 12s. 6d.; they give the producer a fair price. I am not going to deal specifically with the case of fresh milk, but the price to the producers in the big cities in the Transvaal is 1s. 8d. a gallon or 2½d. a pint. But the price to the consumer is as high as 5d. a pint, which means that as much as 2½d. a pint is paid for distribution. If the distributor is allowed 2½d. a pint just for distributing the commodity, then surely in the name of all that is wonderful the man who produces it is entitled at least to as much as that, if not more. I do not wish to take up the time of the House unduly, but I want to make a final appeal to the Minister of Agriculture and to the other members of the Food Sub-committee of the Cabinet, if they share the principle that the dairy farmer is entitled to a fair price for his product based on the cost of production plus a fair margin of profit, and they do not wish to be charged with a breach of faith, and if they recognise the importance of that industry to our national well-being, they must go further and see that the farmer is kept on the land by giving him an adequate return for his efforts.

I am sorry the hon. Minister of Agriculture is seldom in his seat when we get up to discuss agricultural matters.

He is coming.

You cannot speak; you are not in his post.

If the hon. Minister would only follow that hon. member’s example—because he is always here—we might have a better Minister of Agriculture. But I would certainly neglect my duty if I did not object to the policy of the Minister of Agriculture in connection with the commandeering of cattle. The hon. Minister is now going from one extreme to the other. He is in the process of killing the platteland auction sales by means of commandeering and in that way discouraging the farmer from sending his stock to the market, because today the farmer has no control over the price he is going to get when he sends his stock to the controlled areas, because his stock is graded by graders who have not the slightest knowledge of it; and now the farmers are being discouraged from sending their stock to the platteland auction sales. A question was put to the hon. Minister in connection with his policy and his reply was so vague that we still do not know whether he is going to continue with commandeering or whether he is going to put a stop to it. I want to tell the Minister that if he carries on with the policy of commandeering, there will be a scarcity of meat in the controlled areas such as we have never had in the history of this country, and the farmers will refuse to send their stock to the controlled areas because they get better prices at the platteland auction sales. If the Minister wants to solve this problem and obviate all difficulties, why does he not give the farmer higher prices? If he did that, he would immediately solve these difficulties and there would be a regular flow of stock to the market, and it would not be necessary for him to commandeer stock. But the Minister refuses and it seems to me he is refusing because he is under the control of the cold storages. The Imperial Cold Storage are the people who are today dictating to the Minister and he carries out what they say. But what is the Minister doing now? He now comes along and reduces the quota of the platteland towns. Where in the past they had a quota of 70 per cent., he now reduces it to 65 per cent. I have telegrams before me which were sent to me by certain persons in one of the towns in my constituency. Here I have a telegram from the Farmers’ Association of Volksrust. In this telegram they say—

This comes from the Farmers’ Association. I have another telegram from one of the butchers in my constituency, and this telegram reads as follows—

I wonder what the Minister is going to do, when there is already an agitation in the country and telegrams are now being sent to say that the people in the platteland towns are starving. Nevertheless the Minister reduces the quota by 5 per cent. I wonder what the Minister’s object is? He is driving those people into a panic. He is forcing them to buy meat in the black market. At Volksrust there are more than 600 railway employees. They work hard from morning till night. They cannot do that work from morning till night on a piece of bread only. We feel that the Minister is committing a misdeed against the consumer and the producer. But we go further. He is not only committing a misdeed in connection with the meat position in this country, but the Minister does other things from time to time to place the farmers in an impossible position. Take the artificial manure position. What is the Minister doing to encourage the producer on the platteland to produce? The people are becoming reluctant to produce; they do not want to produce today because they get no sympathy from the Minister of Agriculture. I say the Minister is not giving the farmers any encouragement to produce. On the contrary, he allows the Chamber of Commerce from time to time to dictate to him what he should do. I want to mention a few figures to show the House how the prices of artificial manure were gradually increased from 1935 to 1945. In 1935 the farmers bought 18 per cent. superphosphate for £3 15s. per ton. Other artificial manure was bought for £5 10s. per ton. Since that time there has been an increase. On the 13th May, 1942, we got the following increases ….

Hear, hear!

I am very glad the hon. Minister has now put in an appearance. In 1942 we got the following increases. The price of 18 per cent. superphosphate increased to £5 10s. per ton, 15 per cent. superphosphate to £5 1s. per ton; sodium nitrate increased to £16 per ton; the price of the C mixture was £7 7s. per ton; the price of the D mixture was £9 0s. 6d. But let us see what increases took place after that date. On the 31st December, 1943, a further increase took place. The increase was not particularly big, but nevertheless there was an increase. Here we got an increase of £1 7s. per ton in 19 per cent. superphosphate. The price of 15.1 per cent. superphosphate was £5 9s. and the price of 19 per cent. superphosphate was £6 17s. Let us see what increases took place after the present Minister was appointed as Minister of Agriculture. On the 29th April, 1944, and the 4th August, 1944, the following prices were fixed: 16.1 per cent. superphosphate at £5 9s. ; 19 per cent. superphosphate at £6 17s.; the price of the C mixture increased to £8 15s.; the price of the D mixture increased to £10 14s.—that is the potato manure. The increase in the case of the C mixture was £1 8s. and £1 13s. 6d. in the case of the D mixture. In the first case the increase was a little more than 10 per cent. and in the second case the increase was a little more than 12 per cent. But only 10 months later there was a further colossal increase in the price of artificial manure, and this increase took the prices sky high. The price of 19 per cent. superphosphate became £7 13s. per ton. The price of 15.1 per cent. superphosphate became £6 1s. 6d., the price of the C mixture increased to £9 17s. 6d. and the price of the D mixture went up to £12 2s. In the case of the 15 per cent. superphosphate there is an increase of 12s.; thére is an increase of 16s. in the case of the 19 per cent. phosphate; £1 1s. 6d. as far as the C mixture is concerned and £1 8s. as far as the D mixture is concerned. In some cases there was an increase of more than 20 per cent. I just want to say this to the hon. Minister. He stated last time that as a result of the big rains there was a shortage of 1,000,000 bags of potatoes, which rotted owing to the rain. No, there was not a shortage because potatoes rotted owing to the rain. There was a shortage because the farmers decreased their production. They decreased their production by approximately 30 per cent. Last year the price of potatoes was fixed at 25s. per bag. That was the maximum price however. This Minister has apparently not yet heard of a minimum price, because he only fixes maximum prices. A very small percentage of the farmers had the benefit of the maximum price of 25s. Many of them were compelled to market their potatoes at 12s. 6d. to £1 per bag with the result that the farmers are going to produce very much less this year. When potatoes became scarce, the hon. Minister increased the price by 5s. per bag. And he fixed the maximum price at 30s. per bag. But what happened? He fixed a maximum price of 30s., but the consumer had to buy at 1s. for 4 lbs. In other words, he allows the trader to make a profit of 7s. 6d. per bag, that is to say, if he bought the potatoes at 30s. But that is not all. The Minister goes further. Potatoes are now being marketed at very much less than 30s. Today the farmers are selling potatoes at 15s. and 20s., and there are very few of them who ever get 30s. per bag. The trader still has this advantage that if he buys potatoes at £1, he sells it at 1s. for 4 lbs., in other words, he is making a profit of anything from 17s. 6d. to 21s. 6d. per bag today. He is getting more than the producer for a bag of potatoes. In addition to that the Minister comes along—I do not know whether he is doing it on the advice of his department, or whether this type of thing is being done on the recommendation of the Price Controller—but the Minister increased the price of artificial manure from time to time. I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks the farmers can produce potatoes at this price, having regard to the increased production costs and taking into consideration the increased prices of artificial manure? Will any farmer have the courage in these circumstances to produce potatoes if he has to pay so much more for artificial manure? No, we feel it is a question of mismanagement, and we want to ask the Minister to exercise supervision and to see to it that the price of artificial manure does not soar sky-high. If it goes on at this rate the result will be that we shall later be faced with starvation in this country. The production will drop, not by 30 per cent. but by 70 per cent. I just want to warn the Minister that if this type of thing goes on, he can be sure that the people will not only stand in queues, but there will be a revolution amongst the consumers, because they will not get any potatoes this year. The farmers will simply produce less if no improvement is brought about. If one takes into consideration the increased costs of production and the fact that the farmer has to sell his potatoes at £1 per bag, it stands to reason that he will not produce, because in that case he would be selling potatoes just to cover his production costs. The Minister knows that the price of seed potatoes has increased by more than 100 per cent. Seed potatoes are very scarce and the result is that today the farmers are practically dependent on old seed potatoes which they have been using for the past 4 or 5 years. But we come to another point, and that is in connection with kaffir corn. The hon. Minister referred to kaffir corn when he replied to the debate on the motion of censure. He stated that in 1937 1,000,000 bags of kaffir corn had been produced and 2,800,000 bags during the year 1942 to 1943.

The hon. member must not repeat arguments which were used in previous debates.

I just want to tell the Minister that since that time the production has decreased. Last year the production was less than 1,000,000 bags. What was the cause? It was because the farmer could not get a price which made it a payable proposition for him to produce kaffir corn. He had to sell it at 12s. 6d. per bag. We asked the Mealie Control Board, when a permit was issued, to allow 10 per cent. kaffir corn to be taken and 90 per cent. mealies, but that request was refused. But not only that. When the farmers could get no prices, the co-operative societies urged the Land Bank to give them an advance on kaffircorn. The Land Bank replied that it was not prepared to give an advance of more than 10s. per bag. Will any farmer produce kaffir com under those conditions? And When there was a shortage of kaffir corn the Minister fixed the price, and today the farmer has to be satisfied with £1 per bag. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he has ever ascertained what colossal profits are made by the malt factories. It has been brought to my notice that those factories buy a bag of corn at £1, and that their net profit, after the kaffir com has gone through the factory, is £7 per bag. It will be seen what tremendous profits are being made, and then the hon. Minister comes along and again fixes the price at £1. I just want to bring these things to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture and ask him to make investigations and not to allow this type of exploitation to take place in the future. If this type of parasite, such as the trade, is allowed to swallow everything and to manipulate the prices, I want to give the Minister the assurance that the farmer will become tired of it and he is not going to produce in the future.

I think that the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition is to be congratulated on having participated in a discussion on the international situation at this moment. I have always contended in this House that for too long has the affairs of the world outside of the Union been no concern of ours, and in the days when the late Gen. Hertzog was Prime Minister he used to consistently state that the Union of South Africa had no foreign policy, and neither did the Dominion of South Africa need a foreign policy I am not so sure that the present Prime Minister has departed a great deal from that outlook, and today we find ourselves as a dominion, a dominion which has played no inconsiderable part in the prosecution of this war, a dominion whose strategic importance at one stage of this war was of the very highest order without anything in the nature of a considered foreign policy, and I think that the war itself has taught us, and looking forward to what may occur after the war should emphasise that teaching, it is necessary for the Union of South Africa to know precisely what she is doing in the sphere of international affairs. Now, there seems to be a suggestion—and if it is not a suggestion the inference there is very clear, that in the years gone by, immediately preceding the war, South Africa’s foreign policy, in so far as we had one, was in fact the policy of Great Britain. In other words, we were tied to Great Britain and the line of policy which was pursued by Britain was more or less the policy for which South Africa had to be responsible; and yet there were times when obviously the people of the Union were very much at variance with the policy which was pursued. I am satisfied, for example, that South Africa was very much against the policy followed by the Chamberlain Government, which eventually landed the whole of the world in war. I want to say that the statement issued from Yalta by the Big Three contains one very notable exception. It fails to mention what part the Dominions will play in the settlement in Europe when Germany has finally surrendered. That is a very notable ommission and I can only conclude that it is an intentional one. I am quite satisfied that the British Government has not been a party to the statement issued from the Crimea where the very gravest decisions were taken and very historic statements made without consultation with the Dominions. I know perfectly well that the British Government is in almost hourly consultation with the Dominions, and I assume that the statement issued from Yalta has the full concurrence of the Hon. the Prime Minister, but nevertheless we should, in these days, have got away from the stage where documents of that description are merely secret documents, and we want to know what the position of the Union is in so far as that statement is concerned. I pointed out that we found ourselves, during this war, in a position of very great strategic importance. That arose because of our geographical position. In looking at a map of the world and visualising any future war—and I would be the last to suggest that war is inevitable, but just at the moment I cannot join the band of optimists who feel that merely by issuing statements or by simply occupying Germany or by eliminating the German general staff we will eliminate war; the elimination of war is not entirely a question of the elimination of the German nation or the elimination of the Japanese nation. I am satisfied that war, in essence, has economic causes, and until such time as we eliminate from the world generally the economic causes which lead to war, we must look forward to these preiodical outbreaks. So I must view the Union of South Africa in the light of the possibility of a future war or in the light of the possibility of future international disagreement, and viewing South Africa in that light, I feel that the Union is likely to become of a great deal more strategical importance in future than it was in the past or during this war. That being so, it is of great importance to us what particular kind of arrangements will be made in the postwar world. It is of great importance to us to know what place South Africa will take in international politics and where we stand in world economics generally. Let me quote one point which I myself feel. In the light of the present conflict and with the very grave decisions that have been come to, some people may be inclined to say that the hon. member for Fordsburg has temerity in even venturing to criticise to a small extent the arrangements made by the Big Three at Yalta, but I am very seriously perturbed at the recognition which is being given to us. Our own Prime Minister got into hot water when he suggested in England that France was levelled to a second class power. But it is quite clear that the Big Three, including Marshal Stalin, have now made up their minds that France at all costs, must be resuscitated as a first class power. From our experience of France, it appears to me that this is one portion of the statement which should not be accepted as the real views of the triumvirate, because that is what the Big Three are becoming, and there is a tendency to accept whatever policy is laid down, without giving too much thought as to what might occur in future. I believe that we, at the southern end of this continent, have to look at the policy adopted as regards France. We know that France was corrupt in politics long before the war. French politicians always were corrupt, and when I say corrupt, I mean it in the worst sense of the term. Politics were mainly guided by the mistresses of politicians, and the capitulation of France in this war was achieved by the mistress of one French politician. That stands on record. We know they were corrupt on both sides, on the Left as well as on the Right, we saw the result of that corruption. It very nearly handed the whole world over to Germany and it very nearly meant the end of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Now, perhaps it is not the correct thing to do, but we came across a number of instances where British armies had to be diverted from the real fighting to settle the difficulties of France. We remember the force sent to Syria and we remember that the British Fleet had to be sent to immobilise the French fleet, and we also saw that fine force which had to be diverted from the main job in the Western Desert to deal with the Vichy Government in Madagascar. Yet now France has to be revived from its position as a second class power, a position it got into through its own fault and its own corruption; and it is no use saying it was only the politicians who were corrupt, because generally politicians cannot be corrupt if the people are not prepared to accept corruption. There were many opportunities given to France to eliminate this corruption. There was the period when the United Front Government was in force under Leon Blum, when France was well on the way to bettering her position and having a real democratic government. But we know now that the government was brought down by the Bank of France, run by 200 families who have traditionally always been behind the Bank of France. We do not know, and it is not suggested, in the Yalta statement, whether reviving France means that France has to be put back where she was before the war with the Bank of France again revived and with the 200 families again in control; because that means that inevitably France will again become corrupt,“and play a rôle in European underworld politics—because today there is no such thing as world politics; the world war has shown us that clearly. It is impossible to confine politics to countries. Hitler himself saw that his strategy should be world strategy. He was thinking of the East at the same time that he was thinking of South America. Therefore, if the influence of France is revived and She is allowed to carry on in a similar way as before the war, French influence will stretch far on the European continent and we must not forget that she is particularly concerned with the African continent. She has large territories here. We are concerned firstly with the development of Africa in the north as well as in the south. Our soldiers did not lay down their lives in the Western Desert or in Abyssinia in order that after the war we should creep back into our shell of isolation and say to ourselves: Although we had to fight in the Western Desert because we knew that our frontier at that time was there, and although we had to do it in war-time when we were in danger, now that it is peace-time we will resume our ancient policy of isolation and what happens in Africa is no longer of importance to us. I suggest it is of importance to us and I feel that the time has now arrived when the Dominions generally should have some part in the framing of some kind of general foreign policy. I know the arguments which can be advanced against such a theory. First of all the argument will come especially from our Nationalist friends, that South Africa has no business to be mixing herself up in anything which occurs outside the Union. Traditionally they adopt that line of policy. It is the old policy of pushing their heads into the sand and refusing to face circumstances. There may be another argument which is that for so long we have gone along fairly well by merely following, even if we do not trust it, the foreign policy adopted by Britain, and making it quite clear that when that foreign policy does eventually become muddled and brings the world to war, we are prepared to play our part in that war, I do not think that kind of policy is good enough for the future of the Union. We are now definitely, I think, in the very middle of the world. The statement which was made at Yalta and the settlement which will be made in Europe and in the Far East finds us almost definitely in the centre, and whatever settlement is arrived at will have some kind of repercussion on the Union. Just at this stage we do not know what our desponsibilities are likely to be. We cannot gauge them because as far as we can see, our influence, as a nation generally, upon the settlement will be negligible. We know perfectly well that the Prime Minister will in all probability be a very important figure at the Peace Conference. One assumes that he has to some extent been consulted by the Big Three as to the statement recently issued. But whether he is a big figure at the Peace Conference is the same thing as South Africa having any say in the foreign policy which directly affects it or not is something I am not sure of. The Prime Minister may use all his skill and diplomacy and knowledge of world affairs to assist the United Nations generally to arrive at what appears to him the best solution for world problems, but that does not mean that he will attempt to manage the Peace Conference, and to expound the foreign policy to be adopted by the Union itself. That being so, we will again be left in the position of more or less continued dependence on what has generally become known as our friends. I think the time has arrived when South Africa should be a little more than merely dependent on its friends. I think we speak too much about our being a young nation. South Africa is beginning to grow up and is no longer a child and there is a responsibility resting on us towards ourselves which we have not always faced. So this policy of depending for all our protection on our friends means that willy-nilly we have to follow the same policy they pursue. We have shown during this war just how much we can contribute towards our defence. In ordinary peace-time we can pursue a policy which would produce a greater measure of defence, but we can only do that where we know where we are going and have some say in the direction we take. These are only a few of the thoughts which I have wanted to place before the House for a long time, because as I said in the beginning this House has shown a very great disinclination in the past to discuss foreign affairs, particularly in relation to what should be the policy pursued by the Union. I think the other Dominions are getting away from that attitude. Canada has shown very clearly that in her future foreign relationship she will move closer and closer to the United States. The great Commonwealth of Australia has also shown that she feels that possibly her future is more likely to be bound up with America, but South Africa has so far been left in a position not only of mental isolation but as far as I can see at the moment, also geographical and strategical isolation. This is the position which the Government should seriously consider, and if the Government know more than we do, they should at least give us some information. There is just one other point. I notice that in the Declaration recently made the Atlantic Charter is again reaffirmed. I am very pleased to hear that, but continually reaffirming the principles of the Atlantic Charter does not take us much further. Almost everyone agrees with the principles of the Charter but there are a host of divergent opinions as to how it shall be implemented. I do not think for a moment that you will find, for example, that the President of the Chamber of Mines has the same views as to how it will be implemented as the Leader of the Labour Party. I do not think you will find big businesses generally hold the same views as to the implementation of the Charter as the trade unions. So all we get at the moment is the continued repetition of very fine words which may mean nothing or may mean a lot. They will mean nothing if nothing is done to show us the machcinery by which some attempt shall be made to give effect to the principles. They will mean something if before the end of the war some kind of machinery is set into force. I think a fair inference from the Atlantic Charter is that if we have to carry out these principles something like a comprehensive trade agreement will have to be arrived at. If words mean anything I gather that behind the Atlantic Charter is the idea that the raw materials of the world will be distributed to the nations and that every nation will have an opportunity to gain a fair share of the world’s trade. That is the essence and so far I have seen nothing which suggests to me that we are within any kind of measuring distance of the implementation of the Charter. It must not be said that we should wait for the end of the war because other conferences have been held and decisions taken with reference to things which will occur after the war. In the meantime the various countries—I am speaking particularly of South Africa—are not in a position to frame their post-war economic policy. Let us take the case of the Union of South Africa. We have a Minister of Economic Development. As I have said in the House before he is a gentleman with a very grandiloquent title but a very shy gentleman who speaks to us very rarely and hides behind a bush when we ask him questions. Ever since he has been appointed I have been trying to make out what the economic policy of the Union will be after the war. I have not been able to discern it. I know what the financial policy of the Minister of Finance is, but the Minister of Finance, I am sure, does not mix up his financial policy with an economic policy. His policy has been to get as much money with which to run the war by hurting everyone as little as possible. He has hurt everyone very little but they are now beginning to squeal. He will find that by going to the by-election at Port Elizabeth. But he was very successful in his policy. However, it is not an economic policy. It is not a policy which will develop South African industry. It is not a policy which will increase our productivity as asked for by the Planning Council and it is not a policy which has any relation to the high-sounding phrases of the Atlantic Charter. The Minister of Economic Development tells us that his policy is to encourage and develop secondary industry and as far as possible to raise the productivity of the Union. It is very easy to say that that is his policy. So far, however, we have seen no actual sign that to any considerable extent this policy is being put into effect. It may be that the hon. Minister is waiting to find out what will be done under the Atlantic Charter, because even the Prime Minister said two years ago that the future of our secondary industry is a future where we will be able to export goods to the rest of Africa. It seems to me that the Prime Minister’s idea of pan-Africanism is rather an idea where we will make friends with other territories in Africa, and whereby they wil be prepared to accept our manufactured products. Presumably we must also accept something from them in exchange. But there are other countries interested in Africa, like France and Belgium, particularly in the Belgian Congo. The latter have been very interested, and found it very much to their personal advantage. We may find that these countries are not willing to stand back and allow the Union to play the foremost part. So, in the meantime, we have to proceed to build up our economic policy without knowing where we are going. I was told the other day by a member of the wool industry that he was satisfied that Britain would continue to buy our wool for the next five years after the war, but he said that that was only his private opinion. He said he did not know anything which made him say so, except his knowledge of the industry. But there is no form of assurance. Supposing that the British Government immediately after the war ceases to buy our wool clip, we must then have what the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has been pleading for during the war, a free market, and I feel that that will result in a dangerous position for the growers in South Africa, and similarly it applies to many other products. I am not here to suggest a solution, but I do say this, that a foreign policy—and when I talk about our foreign policy I do not mean a foreign policy as we had pre-war foreign policies in the countries of Europe, where diplomats were almost always busy with power politics and the only problem they were concerned with was in putting one across every other country and seeing that they did not put it across them—but what I mean is an intelligent policy, through the Department of External Affairs, dealing with happenings outside South Africa and leading towards the lines along which we ourselves would like to go as far as possible, using our influence particularly on the continent of Africa. We have never done that. The things which happen in Africa have, through our policy of isolation, been beyond our ken, except when Admiral Evans took a few guns to frighten a few natives. That was the only occasion when we took any interest. It is not a question of trying to score off our neighbours and playing ducks and drakes with the rights of other countries, but I mean an intelligent interest in affairs outside our own country which affect us, and which affect the world generally. Side by side with that I think we should also have some kind of carefully laid down economic policy which will tell us the way we want to go, and if it is based on the Atlantic Charter so much the better. I am beginning to feel that so far as South Africa is concerned we cannot afford to wait until the machinery of the Atlantic Charter is put into operation. I notice that at the conference to be held at San Francisco there is no mention of the Dominions being invited to attend. I conclude that they were included in the general term “other allied nations”, but it seems to me that the Dominions should receive more recognition than that. I know the difficulties but I believe that these difficulties can be overcome, and I am satisfied that great countries, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, are entitled to more recognition than they are receiving today, especially when a country is being recognised through whose corruption the world nearly passed through five hundred years of darkness.

There are one or two matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance. Before I do so I feel it my duty to refer to the attitude and the behaviour of members of the Opposition party, I refer particularly to the Nationalist Party, when our Prime Minister is speaking. Every time the Prime Minister gets to his feet he is subjected to a running fire, to indignities which if the people outside this House knew about it, I even go so far as to say if supporters of the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side knew the way the Prime Minister was being treated in this House, would resent it, and I am sure it would do hon. members opposite no good at all. We have to remember this, that the Prime Minister is South African born. Every South African is proud that South Africa has produced a man like the Prime Minister. I heard the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) refer to South Africa as just growing up. He is quite right. The greatest advertising agent South Africa has ever had has been Gen. Smuts, the Prime Minister of South Africa. He is recognised right throughout the world; he is recognised as one of the leading statesmen of the world. Whenever he speaks outside this House, whether it be in this country or overseas in any other country in the world, you could hear a pin drop, so closely does the audience hang on every word he says. It is only in this House that he is subject to all these indignities. Gen. Smuts has put South Africa on the map. We realise what he has done for the winning of the war by being summoned to give advice by all leading countries. He has put South Africa on the map for people who before the war did not know there was such a country as South Africa. I say this, that I am sorry that there is such a slender attendance on the opposite benches at the present moment. I charge the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy-Leader and the Whips, and I feel it is their duty to speak to their members and to try to restrain them and to keep them quiet when the Prime Minister is speaking. The other day when the Leader of the Opposition was addressing the House, did we not have eight Cabinet Ministers in their seats to listen to the hon. gentleman? The Hon. Leader of the Opposition was not subjected to interjections; every courtesy was extended to him, every courtesy he could possibly expect; and he was talking on a matter which many of us on this side of the House thought he did not know too much about. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition does not know much about external politics. I have listened to him for quite a considerable number of years when he has expounded this particular subject, and I have never yet found him a prophet; I have never yet found that anything he told us came true. There is this little clique on the benches opposite who are subjecting our Prime Minister to all these indignities, and I charge the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition and various other hon. members opposite in that connection. It is their duty to try and control that clique, and to see that the same courtesy is extended to the Prime Minister that members on this side of the House extend to their Leader. Courtesy has ever been a noted tradition of Afrikanerdom, and I would ask hon. members to remember that national tradition inside the House as well as outside the House, and to extend the same courtesy to the Leader on this side of the House as their own supporters outside would extend to him were he speaking on any platform in their constituencies. I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance this question of cost of living allowances on all pensions. We know that old age pensioners and war veteran pensioners are automatically given that allowance. Then why this discrimination? I know the Minister will tell me that pensioners can go and get an increase if circumstances are against them. But the point is this, a means test is immediately applied and these pensioners have got to answer certain questionaires, which rather places them at a disadvantage in this respect, that it touches their pride. Some pensioners have been paying into pension funds for between 30 and 40 years. If the Minister of Finance, and this is the whole point, is prepared to grant cost of living allowances to all his present serving staff—I refer now particularly to the Civil Service—if he has agreed that the cost of living has gone up and he is prepared to pay his present serving staff that cost of living allowance, my contention is that the pensioners are a direct charge on the State too, and cost of living allowances should altomatically be added to their pensions as well; and they should not be subject to the indignity of having a means test applied to them when they apply for that extra amount to be added to their pension. We must remember that the pound today is only worth 10s. in pre-war money. In regard to a large number of these people on pension today that is their only source of income, and why there should be this discrimination between two groups of pensioners I do not know. Why the present serving civil servant is entitled to that cost of living allowance and the past civil servant is not it is difficult to understand. While I am on the question of these cost of living allowances, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance this question. He apparently has agreed to give a cost of living allowance, and therefore we must take it for granted the cost of living is rising. Why is it subject to income tax? That has always been a question that has puzzled me. If we agree that it now costs more to live, that cost of living allowance should be free of income tax. Another point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the serious position at the present time, particularly in the large towns, in connection with the aliens and refugees that flock to this country. I am not hostile to any of those who were harboured here. Shelter was needed for them, and I think it was the duty of the country to give them shelter while they were here. But this position is developing, and a large number of these aliens and refugees, because there is no naturalisation or residential qualification needed, are getting trading licences. I have no objection to them getting trading licences, but I sincerely hope that after the war the position of these people who are here as temporary residents will be reviewed, and that provision will be made for them to be sent out of the country, not necessarily back to their own country, because they are causing many difficulties at the present time. In Johannesburg so many of these people have wanted to start trading that there has been a derth of shops and you cannot get a shop in a decent area of Johannesburg for love of money. Consequently they had to resort to residential flats. There are large blocks of flats in Johannesburg today which were erected in the first instance primarily for residential purposes that are being used for accommodating businesses. It spreads from one flat to another. In the first flat a noise is caused by the business and the next-door neighbours move out, and some little businessman steps in So it spreads practically throughout the whole building, and, whole blocks of flats which were built for residential purposes are used today as business premises. It suits the landlord very well, because as a result he can evade that war measure we put through in regard to rent. When that flat is being used for business purposes it becomes a business site, and hundreds and hundreds of flats are being used in that way. All the rents have been raised, and tenants who were happy to live there before have been driven out. I know I shall be out of order, but that is also a contributing factor ….

If the hon. member knows that what he is going to say will be ruled out of order, he should not say it.

I do not intend to proceed. I merely say that it is a contributing factor to housing shortage, and I leave it there. The last fact I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is this. A woman lost her husband who was in the army. He was stationed at Kimberley, and was on his way back from his work when he met with an accident. He was allowed to live out, and because he was actually just off duty at the time, the ruling was given against him by the Pensions Fund. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an extract from a white paper produced by the British Ministry of Pensions in reference to accidents—

Apparently this case falls under (3). The white paper goes on to say that His Majesty’s Government has decided that under war conditions accidents under categories (1), (2) and (3) can reasonably be regarded as attributable to service. I have no com plaint against the Minister. I think the Minister introduced a very generous pension fund. He has been very generous and we are very glad to have the Act; but anomalies do exist, and apparently the same sort of thing existed in the British Act. They have seen fit to amend their Act, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will give this matter attention and see whether he cannot effect a revision I know very well that the Minister of Finance is full of vitality. I refer those points to him, and I know that as a man of action he will do something. In Disraeli’s words: “Action may not bring happiness, but there is no happiness without action.” I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way clear to deal with these two points, the one about cost-of-living and the other about pensions.

I should like to discuss the position on the platteland. When we hear hon. members on the other side it is clear to us that they do not appreciate at all what the position of the farmer is. When we talk about meat and they learn that the farmer gets so much for an ox or a wether, or so much for milk, they are inclined to think that he got the goods which he sells for a present. The farmer is one of those who experiences the greatest difficulty in the country. We so often hear that the farmers have a good time, that they get good prices and have an easy life. That is not the case. The last speaker said that a £ is only worth 10s. today, and we can appreciate how the farmers have to struggle. There are 2¼ million Europeans in this country. Those 2¼ million people are made up of various sections of the community. There are attorneys, business people, ministers of religion, teachers, professors, and then there are farmers. When we examine the statistics, however, we find that the farming community is saddled with a debt of £90,000,000. They have to pay that debt to their creditors and that means that the greatest majority of the farms in the Union are bonded, that the farmer’s interests are mortgaged. Many people who start to farm have to incur debt right at the beginning. When I personally started to farm, I discovered that it took me five years before I could sell an ox. I have to look after the calf for five years before I can sell it. It takes me three years to produce milk. I have to keep the calf for 3 years before I get a gallon of milk. I have to look after my sheep; I have to look after my lands before I can convert anything into cash. You must take that into consideration when we on this side point out that the prices which the farmers are getting today are unsatisfactory. I shall tell you why those prices are unsatisfactory. Before the war we put our capital into farming. Today we have to convert that capital, and if we do so, and we do get a price for our stock, we clash with the Minister of Finance. He taxes us so heavily that we scarcely have anything left. The farmers have to pay taxes in all branches of life. They have to pay indirect taxation on plough-shares, bags, and everything else that they require. I just want to ask, since the farmers have to struggle in this way and since they have such a great debt burden, whether an effort cannot be made to place them on a sound footing. I do not want to dictate to the Minister of Lands what he should do, but I want to give him an outline of the position of the farmer. It is sometimes said that the Bethlehem constituency is a very flourishing constituency. Bethlehem is not a flourishing constituency today. There are a few rich farmers who inherited land and who bought additional land, but the other farmers are not rich. They are living from hand to mouth. They have small farms. The land is mortgaged. Some of them are lessees and by-woners, and they are experiencing great difficulty. For two years in succession we have had a failure of our wheat crop. Our last mealie crop was also a failure. Nevertheless those people have to pay their rent and their interest, and I want to give this House the assurance that they have to struggle very hard. I say again that I do not want to dictate to the Minister but he should consider whether it is not possible to give further assistance to those people in connection with the prices of meat. We hear a great deal about the price of prime meat. I do not know what the position is in other districts, but in my district I daresay not 1 per cent. of the cattle are prime. Some farmers use tractors, but others have to plough with their oxen for a few years before they can sell them. Once the oxen have been used for this purpose, they can never again be prime. They only reach the third grade and in exceptional cases the second grade. I do not want to say anything against the townsmen. But they are being taken care of. The man who is in receipt of a salary knows that at the end of the month he is going to get his salary and in addition to that he gets a war allowance. The farmer who starts to farm has to wait for a long time before he gets any return, and then he still has everything against him including the elements of nature. It is not in the nature of an investment where he knows that he will get something in return. I feel therefore that it is a branch of the community which ought to have the sympathy of the Government. I want to explain why I say this. Where the man lives in a city and he has a few children, they can attend school in the city. It costs him practically nothing extra. The man on the platteland who has a few children has to pay a great deal to send those children to a hostel if he wants them to study further than Std. VI. It costs him a lot of money. The majority of the people on the platteland usually have more children than the people in the cities, and it costs the farmers a great deal of money to send those children to school. It is a fact that the plattelanders have very much more expense than the people in the towns. Take income tax. Once a child reaches the age of 18. no rebate is allowed in respect of that child. Nevertheless, if he is at all clever, it is just the age at which he has to go to university, and then the parent has to spend a great deal of money on his education. It is only then that your expenses start. That is why we as farmers feel that we are hit harder than the others. It is not that we want something for nothing, but we feel that we ought to be assisted. We are told that we are living in flourishing times, at a time when money has no value But do hon. members on the other side know what it costs to keep children in a hostel and to clothe them? Everything is expensive. In addition to that we farmers are not in the position, when we sow wheat, of knowing what we are going to reap and what we are going to get for our crop. We notice from newspaper reports that a new plague has again been proclaimed in the Free State. The farmers are now compelled to combat algae. There are many people who simply cannot afford it. We have settlers in our parts. They have no labourers, and they cannot afford is. It requires thousands of pounds to combat such a plague, and the farmers are hardly in a position to do it on their own. There are certain farms which have pans. Those pans are dry. We think there is nothing in it but when the inspector comes along, he says the place is infected with algae. I should like to see the Minister of Agriculture making an effort to assist those people who cannot afford to exterminate this plague. In my constituency many cattle were lost. The people could not find out what the cause was, and the veterinary surgeon then said it was algae. I am exclusively a farmer, and I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to consider whether he cannot fix better prices for our stock. We hear about people who stand in queues and of meatless days and that type of thing; on the other hand we notice, according to statistics, that there is more stock in the country than previously. Why cannot we get a better price then? I want to mention my own case. We had a drought in the Free State. We did not reap any fodder; we did not reap any oats. We then sowed teff, but that was also a failure. Now we have to buy lucerne. Previously we could buy lucerne at £3 per ton; now we have to pay £6 10s. The railage used to be practically nothing, now we have to pay a large sum to the railways. That simply means that our costs have doubled. How can we afford in these circumstances to feed stock. I want to mention a case in my own constituency. In 1943 a farmer fattened cows for the auction, and he got from £20 to £27 10s. a head. With the fixation of the prices he felt that he could no longer feed the cows and he sold them at £16 10s. a head. In these circumstances we cannot feed the cattle. I do not know what the opinion of the other farmers is, but I have fed a great number of cattle, and I think it takes about 5 bags of mealie meal to make an ox prime; and then I am not talking about an old ox, but of a good medium ox. Nor am I including the hay and other fodder which it gets. If we take all those things into consideration, we feel impelled to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter. I am not trying to dominate the Minister; I am only pointing out the position in which the farmers, generally speaking, find themselves. Let us take the position in connection with mealies and general farming. The position of the farmer is not very rosy. I used to buy plough shares at 7s. They were good shares which lasted for a long time. Now I have to pay £1 12s. 6d. for the same pair of shares. We bought mealie planters at £22 10s. Now we pay £48. We bought bags at £12 10s. per bale. Now they cost £25. The farmer’s production costs have gone up, as well as his labour costs. We can no longer get as much native labour as we want. We can no longer tell the native that we are going to pay him this, that or the other wage. He simply tells us what he wants. We know that after every war there is a period of depression and I should like to know whether it is not possible to place the farmers in such a position that they will be able to withstand the depression. Let us look at the position of the Free State farmers. The Department of Agriculture has now proceeded to give the farmers State wheat on credit. We are grateful for the assistance which the Department has given to the farmers, but look at the price of wheat. We know that the maximum price of wheat is 36/- per bag. The parts from which I come in the Free State, do not reach that grade. The natural elements are against us. We cannot produce the best wheat. I cannot understand why those people who have applied for seed wheat, have to pay 45/- per bag. It seems that the unloading costs are calculated at 3/- per bag, administrative costs at 3/- per bag, and the costs of transhipment to the farmer a further 3/- per bag. That means that the wheat which is supplied to the farmer, costs 9/- more. These people therefore have to pay 9/- per bag more than the maximum price, and in addition to that interest at the rate of 4 per cent. Those farmers who applied for wheat must be regarded as ruined people who are no longer in a position to carry on with their farming. These people no longer have the purchasing power to buy seed themselves. They now come to the Government and say: “Help us; we want to produce so that the country will have sufficient food.” We must realise that those people will find themselves in a hopeless position if they have to migrate to the cities. These are people who worked themselves to a standstill on the platteland. They are not able to adapt themselves to living conditions in the cities. They are not artisans and later on they will become a burden to the State. We cannot understand why the authorities should saddle the wheat farmers who are in a less privileged position on the platteland with the difference between 36/- and 45/- in these difficult circumstances. Why should they have to pay the difference in price? We should like the hon. Minister to consider this matter and see whether it is not possible to assist them. If there are people who are financially strong and who are able to pay, I have no objection. But we plead for that section of the people who are going down, those people who still want to prove their independence and who are not anxious to go to the cities where they cannot adapt themselves, those people who would like to remain on the platteland and cultivate the land. Why should they have to pay this big profit of 9/- in order to obtain seed? These people are in necessitous circumstances. What is the position of the wheat farmers? The production of wheat in the Free State only started a few years ago, comparatively speaking and many difficulties have arisen. The land became exhausted; they had to contend with weeds—take the Springbok sorrel, for example—the land is no longer as fertile and the production costs have risen tremendously. When we consider all these things, we must realise that these people ought to be assisted. The price of land is very high. I am speaking subject to correction, but I understood that people who are buying land at present, will not be assisted when the depression comes. Money has lost its value. The people have no other place to go to. What is to become of them? The cities are full. There is no industry to absorb those people. We are on the eve of demobilisation, and there will be thousands of people who will be unemployed. For that reason the Government should do everything in its power to keep as many people as possible on the platteland and to prevent them from having to go to the cities. There are enough people for whom work will have to be found when the war is over. Although I do not support the war policy of the Government, I do feel that any labourer is worth his wage, and where the man enlisted, we cannot simply say to him upon his return: “We have nothing further to do with you; you have been paid what is due to you.” The people who obtained this money, have used it. Everything is expensive in war circumstances. Food is expensive, as well as clothing and rental. They were left with nothing. I feel therefore that I should like the Minister and his Department to make efforts to devise some sort of scheme, a good scheme, to keep these people on the platteland. Farm life is unattractive to many people, and they see no future in farming. In my home town 65 children wrote the matriculation examination. The principal of the school asked those who wanted to farm to put up their hands, and out of 65 there were only 3 who put up their hands Why do the children no longer want to farm? Because farming is such a difficult occupation. It does not attract the children; they feel it is not productive; they are afraid of farming. Apart from the 10 per cent. who do not owe a portion of the mortgage bonds to the extent of £90,000,000, the farmers are in a difficult position and the children are leaving the farms. They are afraid of all the reverses, droughts and diseases and difficulties. But we must produce food. We must see to it that there is sufficient food for the country, and we are therefore obliged to do everything we can to keep the farmers on the platteland.

I want to supplement and support what my friend the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) said just now about the behaviour of members opposite when the Prime Minister or Ministers on this side of the House are speaking. My mind goes back to last year’s debates on the question of bilingualism. When a motion was moved by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), you will find on reference to Hansard, that the hon. mover was interrupted only about six times, and they were very mild interruptions indeed. Then when the Leader of the Opposition spoke, on the same motion, he was also interrupted by the members on this side to the extent again of not more than a half dozen times, but when it came to our Leader, the Prime Minister, who should commend the respect and attention of every member of this House, you will find that, according to Hansard, he was interrupted no less than 37 times, and worse still, the mover of the motion was the biggest culprit : he interrupted the Prime Minister at least seven times. When the DeputyPrime Minister, the Minister of Finance, spoke on the same subject, he was interrupted on about 40 occasions. That is clearly stated in Hansard. So I say that the remarks by the hon. member for Rosettenville are timeous, and I wish to support him very strongly indeed in what he said. With regard to the Part Appropriation Bill, which we have before us, I wish to say that I welcome that part of the speech of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government in which he promised that there would be légisation to control Stock Exchanges and Securities. I think legislation of that description is long overdue, as was pointed out during the last Session. Our Stock Exchange today is controlled by the old pre-Union Act of 1908 or 1909, and up-to-date legislation is more than overdue. I express the hope that the promised legislation which will be brought before this House at no distant date, will deal with the activities of the jobber and the share-pusher, and that wé will give our attention to the unfair and unauthorised advertising that takes place so very extensively by Unit Certificate companies who are, as I tried to point out last Session, dealers in stocks and shares, i.e. stockbrokers, and that such advertising is in complete conflict with the existing Stock Exchange Act. Then I want to draw the Minister’s attention to another form of advertising which one finds frequently appearing in the Press of today, and that is this type of thing: “9 per cent. or 10 per cent. guaranteed on all amounts up to £25 and upwards.” Such advertisement is signed by some investment company or it is inserted by an investment company. Well, I say that the activities of these companies, who advertise in that way, should be looked into, because there is more than a danger that the public will be badly “had” one of these days, and I ask the Minister to make a special effort to see that that type of advertising is controlled.

There are so many members of the public who seem to like being “had”.

I know, but I submit that it is our duty, as legislators, to save them from being “had” and to save them from their friends who would so willingly give them 10 per cent. Seeing that money is so cheap and so plentiful there must be something wrong with a company that advertises so extensively and is prepared to give as much as 10 per cent. for the short-term loans made to it. I also want to ask the hon. Minister whether there is any intention of controlling and curtailing the activities of the numerous estate agents. I think the Minister and members of the House will agree that the activities and practices of the estate agents leave a great deal to be desired, and that the time is ripe for some legislation to be brought in to control the activities of these people. My information is that no less a number than 600 estate agents are practising in Johannesburg and the Reef. I cannot tell what the numbers are in Pretoria, but I am safe in saying that they must have quadrupled during the war and there must be at least 100 in Pretoria. There are numerous complaints about their methods of doing business, and their keenness and shrewdness in doing business. I think the time has arrived for controlling legislation to be brought in, and if the Government contemplates doing so, I shall be glad to hear from the Minister that such is the case. If the Government does not contemplate doing so, will the Ministér say whether he has received any information that a private member is going to bring forward legislation such as I refer to. Now, Sir, I want to deal with one or two aspects of our war-time taxation. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have hinted that there is no hope of what is called our war-time taxation being abolished while the war lasts. I wholeheartedly agree with that. I want to refer to two of these taxes, in particular the Excess Profits Duty and the Land Sales Profits Tax. Most of the criticism against these two taxes undoubtedly comes from the “pocket before principle” taxpayer. They are concerned only with making profits during the war, and all the criticism as to the badness and the futility of these two taxes comes from people who are making as much money as they can out of land speculations and commerce and industries. The criticisms in regard to the Excess Profits Duty come principally from commerce and industry and the criticism of the Land Tax comes mostly from those engaged in land and building speculations. I include in this latter lawyers and estate agents. All of them wish to make money whilst the going is good. I know what I am talking about because I am one of them. The Land Sales Profits Tax was designed to prevent inflation in property values. I think it has done so to a great extent. I recall the statement made the other day by the Minister of Finance in which he said that there is evidence that property values have increased by about 100% in this war, whilst the increase in the last war was any tiling between 300% and 400%. I think we are fully justified in saying that the tax has, in a large measure, averted inflation. In regard to the Excess Profits Duty, I do not know whether I am correct in saying this, but I think the Minister said that this tax had yielded £12,000,000 since the war began. That, too, speaks volumes, and is evidence that the tax to a large extent has achieved its purpose. I ask the Minister not to consider relaxing or reducing this tax whilst the war is on, but one can only stress the need for the utmost vigilance by the authorities, and for the imposition of the heaviest possible punishment, even to the extent of imposing imprisonment on tax evaders, particularly those who deliberately evade payment. It really has become serious the way these expert tax evaders set out, with malice aforethought, to evade their responsibilities and not to pay the lawful taxes. It has become almost a fine art in some of our bigger centres to set up as one who is supposed to be expert on income and other taxes. In reality such people are experts on advising taxpayers how to evade taxes. Mr. Speaker, I said that I approve of the Land Profits Tax remaining, but at the same time I know that we are not collecting anything like what we ought to My information is that quite 50% of this tax is not being paid. People draw on their imagination extensively when a man sells a property; the buyer and the seller get together to make their declarations regarding the purchase price. The parties concerned draw upon their imaginations in arriving at the sale and purchase price with the result that by the time the purchaser and the seller have made what purports to be a solemn declaration, there is very little left over on which tax has to be paid. That being so, it occurred to me that perhaps—I am sorry the Minister is not here to hear my suggestion—one way of overtaking and remedying the position and of increasing the revenue to be obtained is to increase the transfer duty. At present the transfer duty is 4%; there is a surcharge of 2% on the old transfer duty of 2%. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should seriously consider the advisability of increasing the transfer duty to 6% or 8%, thereby increasing the revenue which will be obtained from the Land Sales Profits Tax. We will then make it more difficult to evade this tax. It will be very difficult and risky for seller and purchaser to declare a wrong purchase price in regard to a particular transaction. I ask the Minister seriously to consider whether he will not, in addition to the Land Profits Tax, as it is today, 13s. 4d. in the £ impose additional taxation by way of additional transfer duty. I think the Treasury will benefit if this is done. Just a word or two more. Last week the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) made a remark, or rather, he said that he saw or hoped he saw, in the publication of the new English weekly, the “New Era”, which publication is under the very able editorship of a former occupant of the Chair of this House, Dr. Jansen, a change of heart on the part of the Nationalist Party. I am very much surprised that an old Parliamentary bird like the member for Langlaagte should be nearly caught with such chaff, such bad chaff, too. That is not a change of heart at all It is a change of tactics and of strategy on the part of the party opposite, but it will deceive no one, least of all the English-speaking voter of this country. The English-speaking South African is much more casual and indifferent about his politics than his brother Afrikaans-speaking South African, but with all his casualness he is not going to allow the party opposite to “get away with it” this time. The publication of the “New Era” will not benefit the Nationalist one little bit and I can promise them that they will get very few votes from the English-speaking people of this country. I can promise them that we shall remember, and we shall never allow the people of this country to forget, how the Party opposite failed this our country in its hour of need. We shall remember and we shall not allow the people to forget the attitude of the Nationalist Party when in 1940 a mere handful of R.A.F. stood up against the mighty Luftwaffe, when London was being obliterated and when the men, women and children of England were being killed in thousands and tens of thousands by the order of Hitler who once said in reply to President Roosevelt’s question to him that the Germanarmy did not and would not make war on women and children. The English-speaking South Africans will remember that We shall remember also how the Party opposite used to gather round the notice board in the Lobby when bad news in plenty came in the early days of 1940, and how they sneered and jeered. No word of praise, encouragement or admiration did we have for those brave men, women and children of England in standing up to that terrific air bombing. All we got from the petty political pedlars opposite was: “Ja, julle wil mos oorlog maak. Toe nou.”

You were on the home front also.

One member of the opposite side—Mr. Schoeman, the former member for Fordsburg—said quite openly in this House that the hopes of the Nationalist Party centred on a German victory; we shall remember that. We shall remember, and we shall never allow the people to forget the insults hurled by members opposite at all those splendid men and women who put on the uniform and who fought to make it possible for members opposite to utter those insults in the safety of this House.

You were at home, too.

It is quite clear that you did no fighting.

The Leader of the Opposition had a celebration at the fall of Tobruk when thousands of our South Africans were killed, wounded and taken prisoner; he celebrated that event and now he and his party have the political effrontery to come here and ask the English-speaking South Africans to read their paper and to support them. I can promise them that they will get very little support from the English-speaking people of this country. All this and much more we shall never forget. Nor will the English-speaking South Africans ever forget that after describing Great Britain as “the mother of our Freedom”, the party over there, led by the man who spoke those words, stabbed “the mother of our Freedom” in the back. We shall not forget those things and we shall not allow our fellow South Africans to forget.

And we do not forget how you allowed women and children to starve in the Boer War.

We will not forget how they stood watching and gloating over the German airmen finishing off England, their hated enemy. No Sir, the English-speaking South Africans will have nothing to do with people who would kill or help to kill their mother when attacked by gangsters. We shall remember.

It does not surprise us, of course, to get a speech such as we have just had from the hon. member who has just spoken. What did he contribute, what did he accomplish by waving the Union Jack in front of us and telling us that the Englishspeaking section of the population will reject the new Nationalist English journal? No, that is exactly what has always happened in the past. This side is accused of not being prepared to co-operate with the Englishspeaking section of the population, but who is the first to run away now? It is actually that hon. member because he is fully aware of the fact that the nation will in the near future call his party and the Government to account for their deeds—at any rate many of the deeds of the Government—and that they will no longer be able to hide behind the Union Jack and wave it in front of us. I do not, however, want to say anything further about the hon. member. I got up in order to deal with an industry in regard to which nothing has been said up to the present, and which, in my opinion, is the key industry in our country All other industries which have been referred to, are based on it. A gréat deal has been said about the meat industry and the dairy industry and other branches of farming, but the mealie industry forms the basis of all industries, and I would be neglecting my duty if I did not discuss the position of the mealie industry in this House. I returned from the Free State yesterday. I went through the Transvaal and I can give you the assurance that the position of the mealie industry is serious. The farmers are in the grip of a serious drought. We are threatened with a great danger, and not only the mealie farmers but the whole nation may be placed in a difficult position. There are no prospects of a mealie crop which will be able to comply with the requirements and the needs of the country. For the next 15 or 16 months we will have to struggle through with the supplies which are available. There may be some hope today that there will be a crop of 16½ or 17 million bags. But if it does not rain in the near future, there is no doubt that that crop will be further reduced and the result will be that the shortage will be very much greater. Last year and also during previous years, we made representations to the Minister and asked for increased prices for the producer. We did not get it but we nevertheless carried on with the production. We often hear hairsplitting in regard to the prices which the producer must get. Now I want to put this question to the House : Who is there today who can fix the production costs of mealies? After two successive years of failures—too much rain one year and too little rain the next year—production costs must now be fixed which will more or less compensate the producer for his investment and for the work which he put into production. It is here that I want to ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture not always to look at his bargaining powers when he deals with the mealie farmers. He should not see what is the cheapest price with which he can send them on their way. The production is decreasing year by year If the farmers are not encouraged, they cannot continue to produce. One involuntarily asks oneself which section of the community has made the greatest contributon to the policy of seeing the war through. There is only one reply. It is the mealie farmer. Throughout the whole war period there has not been a surplus of mealies in this country at any time. There was barely enough, but most of the time there was too little. A bag of mealies which the farmer delivered for 12s. 6d., 15s., 16s. or 17s. per bag was worth 30s. in the open market throughout that period. But the farmer asked for control and he was prepared to get a stable market under that control, but the attitude of the Government has always been: for how little can we get hold of that product of the mealie farmer?

You must remember that the Government is responsible for the feeding of the poor.

Yes, we will always have poor people. The farmers are being frightened; they no longer have any faith. The hon. Minister has said repeatedly on the floor of this House and elsewhere that he would give us a long-term scheme for meat. It is our duty to see that we have a long-term scheme for the mealie industry, but although the farmer is today handing over his product at a reduced price, the Government has failed to ensure that the farmer will get a remunerative price for his product after the war. This control system also operates in England. What does the English Government do? The English Government gives its farmers the assurance that they will get stable prices for at least four years after the war. They are assured that the price of their commodity, which they are today handing over at a certain price, will be maintained after the war. I feel that we should act timeously. If the Minister had announced a price last year already to encourage the farmers to produce it would not have been necessary for us to plead for a price today. In that case the producer would have known where he stood. Today he does not know whether the Minister is going to reduce or increase the price. Last year we waited for the Agricultural Vote. We came together and we found that it was too late. It is unpleasant to be told that one is too late. Last year when we said that we were not satisfied, the Minister told us that it was too late. Now I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make sure that this year he will give the mealie farmer a price of not less than 20/- per bag. That is very reasonable. The crop may be very much less than we expect. It may be necessary at a later stage to ask for an increase, but with a crop of 17,000,000 bags, I think we are entitled to ask the Minister for a price of at least 20/- per bag. It was said a moment ago by way of interjection that there are poor people to be taken care of. But if we give the farmer 20/- per bag, it is not essential that the poor man should pay more or much more than he is paying at present. The difference which the Government will have to add in order to subsidise the consumer, will not be a large amount. Of course, the Minister of Finance is the person who has the final say, because he controls the exchequer. He is as guilty as the Minister of Agriculture for this shortage of mealies this shortage of meat and the shortage of various foodstuffs. A subsidy on mealies has been paid for years in respect of the first 500 bags, and it is estimated that 80% of the farmers produce a little more than 500, and the other farmers produce the rest. The Minister of Finance was warned in 1942 that those people would not produce, that it would be made impossible for them I wish the Minister of Finance would travel about with me in the Free State today. I shall take him to farms where nothing is being produced today; I shall take him to farmers whose production he has retarded. It is no use putting all the blame on the farmers, nor is it of any avail to put all the blame on some department or other. The general taxation policy and the policy of control of this Government are such that it must eventually lead to a state of confusion. I rise this evening to make a plea on behalf of the mealie farmer. I just want to remind the hon. Minister of the fact that the mealie farmers are still with him; he will be saddled with them; he will have to ensure that they get a remunerative price for their products. There are a few other points which I should like to touch upon. I am sorry the Minister of Mines is not here.

Have you done with me now?

Yes. I take it the Minister is aware of the fact that the potential gold mines of the Free State have developed to such an extent that I am justified in saying that 70% of those gold fields are situated in the Kroonstad constituency. I availed myself of the opportunity, together with the hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus), to go through that area with the Minister to see what is going on there. The companies are undoubtedly prepared to start developing. They are prepared to sink shafts, but the Government is standing in the way of those companies today. I heard the excuse of the Minister that machinery could not be imported at present. I have the assurance, however, of chief engineers of certain of these companies that they have got the machinery. They are transferring it from Johannesburg. A certain quantity is being brought over but the Government says the manpower is lacking. I wonder whether the Government realises to what extent it is retarding the development of the Free State. A shaft cannot be sunk within a week or a month; it takes a few years from the time the shaft is sunk until the mine can be developed. There is not a great shortage of manpower in the Free State and there is not a shortage of manpower in the Transvaal, and I want to ask the Government seriously to consider the question of granting permission to certain companies to carry on with the sinking of shafts and in that way to give the Free State a fillip. After the war we shall have to wait a few years before the start can be made. But if the Government now grants them permission to start with a few shafts, these companies, when the war is over, will have progressed to such an extent that they will be able to produce within a short period. I want to make an appeal to the Government to allow a start to be made with the development.

I had intended to deliver a rather comprehensive address on this subject, but apparently the interest in the debate is waning rapidly, so I will content myself with just a few general remarks on the prospect of industries in the post-war period.

There is very little interest on your side.

The hon. member says very little interest is manifested on our side. That is hardly surprising when we have to listen to the type of argument which we get from that side. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) in the course of his address a few minutes ago, did mention this subject of the development of industries in the post-war period, but he mentioned only one branch of our industries, that is, our secondary industry. I prefer to regard our industries as falling in three main, separate branches. Two primary and one secondary. I refer to the agricultural branch, the primary or mining branch and, of course, to the secondary branch. In considering the effect of our development in the post-war field, I think it is important to remember what are the limiting factors governing the expansion of each particular branch, and when we consider it in that light, the position becomes a little plainer. We are able to see, for instance, upon regarding and examining the primary industry which is divided into two sections, agricultural and mining, that there is a distinct prospect of expansion in the agricultural branch. We know that the products of the agricultural branch of our industry are mainly consumer products, that is to say, they fall largely within the food category. If we compare that with the products of the mining industry, etc., we find that they are mainly capital products. They do not constitute food or consumer goods; they are mainly used for export and to provide exchange for heavy machinery, rolling stock, machine tools, etc. It is important to remember that in considering this matter. After all you can extract gold from the earth, but you cannot make a locomotive from that gold. You have to convert that gold into currency in London, and with the currency obtained there you are able to purchase anything you require in the way of heavy machinery, rolling stock, etc. Then I come to the secondary branch of our industry I think it is well known that the secondary branch is concerned more with the manu facture and the processing, but the three branches of industry are more or less interdependent on one another, in that the agricultural branch must supply, to a certain extent, the raw materials which are required for the secondary branch, and the same applies, of course, to the mining industry. I think the time is ripe when we should ask the Government to indicate in plain terms what our policy is in regard to these three separate branches of our industry. And in raising that matter, I think we should at the same time direct the attention of the Miniser of Finance to, and impress upon him, if necessary, the necessity of maintaining our public expenditure at as high a level as is consistent with the amount of money that he is able to extract from the country by way of taxation and loan I think it is most important that there should be no contraction, no recession in the public expenditure. It may be necessary in the light of the Government’s policy which has up to now not been clearly enunciated, to divert that expenditure from its present character, which has largely been expended on the war effort, into a field which the Government, after due consideration has announced as the policy which it has decided to pursue in regard to this particuuar question. We must not forget, too, in considering this matter, that we are now virtually upon the threshold of he post-war period; when this House meets again for the next Session it is quite conceivable that we may be at peace. Therefore the position becomes all the more urgent and it becomes all the more necessary for the Government, and particularly the Minister of Economic Development to consider this matter. I know there is a Cabinet body—I believe it is known as the Cabinet Sub-Committee of Reconstruction—of which the Minister of Economic Development is the chairman. I do not quite know whether this sub-committee has considered this matter on the lines I have indicated. If it has, there has certainly not been any definite pronouncement of Government policy in that regard. In considering this question of industrialisation, it has been held up to us as an example on quite a number of occasions that Australia, New Zaland and the other dominions have advanced far ahead of us in the field of secondary industrialisation. It is important, I think, to try and find the reason for that advance. In searching for that reason, we find that all these Dominions have an advantage over us in that their currency, while being linked with sterling, is not linked with sterling at par, as is the position in South Africa. In that way they have an advantage of 25% in New Zealand and Australia over and above us and about 10% in Canada. That dates back to 1933 when we had the gold standard crisis in this country. I think it is significant to connect that fact with he development which has taken place in the Sister Dominions, and which have outstripped us from that date. If there were any doubt about that. I could mention to the House that just before the war, Australia was in the position to export from that country heavy machine tools, including a considerable amount of electrical equipment, to South Africa, and she was only able to do that by virtue of the fact that she enjoyed this currency advantage. Of course, one realises the difficulty when international discussions are taking place on this very subject; we realise the difficulties of a country like South Africa taking a unilateral action in that connection. But I think it is a matter which the Miniser of Finance might very well go into and consider its impact and implications on the industrial advancement of this country. In effect, it means that our South African £ would be worth 15/- against the English £. That means that our pound’s purchasing power, as far as imports are concerned, will diminish to the extent of 5/- in the £. On the other hand it means that there will be an expansion in our internal credit by a similar amount, and I think that that may be a desirable feature. It would have the effect of stabilising the price of gold at £10 10s. an ounce as long as the external price did not vary from its present figure. It means that our mining industry, which is now struggling against demands for wage increases, both from native and Europeans which is running up against many difficulties, higher costs of production as they reach greater and greater depths, would be given an advantage. But let us consider this matter from the point of view of the agricultural producer. Of course, they may say that on the face of it the goods they have to import will automatically cost them more. That is obviously so. Nobody can argue about that, but in respect of the goods they export, they will enjoy an advantage. The products which are marketed in overseas countries will fetch a higher price in South African currency. If a bale of wool is marketed in England at £10 in English currency, by the time that is converted into South African currency it would represent £12 10s. That means that our farmers would gain an immediate advantage I do not wish to pursue that topic too far. I would just like to have a word or two from the Minister of Finance in regard to that matter and to hear his views on it. There is another matter I should like to touch upon and that is a matter which concerns the Minister of Economic Development. The hori member for Fordsburg, in his speech a little while ago, mentioned that during the war, we had developed our trade with the neighbouring countries—the Belgian Congo and Rhodesia. That is known to be a fact, and it has been a reciprocal trade. One would like to know from the Minister of Economic Development whether any steps had been taken in that regard to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements with these neighbouring countries. I think the time is just about ripe at this stage, for such a course to be embarked on. It may have presented difficulties in the earlier stages of the war, but we are now on the threshold of the post-war period, and the time appears to be ripe for negotiation. There is another matter I would like to put to the Minister of Economic Development, and that concerns a certain firm which has been registered, as I notice from press reports with a capital of two million pounds, which is to enter the manufacturing engineering industry. I see also from press reports that Iscor is interested in the directorate. Does this mean that Iscor has branched out from the purely primary to the secondary branch and, if so, what are the implications? Does it mean that small industries which have established themselves with great difficulties, through difficult years, are now going to be swamped by Iscor with the assistance of one of the large mining groups? This is an important question, and I should very much like the Minister of Economic Development to provide us with an answer to it. I think the points which I have put are worthy of consideration by the Government. In the first place I would like a definite statement of Government policy as to which direction our industrial development must take. We should like to know from the Minister of Economic Development whether he has taken any steps with regard to reciprocal trade agreements, and we should like to hear his views in regard to this large firm or corporation which has recently been registered in the Transvaal.

During the last few days I have listened with attention to the speeches of hon. members on the opposite side of the House in this debate. I should remark that there is no accord or satisfaction with this position today regarding the doings of the Government. We find that nearly every one of the speakers on the other side, if he had not some small complaint, felt that at least he should make some suggestion. That convinces us that there is something amiss on the part of the Government, that no fixed course has been struck, and that they have no firm policy. We do no need to go further than to turn our attention to statements that we have had from members of the Cabinet themselves over a certain system. We find, for instance, that the Minister of Labour expressed himself as follows—[Re-translation]

We can never obtain social security so long as we remain under the capitalist system. The Committee on Social Security, he stated, made the suggestion that £5 a month should be paid to persons who were totally incapacitated for work, and who had no fixed abode. What does social security at the rate of £5 a month mean? It is absolutely necessary that we overthrow the system under which we are living, a system that can think of social security at £5 a month. There is an absolute need for changing a system that is inadequate, clumsy and damnably cruel.

He goes on to say—

Now when we hear such expressions as these from a member of the Cabinet we ask ourselves whether such a Government is still able to govern South Africa. The position in South Africa is critical. Those are the statements that we receive from the other side. We are told that the food position is critical. Members on the opposite benches declare that the housing position is critical. The condition of public health is described by them as critical. The distribution system for food is critical. All this is admitted by hon. members on the opposite benches, but it would seem that those members opposite remain indifferent towards this matter. Then we hear such words as social security; that care must be taken in regard to this thing and that thing, but when they are driven into a corner and have to come out frankly with their opinions and tell the people where they stand, then they go wrong. When it comes to an amendment then we do not find them voting for it. One moment they say this, and the next moment they say the opposite through their vote. That is an unhealthy state of affairs but I shall leave that there, because a good deal has already been said about it. I want to say a few words now about matters that have been broached by hon. members opposite. We have had the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), who expressed great concern over the doings of France. We know that the Prime Minister in his London speech before the British members of Parliament, said that France was going to disappear. Now we come here and we find that one of the members of this House who supports the Prime Minister is upset that France is beginning to make demands, and that it is going to be recognised. I want to put another question. Have we ever heard from the benches opposite why Russia has not yet declared war on Japan? Why do they remain silent about that? I am not surprised that there are doubts amongst them. If they want information from the Prime Minister about the foreign situation, we are not surprised, because things with them are in a tangle. One day the Prime Minister says that France has totally disappeared from the map of the world, and then France again comes to light and nothing is said about it. I may be a voice calling in the wilnerness, nevertheless I want to say that the leaders of the nations in these times should be great. History has in the past afforded proof that the enemy of yesterday is the friend of tomorrow. It is not true that even in the history of England she needed the assistance of Germany. What happened at Waterloo? Did Wellington not exclaim : “Let the sun go down or let Blticher come.” We should not allow that feeling of hate to triumph over our intelligence. We do not know what is wrapped up in the future, we do not know whether there will be war between the West and East. Who will determine that? When we look at the signs that there are, there does exist the possibility that there will be a combination between the ideologies of the East against Western civilisation. We find the best proof of that in the address of the Prime Minister itself. He sounded a warning that it was necessary for England to make friends such as Norway Belgium and Holland—for what purpose? To serve are a bulwark against the East and against Russia. Why did he say that? I am convinced that the Prime Minister with his ripe experience and with his knowledge of world affairs, has seen danger ahead, and he did not want it to be found in the future that he did not give timely warning of that possibility. He did not want that such a state of affairs should come to light, and that he had not given warning against it. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) has stated things here which has given us pain. He has accused us of exhibiting no sympathy for the women and children who were bombed by the Germans. He is a man who has told me that the finest days of his life were when he was in Pretoria in the days of the old republic, and he played the game of clay-stick with the Boers. He enjoyed full freedom, and he knows that there was never any discrimination made as between English-speaking and Dutch-speaking people. Why now must he persist in scratching? We have wounds we cannot forget. I may not forget, because then I should be burdening my conscience. I hold out my hand to every English-speaking Afrikaner who has accepted South Africa as his fatherland, but I say this, if they say those sort of things to us I ask the hon. member for Pretoria (East) whether he protested when England placed our women and children in the camps and when thousands and tens of thousands of them lost their lives. Did he disapprove of that? He should not ask me to forget those things. I cannot forget that, and I shall not forget it. But I will not spread it the whole day long on the bread of my English-speaking friends. I want to live with them, and I want to let those things rest in history. But you must not scratch those wounds. They will bleed. People who live in glass houses find it dangerous to throw stones. I come to another matter and that is the Indian problem of Natal. It is a pity that there are so few members from Natal present. Their position is that now they have to run to us. They do not go for assistance to the United Party. No, let me read out to you to whom they turn for aid today. Let me say this, that we welcome it, and we are prepared to do everything in our power to meet those friends—to take part in that battle for the preservation of white civilisation in South Africa. We shall stand by them. They do not need to wait for us, because it is the policy of the Nationalist Party that South Africa should remain a white man’s country. For the information of those friends who look down on us as if we are not prepared to look South Africa’s problems in the face, I want to read out a letter which has been addressed to me by the Secretary of the Durban Joint Wards Committee.

Who are they?

The hon. member should listen to this letter. He should not now begin to run. If he will listen he will see who these people are. The letter has been addressed to me and it runs as follows—

The Indian Problem in this Province.

We desire to direct the attention of our brothers in the Orange Free State to the real danger that the Government’s conduct towards the Indian problem in this province, as well as Senator Clarkson’s statement in reference to the grant of the franchise to the Indians, brings to the South African nation. With a view to explaining our attitude I want to quote the recent utterances of the Minister of the Interior:

The ordinance to replace the restrictions law (Pegging Act) will be introduced in August by the Privincial Council, and if it is adopted Indians in any part of the province may purchase property subject only to a provision regarding occupation, and permission may be granted merely by a board of five members appointed by the Government. We cannot accept with any confidence that any such condition shall be of a permanent nature and still less have we faith in any such board, however it is composed, because the members will not be in a position to be able to take charge of the work which will be forced on them. Mr. H. C. Erasmus, M.P., referred recently in Parliament to the wisdom of their forefathers who prevented Asiatics from coming into the Orange Free State. That was truly far-seeing wisdom. But now that the intention exists, as was explained by the Minister of the Interior, to favour the Indians, now that thé Asiatics are continuously and obstinately making efforts to place themselves on an equal footing with the European population, and that they have been strengthened in their efforts by it being stated, as was done by Senator Clarkson, that they are Union citizens we turn to you with the request to see that the above-mentioned protective policy of the Free State shall continue without being interfered with. Let there be no misunderstanding over the implications of the aggressive behaviour of the Asiatics in Natal. If the Indians are permitted to get this province under their control, as has been threatened by them, no provincial boundary will be able to arrest their progress. What is Natal’s fate today will be that of the Orange Free State tomorrow. Accordingly we make this earnest appeal to our brothers on the other side of the provincial boundary to support us with their full strength in Our endeavour to fight tooth and nail the move by Senator Clarkson which constitutes a menace to the future safety of our sons and daughters.

It is no secret that those difficulties exist in Natal. The members for Natal will not deny it, but. I am convinced that the day will arrive when the voters of Natal will bring those members to account over this problem. I am prepared to meet any of them in their constituencies in connection with this problem. The day will come when they will be challenged by their voters, and the question arises whether they can represent these voters today in connection with that problem. It is stated of Natal that “everything is fine in the garden”. No, a storm is about to burst. Our friends in Natal see in which direction the Indians are driving. They want to squeeze out and uproot white South Africa. That is what they see, and we tell them that they can count on us. We shall stand by them in that contest. We shall no run. This is the policy of this party. This was the policy of our forebears from the time that they trekked from the Cape, and right through history they have shown that they want to protect the white race in Souh Africa, and to secure its existence. They did not fly before those things. Where do the members on the opposite benches stand in relation to this matter; what is their policy.

What is your policy?

The policy of separation. That is the policy of our party. We do not wish to evade our responsibility towards the coloured races but we say that that business of intermingling is no policy, and that it will lead to the downfall of everyone in South Africa.

I have to remind the hon. member of the motion that appears in the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz). The hon. member may not discuss that subject at present.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I shall now pass to another matter. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not present, because I wanted to speak about the agricultural position in South Africa, and if we observe how few veterinary surgeons there are at the disposal of the agricultural industry, we must really say that the Agricultural Department is not serious in regard to the agricultural industry. In the course of the Session I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding how many veterinary surgeons completed the course last year, and how many of them were in the service of the Department of Agriculture. His answer was that only six veterinary surgeons qualified, and only two of these were in the service of the Department. South Africa, with its great agricultural concerns and with its large number of cattle, finds that only six veterinary surgeons qualified in the year, and of that limited number only two are in the service of the Department. There must be a screw loose somewhere. I have endeavoured to institute an enquiry as to which screw is loose, and the conclusion I have arrived at is that these officials receive inadequate remuneration. Take the districts of the North-Eastern Free State such as Heilbron, Harrismith, Vrede and Bethlehem. There is not a single veterinary surgeon there. In the South-Eastern part of the Free State there is also not a single one. Then we hear the livelong day that we should produce. I come further down the list, and I turn to the stock inspectors, for whom I feel very deeply. Those men devote the largest part of their lives to the service of the Department of Agriculture and of the people, and when they retire at the age of 60, there is no pension for them I want to ask the Minister very urgently to create a pension fund for the stock inspectors, so that they can have a refuge when the time comes for them to retire. But I want to throw a searchlight on the doings of the Department of Agriculture in relation to the farmers of our country. When I returned home after the last Session my constituents rushed me and said that there was heavy mortality amongst the animals. Cattle, horses, sheep, goats and oxen had died. I found farmers who had lost up to 200 animals. There were farmers who had only 100 sheep surviving out of 800. I immediately went to Pretoria because I suspected that it was due to a poisonous weed. I want to say this, that the people of South Africa cannot pay adequate tribute to such a man as Dr. Douw Steyn, for having discovered that plant. It is one of the most poisonous plants in the world. I want to say that it is only by God’s mercy that hundreds of people were not killed as the result of it. When I arrived in Pretoria I put the position before the proper officials, and I asked that they should send an official with me, because I had a suspicion that a poisonous plant was the cause. I then asked them whether they could give me an idea what parts of the Free State were already infested with the weed. They unfolded a map and I then saw that thé five North-Eastern districts were already infested. I cannot remember all the names now, but other districts such as Volksrust, Heidelberg, Vereeniging, Witbank and Johannesburg were also infested. I then came here and put questions to the Minister, and I must say that the Minister’s answer was not very complete. I asked him whether the public had been warned. He said that the public were warned. A pamphlet was sent out. But there is remained. In that pamphlet there is information for the farmers as to how to combat the plant, but when I came to those parts I found that there was not a pound of vitriol to be had to combat the plant. This plant was discovered as far back as 1943, but hardly any notice was taken of the infestation at Vaal Dam. The farms were left to themselves. A few days ago I put certain questions to the Minister of Agriculture. I asked, amongst other things which of the big State dams had been infected with algae. The Minister’s reply was as follows—

The people were again reassured, but a few days ago I read the following in the newspaper—

The farmers have again been quietened, notwithstanding the great damage that they have suffered. But I go further on this point; the damage that was done there was not entirely due to algae. We get other plagues, too. There is the hook worm the buttom worm and that sort of disease, but are there means to combat these things? They can be combated if the remedies are there. The plague of caterpillars is spreading rapidly, and even the cattle are being attacked by them. The difficulty is that the Department has not taken precautions to see that the necessary remedies were available. Now I notice that the remedies are to be manufactured in South Africa but already thousands and tens of thousands of cattle have died. To enable you to understand what number of cattle there are in the affected areas, I want to tell you that in five districts of the North-Eastern Free State there are 3,060,000 goats, sheep, cattle and pigs. Then we find the Department of Agriculture remaining so indifferent in regard to the farmers’ animals. When we think of the shortage of foodstuffs in the country, we believe that immediate action should be taken. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the Minister of Agriculture (who is now present) to institute steps to eradicate algae. It is now being declared a noxious weed that must be eradicated. But we have large numbers of lessees of land, and the lease agreement lays down that the lessee must eradicate the noxious weed on his farm. In these areas there are large dams. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is not taking any notice. From the commencement of the debate he has ignored us. There are people who lease land in the neighbourhood of the infected dams, and its costs one of these persons who leased land there £70 to clean the dam with vitriol. It is impossible for the people to pay that. It is only right that in such cases the Department should undertake to clean the dams. Otherwise these people will be completely ruined. The lessees cannot possibly bear such heavy costs. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. We have always acted on the assumption that the Department of Agriculture had its hand on the pulse of the people. There are seasons of abundant rains and seasons of drought, and it is not difficult if you have a little experience, to anticipate beforehand that when there are excessive rains the parasites will also increase and the danger of mortality amongst the animals will be the greater. On that account the Department should in those periods take precautions to see that adequate remedies are available to the farmers to combat the parasites. But the saddest thing of all is this. Though we have to deal here in South Africa with all these plagues we find that a sum of £2,500 was handed over to a person for a remedy against the blow fly pest, and later it was discovered to be a fiasco. We ask that greater care should be taken in connection with such experiments. But what we also ask is that in this respect care should be taken that the Department of Agriculture should do its duty towards the farming community of South Africa. For this reason we have evidenced so far of laxity and indifference. I read out to you just now what the position is. The people were all soothed by being told that the poisoning was not so extensive, but then came the notification that the whole of the Free State was suddenly to be declared an infected area; and do you imagine that it is going to remain in the Free State? It will spread to Basutoland. It is already in a part of Natal. It will come to the Cape, and go through the whole of South Africa if immediate steps are not taken. It is a national menace. I can give the Minister the assurance that in my constituency the Farmers’ Association, with its thousands of members have been on the spot, and I do not believe that there is a single farm remaining that has not been treated, and the treatment involves not only the eradication of the plant but also of the parasites in the water. The water has to be cleansed, because even the water used by the school children and in some municipal dams, was infected. Accordingly, I make an appeal to the Minister to take immediate steps to eradicate this dangerous pest, which will develop to a disaster in South Africa.

Intervening rather late in the debate I intend to confine my remarks only to one or two matters directly affecting my district, Paarl, and thus I want to refer to the activities of the Deciduous Fruit Board. In the course of the debate an enormous amount of criticism has been hurled at both the Board and the Minister. Let me say that much of the criticism was unfounded. There was too much of a personal attack on the Minister, and naturally when you offer criticism of too personal a nature, you invariably do not get anything much of a constructive character. One speaker of the Opposition after the other has levelled criticism at the Board and found fault in various directions, and adjectives such as grossly incompetent, neglectful, etc., have been flung across the floor of the House, but this was all of a destructive nature. Not one the members of the Opposition has had any remedy to offer. Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind what led up to the Deciduous Fruit Board being called into being? It was because, as the result of the war, with the export market denied to us, we were faced in this country with from 40 to 50 thousand tons of fruit which ordinarily found its way to the markets of Great Britain left to be disposed of locally. It was felt that something had to be done to find markets for this large quantity of fruit and so the Board was formed to deal with the situation. It is all very nice now to be wise after the event, but at that stage the position was critical and action had to be taken at once. The Board set to work and worked well. It was known that there would be a large quantity of export grapes on hand and they had to provide markets for these. They established large cellars to convert a considerable portion of those grapes into distilling wine. They went in for dehydrating plants and in various ways attempted to cope with the probable surplus. At this stage both farmers and consumers appeared prefectly satisfied with the steps taken and there were no complaints. But then events took place which at the outset of the war were not expected. No one anticipated that there would be such a tremendous influx of refugees into our country. No one knew that there would be such tremendous orders placed with the jam factories for jams and canned fruits, and that changed the position somewhat. In my opinion, from that stage onwards, the Board was at fault. It did not take these factors sufficiently into account. After all, the Board was called into being to control and not to distribute, but unfortunately the Board took it upon itself not only to control but also to distribute. It took out of the hands of the trade the distribution of fruit, and in that I feel it erred. After all, the trade, consisting of a large number of fruit and produce buyers who have had tremendous experience in the business of distribution, and had worked up a custom with all the markets both in this country and beyond our bounddaries was there to handle the position. They had established markets and connections with retailers and wholesalers and in some cases direct with consumers. Thé business was taken out of their hands and the Board then tried to usurp these functions, and in that it failed. There is no doubt about that After all the bulk of the criticism against the activities of the Board is with the distribution. Let me say that it is as well that members of the public outside should know that even we members of Parliament have suffered. The fruit we get every day in this House has been of poor quality. I come from a grape district and I am really ashamed of the grapes we are given here. But if distribution had been left in the hands of the trade the position would have been better. The farmers of this country must understand that it is their function to produce and endeavour to produce quality stuff. Then there is the consumer to be considered. You cannot cut out the trade or the middleman to supply the consumer. I know it has been argued sometimes that the farmer should also distribute. No. I say the farmer must produce and the Government can protect him by fixing prices and make provision for a minimum price for his product and also fix a maximum price for the consumer and then leave the middleman to take up the distribution and make his profit out of the margin which is left. After all, if the farmer gets a minimum price which gives a payable return to him and the consumer gets his fruit at a reasonable price, why should not someone in the middle make a little profit? As long as the consumer and the purchaser are satisfied, let us all live and so give the middleman his chance. I would appeal to the Minister, even now, it is not too late, that he should reconsider the position and take distribution out of the hands of the D.F.B. I do not think there is really a surplus of fruit in the country at present. We have the additional markets through the influx of the thousands of refugees and the large canning orders and I feel if there is proper distribution there ought to be no surplus, it actually appears there is a shortage for we can’t get fresh fruit. If there is no surplus, one need not worry about control, only price fixation may then be necessary. I feel that if the Government by fixing prices and giving adequate protection to the producer and the consumer and then let distribution again be left to the trade; all will be well. Some arguments have been advanced by the Opposition, by the member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), in particular, when he suggested that provision should be made for additional markets and depots. That has been tried in the past, and it proved a failure. The consumers have grown accustomed to get their supplies from the trade. The well-to-do man buys from his retailer and is prepared to pay. The poor again depend upon the hawker. They will not take the trouble to go out to markets or depots to buy fruit. They get it from the hawker at the door and he gives them credit for a week or two and this meets them in their wishes. We have the bulk of the grape crop still on hand, and if the Minister would endeavour to return that work of distribution to the trade again to deal with the crop at fixed prices it will be better. But there must be grading because the man who produces a quality article must get a better price for it than the one who sells inferior stuff. It is easy to grade, and to fix different prices for the different grades. I do feel that if this be done now the position will be improved. The distributing agents are still there and they are prepared to cater for the public. If the distribution remains with the trade, the trade is the body which runs the risk and bears the losses. Today that loss is on the Board and indirectly on the farmer and that is why the Government had to subsidise the Board to the extent of £280,000. The Board attempted to do the work of distributing but it took on too much. The Board is composed of farmers and none of these men have experience in marketing, and thus this part of the work should be taken out of their hands. I suggest that the Minister should give the trade a chance again. There is just one other small point in connection with the matter. There is the small man. In our district there is a mission station situated midway between Paarl and Stellenbosch, in a very fertile part of the country. These people have small holdings, one or two morgen, and on that they produce very limited quantities of fruit but of very good quality. They go in for thinning out their grapes, peaches and plums and they are thus able to command a good price for their product. It is their habit to pluck the fruit late in the day, pack it and to bring it in so as to reach Cape Town market early the following morning, where they have their special market agents who immediately make deliveries to the customers. Their fruit is fresh and they received good prices. The only way in which these people can make a living on their small holding is to command a good price and that the public has been prepared to pay them. But now they are compelled to send their fruit to the Board at prices less than they could get from the private customers, and they simply cannot make ends meet. The majority have about 50 peach trees and a like number of other varieties of fruit. These small quantities which they produce can never by any stretch of imagination flood the market or give rise to a surplus. Why cannot these people be allowed to carry on their very limited farming operations as before and be freed from control and receive a better return for their fruit.

Why not also the others?

I mentioned the small farmer. If there are other parts of the country where there are small farmers, why should they not be allowed to do so? It enables the consumer to get supplies direct from the producer, which is not the case today. That is quite wrong and it gives rise to a tremendous lot of discontent, and I trust that the Minister will give this matter consideration. There are other things I would like to mention, but I will have an opportunity in the Budget debate.

I want to bring to the notice of the House and of the country outside, a matter which in my opinion deservs serious attention, and that is the policy which has now been adopted and which apparently is going to be extended, namely that our gold and diamond mining companies are more and more gaining control of the industries in South Africa, and with industries obviously they get a hold on the whole industrial development of the country. I think it is a serious question which has arisen, and it is necessary that the country should know what is going on. What has brought me to my feet at this moment to discuss the matter, is a news item which appeared in the “Cape Times” last week, in which it is announced that a new company has been registered under the name of Van der Bill Industrial Corporation, a huge corporation with a capital of £2,000,000 of which the promoters are Iscor, a kind of semi-State institution, and the Anglo-American Corporation. Those two combined are responsible for the promotion of the company. Unfortunately I did not succeed in getting full particulars as to the distribution of the shares, but according to information to hand, it appears that Iscor is going to take £500,000 in shares and the Anglo-American Corporation is investing £500,000, and other gold mining companies the remaining £1,000,000. Iscor, therefore, will have £500,000 and the other companies combined £1,500,000. Therefore Iscor will not have the controlling share. But that is not the point I specifically want to draw attention to. If we go into the matter, we find that the directors of the company will be Dr. Van der Bijl of Iscor, together with Mr. Findlay and Mr. Hagart, and of the Anglo-American, Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and Mr. R. B. Hagart, a brother of Mr. R. M. Hagart, who is managing director of Iscor. That is how the company has been floated by these two undertakings. It is interesting to read what the “Cape Times’” financial editor has to say in this connection, because then it becomes apparent that it has been adopted as a policy and been recognised as a policy, that in future the gold mining companies will extend their hold more and more over the industrial development in our country. I just want to read what the “Cape Times” has to say in that connection. Its financial editor says—

The annual report for 1943 lists among the Corporation’s shareholders the African Malleable Foundries, Ltd., Johannesburg, which imported machine-tools from America, and Thos. Begbie and Co., Ltd. iron and brass foundries, Middelburg Transvaal. In the middle of 1944 the Anglo-American Corporation acquired an interest in African Metals Corporation, Ltd. which is controlled by Iscor.

Therefore also a company controlled by Iscor, and in which the Anglo-American has acquired an interest. Then he continues—

Among others, Pretoria Steel Construction Co. and Union Steel Corporation (of South Africa) Ltd., belong to the interests of Iscor, but Union Steel Corporation is already held jointly with a private group, namely African and European Investment Co., Ltd. Here we have another company, viz the African and European Investment Company, Ltd., belonging to Lewis and Marks, also acquiring interests in industrial companies together with the others. He continues—

Now we see clearly that there is a linking up of Iscor with all the outside industries commencing to develop. The mining companies are developing in that direction to an amazing extent. It is not limited to this one company. I have gone to the trouble of reading the latest edition of the “Mining and Industrial Magazine”, which is available in our library, namely the January issue. It is amazing to see what appears in one issue in regard to the development indicated by me. You find there that it is the recognised policy of the gold mining companies to obtain a hold on the industrial development in our country. I want to refer to page 27 of that periodical, where we find the speech of the chairman, Mr. A. S. Hersov, chairman of the Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated Investment Company, Ltd.—

The Hennenman factory of Anglo-Alpha Cement, Limited, resumed the manufacture of cement during May last and achieved production up to its capacity some months ago. The Roodepoort factory operated to capacity throughout the year. The nett profit for the year was £98,600 compared with £96,700 for 1943, and the dividend of 5 per cent. for the year was at the same rate as for last year.

The South African Torbanite Mining and Refining Company, Limited, recorded a nett profit for the year of £110,000, which compares very favourably with the corresponding figure of £57,000 for the previous year. Dividends Nos. 1 and 2 of 5 per cent. each were paid in respect of the year ended 30th June, 1944. Satisfactory arrangements have been concluded with the Government, whereby an expansion programme has been started to enable the company to operate entirely on locally produced oil. In order to provide the necessary finance for this expansion scheme, the issued capital was recently increased by £247,812.

Here again we find that a gold mining company acquires interests in the development of torbanite, in the little oil which up to now has been discovered in our country—

In the same journal there is another case which I want to refer to, namely the report of the Consolidated Rand Investment and Trust Company, Ltd., on page 31—

Dealing with estate interests, New Union Goldfields had become substantial shareholders in the New Durban Roodepoort Company, which owned the controlling interest in Reservoir Hills, Durban. This property comprised 1,800 acres on a ridge north-west of the Berea, which the Durban Town Council have recommended for incorporation into the Durban Municipality, and the city’s new water supply system was situate thereon.

A further major estate outlook controlled by New Unions were some of the principal new townships covering some 4,000 acres on the Far West Witwatersrand—notably the Venterspost and Westonaria Townships adjoining the Venterspost and Libanon Gold Mines; and Oberholzer serving and adjacent to the Blyvooruitzicht Mine.

New Union Goldfields also controlled the surface rights of Odendaalsrust Townland in the Orange Free State covering an area of 5.000 acres.

In the industrial sphere, the chairman made special comment on the industries owned outright by New Union Goldfields—notably the Alpha Harris Electrical Engineering Works, which had produced electrical equipment having a value of over a million pounds for the Army, Navy and Air Services.

The New Union Group was also playing an important part in the tanning industry, in which the Silverton Tannery was supplying large contracts for war supplies, the mines and the South African Railways.

Dealing with the tanning industry, Mr. Erleigh stated there was every reason to anticipate that the world’s requirements for leather, which had been severely handicapped by a wide-spread shortage of hides, would continue in evidence for many years to come.

His review of the company’s industrial interests was concluded with the progress being made by the Poirette Chocolate and Sweet Industries, Ltd., which had been built up into one of the premier manufacturing firms in the Union, producing the well-known brands of “Poirette” and “Montgomery”.

In addition to owning the whole of the ordinary share capital of this company, New Union Goldfields also owned a controlling shareholding in the Paarl Wine and Brandy Co., Ltd., producing the well-known brands of “Paarl Rock” and “Paarlberg”.

The company was also substantially interested in the entertainment business, through Kinemas, Ltd., which owned the well-known chain of Plaza Theatres and also a 22 per cent. interest in African Consolidated Theatres, Ltd.

Two further industrial enterprises were mentioned in the address—notably the United Provident and Assurance Association of South Africa Ltd., which had recently come under the control of the Union Goldfields Group and which was recording rapid progress.

The launching of Radford, Adlington Holdings (South Africa), Ltd., to acquire the whole of the share capital of Radford, Adlington, Ltd., pioneer bookbinders, printers and stationers, owning Radlington House, Johannesburg, would take place early in the new year.

And then he goes on—

The splendid electrical equipment manufactured for the first time in the Union by mass production methods from materials produced as to over 90 per cent. in the Union, have proved of incalculable value for the United Nations’ war effort.

We observe that they have acquired interests in every sphere of our industrial development, the wine industry, the leather industry, the manufacture of sugar, our oil resources, practically anything. I am quoting these extracts to show that the gold mining companies are developing in that direction, and there is just one other quotation I want to refer to. It is all from the same issue of this journal. The chairman of the company, the same Mr. Erleigh says—

I am quoting this to show that even fertiliser, on which the farmers are absolutely dependent, is now getting into the hands of the big mining companies. I am quoting this so that hon. members can see that it is an important development and it is essential that we should realise what is going on. We therefor notice that the Chamber of Mines, which has played an important part in our oetmtry, in extending, and that it is interesting itself in the industrial development of the country. But if development takes place in this manner, then the mining companies are going to have control of our industrial development. They are going to have a hold on that development.

It is becoming an octopus.

Not one octopus, there will be a few of them. But what interests me in particular in connection with this matter is the reference to the Van der Bijl Industrial Corporation. This Corporation is not an ordinary company such as a mining company. Iscor was an undertaking started with Government money. The country had to vote the money for the establishment of this industry, and what do we find now? We find that Iscor, a company called into being with the help of the State, and which therefore is not a company in the ordinary sense of the word, but a semi-State undertaking, is entering into a partnership with the Anglo-American Corporation, of which Sir Ernest Oppenheimer is not only chairman, but also the managing director, and practically the one man who controls everything in that company. He has all the say. He is also chairman of the Chamber of Mines, and what does it amount to? We find that Iscor, a State undertaking, is entering into a partnership with the Chamber of Mines. I can perceive that this may lead to a dangerous development in South Africa. To me it is a dangerous position. We know that this must have been approved of by the Government. It is not Iscor alone which decides. On the direction of Iscor the majority of the members are appointed by the Government, and those men would not have come to that conclusion without first consulting the Minister. Consequently we want to know from the Government what its policy is in this regard. Is it that the industrial development of our country has to be linked up with the Chamber of Mines and that they will dictate to us what has to be done in regard to the industrial development of the country? Are we to be dependent on Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to dictate to us what the policy is going to be? No, I may say at once that in the past I have had full confidence in Dr. Van der Bijl. I am mindful of the days of the old Nationalist Party when Iscor was established notwithstanding the strong opposition of the party on the other side. We had a hard struggle to get Iscor established, because they were fighting us tooth and nail, and then we called in Dr. Van der Bijl. He was then inspired by the slogan of “South Africa First”, which we banked on, and with his help and knowledge we made a success of that undertaking. I am convinced that it is still Dr. Van der Bijl’s slogan that South Africa’s interests must come first. I would like to say that South Africa is greatly indebted to Dr. Van der Bijl, that at that time he placed his assistance and knowledge at the disposal of the old Nationalist Party, which enabled us to make Iscor a great success. But I certainly have not that same faith in Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and in the Chamber of Mines; I do not believe that they are inspired with the same spirit and policy, for their policy in the past has never been in South Africa’s interest, but their own pocket, as it were. No, as we look back on the past, we cannot say that Sir Ernest Oppenheimer made use of the opportunities at his disposal to further the industrial development of South Africa. He is chairman of the De Beers Company, and when he could have done something in the interests of South Africa, in the days when the Nationalist Party tried to bring into being diamond cutting works here, he did not do so. On the contrary, we had to contend with very strong opposition on his part. He and De Beers tried to make impossible the establishment of diamond cutting works in South Africa. They are certainly not inspired with the idea of promoting industrial development in South Africa. I say this because both he and De Beers had the opportunity of proving this to us, but instead they opposed us. Sir Ernest Oppenheimer controls the whole of the diamond industry in South Africa, and practically of the world. He could have done something to promote diamond cutting works here, but he refused to do so. I come now, however, to another aspect of this matter. Was it necessary to go to the AngloAmerican for capital? We know that capital is plentiful in the country today for any industrial development which is worth its salt. And when one is dealing with a company which Dr. Van der Bijl and the directorate of Iscor are connected with, one would not for a moment expect that there would have been any difficulty in finding the required capital. Why then, did they go to the Anglo-American? As far as I am concerned, it is inexplicable. It was not necessary to obtain capital there, and why was that company in particular called upon to provide the necessary capital? Only the other day, here in Cape Town, we found that a small company like Plywoods were asking for capital for development purposes, and the amount asked for, was subscribed 40 times over. What is going to happen now? We found that Anglo-American are not only obtaining a voice in the affairs of that company, but also acquire the benefit of the large number of shares it holds. They will have the benefit of those shares. As a result the shares of Anglo-American will go up and Anglo-American and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer will directly benefit. No, when this kind of industrial undertaking is called into being, and the State is involved, then one should not turn to a company like the Anglo-American and to a man like Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to find the necessary capital. The Van der Bijl Corporation has its directorate and the experts with the ability to make a success of such an undertaking. They do not need Sir Ernest Oppenheimer for that, and if they required capital, it was not necessary to go to Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and the Chamber of Mines. Now I want to put a question as to what is going to happen in the future if a conflict arises between the interests of the different gold mining companies and the diamond mining companies, and the industrial development of our country. Sir Ernest Oppenheimer is the chairman of the Chamber of Mines and if he finds that the industrial development is contrary to the interests of the Chamber of Mines, is he going to cast his vote on the side of the Chamber of Mines or in favour of the industrial development in our country? One need only look at his past and what he has done when he had to choose between the interests of South Africa and the interests of the diamond mining companies. I say emphatically that I see great dangers in this new development. I want to quote another example. We know that there is already a shortage of native labour for the gold mining industry and for the industries of our country. What is going to happen after the war? It is expected that enormous industrial development will take place. Let us assume that there will be a shortage of labour, what attitude is a man like Sir Ernest Oppenheimer going to adopt if a decision has to be taken as to the number of native labourers to be allocated to the gold mines, and the number to be allocated to the industrial development of our country? I contend that it is a dangerous policy and I therefore expect the Government to make a very clear and frank statement. We want to know what the position is. The Minister owes it to the country to make a clear statement on the Government’s policy in the future. We know there are industries who can hold their own, without any protection, such as Iscor for instance. But there are also industries which have developed during the war, and who can justify their existence after the war with a little protection and encouragement. I want to know from the Minister what the policy of the Government is going to be. Is the policy going to be entrusted to Sir Ernest Oppenheimer and those people? Will they decide on such things as protection? We again ask that the Minister should tell us why Sir Ernest Oppenheimer must have a Say in these matters. I repeat that I am perturbed over this step of the Government, because there is no necessity to obtain capital from those quarters and to entrust the industrial development to those people. We on this side are still upholding the slogan of “South Africa First.” But those people who are called in now, have never yet applied the policy of South Africa first. What confidence can we have that they will so in future? We find for instance that in America serious allegations are made against the De Beers Company. I do not want to go into the facts now. But we know that even in America it is considered that De Beers Company holds a monopoly and that in that respect it is contravening the laws. If that is considered to be a danger in America, if the De Beers Company in that respect is considered to be a danger in America, the same applies with much more force in South Africa where the De Beers Company does not only control diamonds, but it is continually increasing its hold over the industrial development of the country. It is to my mind a very serious and dangerous question, and I think it is very necessary that the Minister should make a clear statement for the benefit of the public. Our industries are going to extend and they have to extend, and we are grateful for that. But I want to ask once more if our industries have to expand, why go and look for capital from an organisation such as the Anglo-American which is advancing capital in order to obtain control or a say in such industries. What is more, why should the Anglo-American get the benefit instead of the public of South. Africa when such capital is required? We would like to know what is going to happen should Iscor have to expand once more. Are you once more going to grant the privilege to the Chamber of Mines of subscribing the capital? I want to point out that Iscor was called into being with State capital, but unfortunately the position is that the accounts of that company are not subjected to an investigation by the Auditor-General. It is regrettable that that should be so. I would like to know, if the Auditor-General had had a say in the appropriation of the funds of this company in the sense that he had to carry out an audit in regard to State money, what actually would he find to be behind this agreement with the Anglo-American. If we can get the report of the Auditor-General on this matter, then we will know what is behind it and I raise this question whether they will be prepared that the Auditor-General should be appointed to submit a report, so that we may know what is behind it. We would like to know. I really think it is essential for the Minister to take this House and the country in his confidence, and to explain to us why the Anglo-American should be allowed to do this. We know that the Government has passed a special Act and has placed capital at the disposal of the Industrial Development Corporation. That corporation has to utilise its funds for the development and encouragement of industries in our country. If the Van der Bijl Corporation required money, then it could have gone to the Industrial Corporation, because that was the aim and object of that corporation, namely to encourage industrial development of that nature. The Industrial Corporation could have made funds available and nobody would have found fault with that. It would have been the proper thing to do. That would have been different from the case of the Imperial Cold Storage, when they placed funds at the disposal of the Imperial Cold Storage. No, this is a serious matter, and it is a matter in connection with which we would like to have an explanation, because it will be a sorry day when the industrial policy of the country has to be entrusted to the Chamber of Mines, knowing what their policy is, what policy that institution has followed in the past. The Chamber of Mines has never cherished the idea of South Africa first, and it has only considered in how far industries could serve a useful purpose as far as the gold mines are Concerned. Are these the people to whom the Government is going to entrust the industrial development of our country? I say it will be a sorrowful day if these people gain the say in our industrial development. I leave the matter there. There are some other points I want to deal with, whilst I am on my feet, and I want to draw the attention of the Ministers concerned to these matters. The first is the serious position which has arisen in the Northern Transvaal—for that matter in a large part of the Union, but particularly in the Northern Transvaal. We are suffering there from an extended drought and in large parts of the country the drought has not been broken yet. After the drought, there was a cloudburst and hail storm and serious washaways occurred. If I think of the destruction caused by soil erosion, I agree with those who say that it is one of the greatest dangers facing South Africa. Here again I want to say that I approached the Secretary for Agriculture, and asked him what he was going to do. I told him that serious washaways had taken place after the drought and I am glad to learn that he sent one of his oficiais to the Northern Transvaal to make an investigation. But an investigation is not sufficient. We know what the position is. We know what Dr. Bennett said in regard to the conditions in Northern Transvaal. The Department knows how serious the position is, and we want more than an enquiry. We want immediate action. For that reason, I want to ask the Minister what the Government intends doing in regard to the serious problem of soil erosion, not only in the Northern Transvaal but in the Union of South Africa as a whole. Dr. Bennett visited this country. The newspapers are full of this threatening danger. All of us were perturbed over this serious position, and we now expect a statement as to the policy of the Government in this régard. We have an official like Dr. Ross in whom we have the greatest confidence as far as soil erosion work is concerned.

I want to remind the hon. member of the motion of the hon. member of Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson).

I am not going to pursue this matter any further, but in view of the serious position in the Northern Transvaal, I would just like to know what the Minister of Agriculture is going to do by wav of preliminary measures. I do not want to deal with the contents of the motion of the hon. member. But in view of the conditions in the North, I hope that the Minister will not let the opportunity pass of taking immediate steps to relieve the serious position there. I want to point out that tractors are required for this kind of work, but I now want to leave the matter there. Whilst, however, referring to tractors, I want to point out to the Minister how essential it is that the Department of Agriculture should have at its disposal a number of implements and particularly tractors. We have had this drought in the Northern Transvaal. In the first part of January it has been raining in some parts, but the oxen were so down in condition that the farmers could not plough. We appealed to the Minister of Agriculture and the Government to assist these people. I am grateful to the Minister that he went out of his way to obtain a few tractors from the Provincial Administration to assist the farmers. But what is the value of two tractors, if we bear in mind that the farmers have to do their sowing in a short period. For that reason I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Minister to see to it that the department has at its disposal such implements when in future an appeal is again made to the department. It should not be necessary to make the farmers wait until the Government can get a few tractors from the Provincial Administration. I think the department should adopt the policy of having its own tractors, so that they will immediately be available for those areas where the farmers have to be assisted. We know that the small farmers are not in a position to buy a tractor. They have to keep a span of oxen for the sole purpose of ploughing. They have to invest capital in those oxen, and if these oxen are in a poor condition as a result of drought, they cannot use the ploughs when the rain comes. If the Minister adopts the policy of buying tractors, it will mean a good deal to those farmers, because then they need not invest capital in those oxen, and it will mean a considerable saving in their cost of production. Then they are in a position to sell those oxen, and one can imagine what it will mean to the Minister to get the meat. There is one other point I want to refer to. I am glad to see that the Minister of Lands is also present. It has been stated that 10 drills will be available for the North-Western Cape. The Minister shakes his head. I was hoping that it would mean 10 additional drills. I was hoping that those drills would go to the North-Western Cape and also to the Northern Transvaal, because they are required there just as badly. I do not begrudge the North-Western Cape those drills, but we also require some in the Northern Transvaal. We know that the Minister of Lands has cut up his own farm into camps and that he has a borehole in every camp. We are grateful that he has done that. But we want these poor people to be in a position to do the same as the Minister has done, and for that purpose they require drills. The Minister should see to it that those people are assisted, because he as a farmer realises how much that will mean to them. He should make those drills available as soon as possible in order to provide for those needs. Then I come to another difficulty in the Northern Transvaal and that is the threat of the army worm. I am deeply disappointed with what the Government has done in regard to this serious position which has arisen. I have already put the question as to what the Government intends doing in order to alleviate the serious plight of these people, and in a moment I will furnish the Minister’s answer. Let me just say in passing that it seems to me there are many members, and possibly also the Minister himself, who do not realise how serious the position really is There are hundreds of farmers threatened with ruin. That is not a joke and it is not a matter of a small number of worms. It is a serious threat and people are faced with ruin. There are members here who are in the fortunate position that they have never yet witnesserd the destruction which may be caused by such a plague. I have asked the Minister to inform us as to what the Government is going to do to assist these people, and the Minister’s reply was that a talk had been broadcast over the radio to tell the people what they are going to do. Well, I appreciate this attempt of the Minister, but he has to bear in mind that only one out of hundreds of these people in the Northern Transvaal can afford to keep a radio. I want to know what the Government is going to do. He should tell us, and not only speak over the wireless But what else has been told to these people? The farmers have been told by him that they should buy sodium arsenic from the chemist to combat the plague. I am convinced that the Minister has no conception of the seriousness of the position there. To my mind the army worm is a more serious matter than the locust. Just remember what we have done to destroy locusts, and here the Minister comes along and tells the people that they should go to the chemist to buy some stuff to destroy the army worm. They leave it to the farmers themselves to destroy this plague. That whole part of the country is attacked by the army worm, and it is impossible for those people, without assistance, to tackle this scourge. [Time limit].

The hon. member for Boksburg raised a very important issue when he referred to the Van der Bijl Engineering Corporation with which was associated the Anglo-American Corporation. The member for Pietersburg developed that theme, pointing out the various interests that some of these mining corporations have today taken up in connection with secondary industry. That, I realise, is a matter of the utmost importance from the point of view of national development as well as from the point of view of what policy the country is going to pursue in connection with the development of secondary industry. It opens up a number of considerations which will have to be gone into very much more fully before any final decision can be given. In the first place, it brings up the question as to whethet in the long run big corporations do work much more effectively and much more efficiently and at a lower cost structure than a whole series of small industries. In the second place, it raises the question whether the Government in definitely pursuing a policy of developing our secondary industry is going to pursue a policy based on private enterprise, or a policy of State and public utility corporations supplementing and in cases replacing private activities; whether you are going to have a state of affairs where you will have a series of small industries run perhaps inefficiently, some of them with inadequate capital fighting against industrial corporations financed by a large number of mining companies, who because of greater efficiency, larger capital, more up-to-date machinery and a lower cost structure may force these small people out of existence; or whether it is preferable in the long run to have these industries run by small people, probably inefficiently, who will not be able to compete with overseas industry. Whether secondary industries should be run by big corporations or by small people is, I think, a question the Government will have to consider very seriously and they will have to come to some conclusion. For my yart I say that the development of this country cannot rest entirely in the hands of small enterprise. If it is decided that our secondary industries will have to be developed to a great extent by the State and by public utility corporations, and possibly by some of these big financial corporations, the Government will have to consider, and that at a very early date, what machinery will have to be applied in order to control these big corporatiops. The Government would have to institute some machinery by which they could control those big corporations.

But the Minister refuses to lay down a policy.

I think the Minister is probably right in avoiding to state an important policy of that kind before the matter has been fully investigated. I do say that these facts, these issues, which are before the country and before the House, are matters of the utmost importance to which the Government will have to give serious attention. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Tom Naudé) raised the question of the Auditor-General having no control over Iscor and having no control over big corporations who go in for secondary industries, and the Minister and the Government will have to consider whether the policy which has been adumbrated in the country and to the House, of Parliamentary control over the administration and expenditure of these corporations, including public utility corporations, will not have to be applied by subjecting such corporations to examination by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, and through them to the control of Parliament. That will involve a very complete alteration in the whole of our machinery because obviously under present arrangements, neither the Auditor-General nor the Public Accounts Committee can deal with these matters. Another aspect which I think is worthy of note in connection with the matter is that the big mining corporations in South Africa are beginning to realise that it is worth while to embark on secondary industries.

They do that in order to remain top-dog.

In the past the whole policy of the mining corporations has been that South Africa can only be dependent on the mining industry. Everything had to centre round the mining industry. Today they are beginning to realise, apparently, that South Africa cannot be a country dependent purely on the mining industry and to a certain extent on our other primary industry—agriculture—which is in a very perilous condition in normal circumstances, but not today in view of the high prices which prevail. And they appear to be realising the fact that if South Africa is to go ahead, we must develop secondary industry to the fullest extent so as to fight unemployment to a much greater extent than is possible at present, not only in respect of civilians but in respect of our soldiers who are coming back from the front. The very recognition by the mining houses of the importance of secondary industry and of its value to them is an indication that they are realising its value to South Africa, and that they are prepared to take a hand in their development, not only to the advantage of themselves but of South Africa, but the Government will have to see that it is so controlled that it will be to the advantage of the country generally.

Yes, but they only employ natives.

Government control will have to go in the direction of seeing that all sections of the population will have employment. My hon. friend says that the mines employ only natives. In that connection I want to say at once that when we speak about increasing the national income of South Africa, we can neither afford to keep natural resources idle, nor can we allow human resources, human labour, to lie idle, because we are pledged to all sorts of shiboleths which in the long run will have to be broken down, not by lowering the standards of those who have a high standard of life, but by raising the standard Of those who have a low standard of life, and by giving them an opportunity, both in skilled and unskilled labour, to help to develop the natural resources of this country. This question, therefore, of the development of secondary industry, the importance of which is now being recognised by the big mining houses, brings one to another aspect of the matter and that is this, the dependence of our possibilities of developing secondary industries in this country on international arrangements which are likely to be made in the near future. The day of isolation is at an end. It does not matter whether it is South Africa or the United States of America. In the United State of America not only public men, but economists and publicists of the highest order are now realising that you cannot possibly depend on a policy of isolation, that in the long run the world is interdependent, and that what takes place in one part of the world, affects other parts of the world, and the inter-dependence and the importance of co-operation and collaboration between the nations, is fully realised. I feel that this House, therefore, owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) for having raised the question of foreign policy in this House in this debate. I may say that I have today come from the Rand, and I found that on the Rand the discussion on foreign policy at the present time, overshadows all grievances and all complaints that we have been listening to since the beginning of the Session—not because those grievances and complaints do not require the most serious attention on the part of the Government to rectify them, but because public opinion realises that the overshadowing consideration in connection with all these grievances, is what is going to happen as regards the war; will we win the war, and having won the war, what are going to be the peace arrangements? In that regard, although the Witwatersrand—and I think the country generally—was greatly impressed and interested in the discussion which was raised by the hon. member for Piketberg, I think it right to say, and I say it in no disparaging terms, that at the same time the public places no reliance on the policy adumbrated by the hon. member for Piketberg, because they realise the hollowness of that policy having regard to the activities of the Opposition in the past five years. In a nutshell, Sir, what were the main points of the hon. member for Piketberg? The first point he made was a complaint that the Prime Minister had not been consulted by the Big Three in connection with Yalta. I think the public are not fooled, and when you make a point of that kind, the public remember that the party which stood for isolationism and for neutrality, even if they survive the holocaust of this war, could not honestly believe in having the right to have a say in the peace negotiations. How can they expect the public to accept their plea now, that we should have been consulted to a greater extent than we have in connection with the Yalta Conference. I for my part believe that the Prime Minister who has been in close touch not only with the British Government but with international leaders generally, has been consulted to a much greater extent than hon. members opposite give him credit for. Secondly they come along with the menace of Communism, and the menee of the power of the Soviet Union at the present moment. There again the public—and they must accept that position—will pay no attention to their complaints and their fears in this matter, because it will be long before the public forgets that from the day of the Hitler-Stalin pact, until the 22nd June, 1941, when Stalin was attacked by Hitler, not a word, not a syllable, was uttered by our friends of the Nationalist Party, either about the Soviet Union or the Communists.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Let the hon. member look at his Hansard debates from September, 1939, to June, 1941. The hon. member will not see a single word of criticism or complaint about the menace of Communism in South Africa.

You are talking nonsense.

Our friends did exactly the same as was done by the Nazis in Germany. In Germany from the time Hitler came into power until just before the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939 the shops of Germany were filled with anti-Bolshevist literature. Every speech of every public man consisted of a tirade against Communism. Every speech painted the danger of the menace of Communism. But a few months before September, 1939, every piece of literature on Communism suddenly disappeared from the shop windows in Germany. Any reference to Communism ceased. Every member of the Nazi Party suddenly stopped talking about Communism and suddenly we were faced with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, and from that moment our friends opposite followed the same attitude. Then from June, 1941, we have the same bogey taken out of cold storage in Nazi-Germany and in nationalist circles in South Africa.

It is no bogey this time.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who always speaks with consideration and restraint a few days ago in this House, gave us a reason why the Opposition has stopped introducing their motions about the war. Do you know, Sir, that every Session we have had some resolution dealing with the war policy and with our policy vis-à-vis the war; and the hon. member for Fauresmith told the House—I think very honestly—that because of the fact that the United Party won the General Election in 1943 with an overwheleming majority in favour of the war effort, and because the issue in that election was not only our policy on the home front but our foreign policy, and not only our foreign policy but particularly our war policy, and not only our war policy but the policy of co-operation with Great Britain and America and the Soviet Republic—let me say that but for the Soviet Republic we would have been in a very bad wav after 1941—because in that General Election the public accepted that policy of the Government, therefore our friends on the other side, being practical men on occasions, realised that the public had already decided against them and therefore they stopped introducing these motions in connection with the war.

Give them credit for that ; they became wise men.

But today they come along again with the question of the Communistic bogey and the menace of the Soviet Republic.

Your own Prime Minister says it is a danger.

They speak with a great deal of sympathy about poor old Poland. There again, how can they expect the public to pay any attention to that when they make statements of that kind, when the public realises that when Hitler invaded Poland and when Hitler and Stalin divided Poland betweeen themselves, they never uttered a word against the attitude of Hitler and the attitude of Stalin But today when a settlement is being negotiated at Yalta which virtually gives Poland a fair settlement, they suddenly talk about “poor old Poland”.

We know you have no time for Poland.

The public is entitled to know when we hear this about poor Poland, what about poor Holland, what about poor Denmark, what about poor Norway and poor Belgium, countries which were ravaged by the Nazis, and not a word was uteered in sympathy, not even with Holland, from which so many people in this country hail. And then the final travesty of the position is the plea which is being put up for a peace which will deal gently with Germany. The hon. member for Fauresmith said: “For Heaven’s sake do not let us make peace based on hatred and revenge.”

What did the Minister of Finance say?

He said the same thing the other day.

I am speaking about the hon. member for Fauresmith. The hon. member’s speech reminds me of a letter which appeared in the “Cape Times” this morning and which is worthy of being quoted here. In that letter in this morning’s “Cape Times” the writer quotes from a certain philosopher of some time ago, in which he says—

And that seems to be the attitude of those hon. members towards Germany. When one remembers the savagery with which these small countries were annihilated, the savagery with which millions of people were exterminated, with gas chambers, and with various other devices of torture, when one remembers that, it seems pitiable for the Opposition to come along and ask us to be gentle in our negotiations with Germany. I agree with the Minister of Finance; no one wants to have a revengeful policy. But I think everyone in Great Britain, in the United States of America, in the Soviet Union and in South Africa, especially those who have members of their families fighting up north, wants a just peace. Everyone wants to see that the perpetrators of these crimes against humanity will be punished; everyone wants to see that the peace which shall be established, shall be established on a basis which will prevent the revival of Nazism and which will prevent the militarism of Germany which has been a blot on the world during the past 100 years. That is exactly what the Yalta Conference seis out to do. The efforts which were being made by the Nazis to create friction amongst the three Great Powers, have failed. There was a section in the United States press which was attacking Great Britain; there was a section of the press in Great Britain which was attacking the United States; and newspapers in both countries were attacking the Soviet Republic, and sections of the Soviet press were complaining about the so-called inactivity of Great Britain and the United States. That was all engineered, and Von Rundstedt’s offensive a few months ago was not calculated to win the war, because it was clear to Germany that she had already lost the war, but only sought to gain a breathing space to create further friction amongst the United Nations ….

So there was friction?

I say the greatest defeat that could have been inflicted upon Hitler and his friends was the Yalta Conference which not only co-ordinated the military arrangements which are expediting the dissolution of the Nazi power in Germany, but it also showed that all efforts on the part of Germany to cause friction amongst the United Nations, have failed and failed miserably, arid that Great Britain and America and the Soviet Union are united in all respects. Realising that the public, whilst appreciating the fact that the hon. member for Piketberg has raised that issue, realise that he has raised it in a hollow manner, in a manner that definitely smacks of insincerity, and therefore they cannot accept it and they prefer to follow the policy of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister which has led us so near to victory and which will lead us to a speedy victorious end. In that connection there are only two points which I would like to stress before I conclude. The one point affects the peace conference. I have no doubt whatever—at any rate we all hope that the Prime Minister will be at San Francisco—that he will take part in the negotiations which take place. It has been suggested that he may be given not the honour, because he deservs it, but that he may be given the position of chairman of the conference. The point I want to make is that there are two matters which affect South Africa generally, which should not only be considered but in respect of which a decision should be arrived at before the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister goes overseas. One is the question of the future of South West Africa. I think it is now clear to everyone, even to hon. members opposite, that Germany is not likely to get back the mandated territories. Now, Sir, South West Africa has been mandated to the Union of South Africa. We have spent a great deal of money in developing it, in maintaining peace there, and there has been so much development that the administrator today talks about the financial prosperity of South West Africa, although I must admit that a good deal of money that was loaned to them by the Union Government has not been repaid. But at any rate, South West Africa is now prosperous. It is true that prior to September, 1939, there was an agitation both ampngst the people in South West Africa and the people in the Union that South West Africa, instead of being a mandated territory, should be incorporated in the Union as a fifth province. At that time it was not possible to consider it because there was such a big section in this country which was out to appease Germany. As a matter of fact, some people were quite prepared to hand back South West Africa to Germany so that Germany would have that territory as a jumping-off place to attack South Africa.

That is nonsense.

In the light of the attitude of the people of South West Africa, in the light of the resolution which was passed by the Provincial Council in South West Africa, and in the light of the attitude of the people in South Africa, I think this House should definitely claim, and claim with the support of the people of this country, that South West Africa, instead of being a mandated territory in the future, shall be incorporated in the Union of South Africa. The other point which I feel the Government should take into consideration prior to the Prime Minister going overseas, is our relationship which has been touched on this afternoon, with the British African Territories, with the territories up North. For a number of years we have spoken a great deal about the need of economic cooperation and ultimately political co-operation between the Rhodesias and South Africa.

Why not Palestine too?

The hon. member mentions Palestine. I have no doubt that Palestine will be dealt with quite sensibly and justly in accordance with the pledge given to the Jewish people to which the Prime Minister largely contributed and which was subscribed to in 1926 by the late Gen. Hertzog and the Pact Government, of which the hon. member for Piketberg was a prominent member in a declaration issued in 1926 publicly to South Africa, pledging South Africa to further the claims of the Jewish people to the establishment of Palestine as their national home. I have no doubt the Nationalist Party will support the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in pursuing that policy at the peace negotiations. But I am speaking about our immediate South African interests, and I say that our immediate South African interests demand that the conference which is being asked for by the Rhodesias and which has been asked for by Kenya should be convened by the Prime Minister at an early date in order to come to some decision as to the question of economic co-operation and ulitmately political co-operation between the Union, the Rhodesias, Kenya and the British African territories and as to the part which Southern Africa as a whole will play, not Only as a member of the British Commonwealth but as a member of the United Nations in connection with the reconstruction of the world after the war.

The year 1944 was a bleak and disappointing year for the people of South Africa and the reason for it is not very hard to find. I personally as a supporter of the Government, am disappointed at the dismal failure which we have had in regard to matters of policy. It is not difficult to find the reason. The reason has been touched upon by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who has just sat down. I want to pay him this tribute that in discussing the question of industries in South Africa, he touched quite correctly upon what is necessary, and that is the elimination of uneconomic and expensive small-scale industries, and for the advancement into large-scale productive capacity, but that the large-scale industries in South Africa should be controlled by the Government and not that the Government of the country should be controlled by the industrialists of South Africa. That is the reason for it. Throughout the whole of last year and perhaps during preceding years, members of the Government have spoken in one breath of private enterprise and planned economy. Private enterprise was belauded, and it was claimed it must be on this basis of private enterprise that the country must develop, and on the other hand they spoke of planned economy. We have control boards and things of that nature today. One is the exact opposite of the other. It is true that many of our writers had sought to show that you can have private enterprise and that at the same time you can have planned economy. But it is a mere expression of wishful thinking that you can have planned economy and at the same time the basis of a society based on private enterprise. One is the antithesis of the other, and until South Africa comes to the point where it declares itself for planned control in industry in South Africa, only then can we plan for the whole of South Africa and eliminate all the evils which we suffered during 1944. We are now in the year 1945, and there is no evidence of a radical change, but there is plenty of evidence in the other directon, that in the immediate future things are going to be even worse than they were in 1944. Yet we as supporters of the Government, identified with its failures, continue to declare our support because our minds are conditioned by the all overriding thought of the necessity of prosecuting this war to a final conclusion and to successful victory ….

An when it is over?

And when it is over something else will happen. You cannot imagine that forever and indefinitely I as an individual or the Labour Party as a political party can be identified and associated with the United Party. There is bound to be a realignment. The coalition is a coalition that carries on for the period of the war, and for as long as necessary after the war in order to ensure a fruitful victory, and there is plenty of evidence that the Labour Party has loyally abided by its contract. The Labour Party at the time of Coalition clearly reserved the right to pursue and to propagate its economic policy, an economic policy which is not the same as that of the Government, and if the Government were ever by some good fortune to follow the policy which is propagated by the Labour Party, then we will not suffer the evils which we suffered in 1944, and we would not be entering the future months with a knowledge in our own minds that things are going to be even worse than they were in 1944.

How many seats did you get in 1938?

There was an election in 1939 ….

You are out.

The point is that the United Party entered into a coalition with the Labour Party and it could only be because it was to the interest of the United Party to have such a coalition agreement that it did so. If it had not been in the interests of the United Party they would not have entered into it. But no one is quarrelling with the fact that there was a coalition. What I am emphasising is that the policy pursued by the Government is entirely different from the policy of the Labour Party, and which the Labour Party would like to see in the country. Last year, during the discussion on social security, the Prime Minister was good enough—in fact, one could almost sense that it was the influence of the Prime Minister—in the final stage of the debate, that the amendment was further amended to include as an absolute necessity the fundamental question of the need for full employment before we could have social security in this country. The White Paper has been produced to this House but there is no evidence in the social security plans for the future that we are going to get the schemes which will guarantee full employment to the country. I would like to believe that the Government is able to produce schemes which will guarantee full employment in the post-war years. No one can question the sincerity of the Government or that of individual members of the Government in desiring to have full employment. We acknowledge that in their own minds they recognise that there can only be social security if there is full employment, but wishing that there should be full employment and the actual plans by which it could be carried out are two different things, and I would urge the Government to put before this House plans by which they intend to establish full employment. While the picture in South Africa may not be a bright one, when we look outside South Africa, when we come to other spheres, we see a much brigther picture. We see in England, where there is planned control of the whole of industry and commerce, that there is a planned economy. Conditions in England, while much more difficult than any we have experienced in South Africa, from the social point of view, are much more satisfactory than has been the case in South Africa. The Prime Minister seems to shine a lot better on the international field, and it was particularly pleasing to hear him readily come to his feet to repudiate the allégations made by the Nationalist Party regarding the agreement at Yalta. It is true that that agreement is a landmark in history. It is the culminating point of a conference which preceded it, from Cairo and the Moscow conference to the Teheran conference, which was followed by the liberation of France, Belgium and Holland. The Yalta conference is the culminating point which gives expression to the agreement between the three major powers, and which has been such a disappointment to the Nazis and their supporters in South Africa. The Yalta conference will subsequently be followed by the conference at San Francisco. Here I want to have a word about France. It is true that French politics were corrupt in the past. It is true that they had the Stavisky affair. It is true that in a large sense French politics have not been as clean as the politics we know in other countries, and as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said, wars spring from economic causes, and equally therefore if there is corruption in a country, this corruption springs from the economic circumstances of the country. The hon. member for Fordsburg touched on the point of the 200 families of France who were responsible for much of the corruption practised there; but not only they, but people outside France were equally responsible for the corruption of that country, and a person who must not be excluded as a cause for the corruption of French politics is no less a person than the late Neville Chamberlain.

Nonsense.

It was said in the House that the French people let down the Allies. It is the same French people who marched against the Ruhr when it was remilitarised. Who stopped them?

The Labour Party.

No, it was Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement which was a means of corrupting French politics, and it was done deliberately through the influence of the 200 French families. The French people are now being offered, as a consequence of the Yalta agreement, to take their share and to play their part along with the three major powers, America, Britain and the Soviet Union. It is a fitting tribute to the people of France, as distinct from the 200 families, that they should be afforded that right because it was the French people, the Marquis and the other underground bodies which were responsible to a large extent for the liberation of France from the Nazis, and it is only right that they should take their place with the three big powers. It is not many years ago since Mussolini was boasting about his 8,000,000 bayonets and his bombers shutting out the rays of the sun over Rome. I think in South Africa today the sun’s rays are also being clouded out over Cape Town, but it is not the shadows of the wings of our own bombing planes that we see? It is the shadow of the wings of the chickens who are coming home to roost. And the chickens are coming home to roost on the very people who took sides with the Nazis against the Allies. Now they must recognise it and they now seek to change their policy. Hon. members on the Nationalist benches sought some satisfaction from what MacKenzie King had to say about the British Commonwealth of Nations. MacKenzie King in expressing himself as he did in regard to the Commonwealth, I am quite satisfied, was expressing the feelings of the whole of the people of Canada, because I heard Canadian delegates at the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation speaking in exactly the same terms. It was a surprise to me. They certainly have a different conception of what the British Commonwealth of Nations should be, compared with the conception I have commonly heard portrayed in South Africa and elsewhere. The delegates from Canada were quite clear as to what their conception of the Commonwealth should be. They said we should have a British Commonwealth of Nations, a group and entity of people loosely tied toegether by cultural bonds, by historical things, but not more than that. It should be bound together only by its cultural and common ties, but that the British Commonwealth of Nations should not take the form of a grouping of nations established as an economic entity or as an economic power group. They were against imperial preferences of any kind whatever. They were against the British Commonwealth taking a form or shape into which could be read that it should be established as an economic group in order to exert power politics on the international field; because they said that if there was some justification for the establishment of power groups in one part of the world, it would lead to the establishment of power groups in other parts, one of the contributing causes of war. Having said this I want to say that the Nationalists can find little succour in what these delegates said, because along and side by side with that they believe in the setting up of an international world organisation in which all parties should sacrifice some of their sovereign power in the interests of the others throughout the whole world. Here I come to the point of concern expressed by the Nationalists when they discussed the question of Yalta. They are concerned with the colossus of Europe and with the fact that the Soviet Union is going to influence matters in Europe, which will have an effect on South Africa. That is what they are afraid of I want to say that there is nothing for them to be afraid of The influence of the Soviet Union is the influence of a country in which all its people have freed themselves from economic slavery. Their interests are the interests of the people all over the world and their influence on future world organisation will be of such a nature as to curb human exploitation. It is true that that is opposite to some of the politics advocated by the Nationalists in this country, so it is true that there is a reason for them to be afraid. It is the policy of the Nationalists and their friends who enjoy an economically privileged position which drives the Afrikaner people off the land because of that policy and into the urban areas where they have to work in garment factories; and in these garment factories their material interests have been looked after by a person, Solly Sacks, whom they all curse. He is the one person who in the past has interested himself in looking after the welfare of Afrikaner girls. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) pretended to have particular knowledge of questions affecting the Garment Workers’ Union, but when he was asked whether he did not know of the nefarious activities of S. P. van der Walt, he did not know such a person. Let me refer him to the leaflets I have in my hand, very peculiar leaflets, so pehned that you would almost believe that they were issued by the Garment Workers’ Union were it not for the fact that at the very bottom of the leaflet it savs: “Issued on behalf of the Joint Church Committee.” It is a real Nazi method of technique. It asks the question, who are the extorters taking food out of the mouths of the garment workers. These are slogans which for many years have been used by the garment workers. I thought they had issued the leaflet until I saw what was written at the bottom. And one of the persons who signed on behalf of the Church Committee is S. P. van der Walt. Let us see why Mr. Van der Walt has such an interest in the garment workers. In “Die Burger” of the 13th instant there is an article in Afrikaans of which I have an English translation, under the caption: “Two Thousand per cent. within four years.” That is not a very clear caption for I read through the whole of the article and it does not tell me what the 2,000 per cent. is, but one gets an indication of its meaning by reading the context, and it is about a clothing factory which commenced in 1940 with a turnover of £5,783. In 1941-’42 its turnover had jumped to £7,843. The year after it had jumped to over £10,000 and in 1944 it jumped to £155,000. During that period of four years the turnover of this factory had jumped from £7,000 to £155,000 odd. Who do you think is one of the directors of this particular concern? It is Mr. Van der Walt, the same person who claimed, in the leaflet issued, to be talking on behalf of the garment workers in Johannesburg, and particularly in Germiston. It is very coincidental that Mr. Van der Walt and others who think like him have only begun to interest themselves in the garment workers from the time they entered the garment making industry, and it is quite clear to me, and should be clear to anyone else, that the interest of Mr. Van der Walt is not the interest of the Garment Workers’ Uniori; he is not Concerned with the interest of the Garment Workers’ Union, but his only concern is to split up their ranks so that he can exploit the Garment workers.

We have just seen a performance here to which I should like briefly to respond. The interest of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Wanless) in the Afrikaans women workers in clothing factories is so great that he does not even understand them when they say “yes” or “no”.

He can understand them quite well.

He does not understand a word of Afrikaans. Now he has suddenly become the champion of the Afrikaans women workers in clothing factories. His interest in them is calculated only to mislead them into his ruinous Communism. But the most interesting thing is this, that he does not even admit the right of the Afrikaner to gain a small place in the industrial development of his own fatherland, and because the Rev. Mr. Van der Walt ….

The old story.

I want to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) to be quiet. He is very much more interesting when he remains silent than when he speaks. He has made mention here of an Afrikaans clothing factory which has been established in Johannesburg and which is making splendid progress, but it has now become a disgraceful thing that the Afrikaner should be getting a little bit of control even in the industrial realm, and now an attack has had to be made on the church committee in regard to the clothing workers because one person on the committee also has an interest in a clothing factory. I want to ask the hon. member, and also Afrikaners on the other side, whether white girls work side by side in the same place with coloured people in the clothing factory of which the Rev. Mr. Van der Walt is a director? I want to put that question to him. It is a pity that he does not understand a word of Afrikaans. I thought that the hon. member for Hospital might perhaps go and sit next to him and translate for him. Then he would be doing the hon. member a greater service than he is with his interjections. I ask once more whether coloured persons and whites work side by side in the factory of which the Rev. Mr. Van der Walt is a director?

The Hottentot-complex.

The hon. member for Springs must please be quiet, for in the first place there is nothing about which he can talk with any authority, except on how to smuggle meat from Heidelberg into Springs. He says that he does not suffer from a Hottentot-complex. He apparently has just as little objection to the fact that coloureds and whites work side by side as he has to the smuggling of meat from Heidelberg into Springs. If you speak of a Hottentot complex, then you must look to your own side, for the hon. member wants to draw no distinction. I want to ask him whether he would allow his children to work alongside coloured people in the same factory. If he would not like that, I hope that an end will be made now of the hypocrisy which we are always meeting with in this House. Is there one hon. member on the other side who will rise and contradict our point of view that whites and no-Europeans should not work alongside one another? There are two hon. members who stood up, namely the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) and the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Bowen) and declared that they had not the least objection to Europeans and nonEuropeans dancing on the same floor. They were at least honest, and I hope the hon. member for Springs will be just as honest and will say that he too has no objection.

Another story.

No, anybody can read it in Hansard.

You are not on Vaal water now.

No, I am here, and that is why I am dealing with the hon. member for Springs. We keep hearing of black marketing and sabotage. The Minister of Agriculture is looking for the people who are sabotaging his meat scheme. He need not search for them. There sits one.

Tell us about the chicken with its head chopped off.

This debate has produced a few interesting items. In the first place we had to hear the allies shouting at one another: “You are talking nonsense”. There is trouble in the dove-cote, and it is very clear to me that that trouble is very soon going to end in a lively fight. When the allies already shout at one another “You are talking nonsense” in this House, then we can well imagine what the situation must be outside. Just now we had an astonishing statement from the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). I hope that the “Cape Times” and the “Argus” and all the newspapers that give such a false idea every day of what is happening in this House, took notice of what the hon. member for Troyeville said. We know what point of view these English S.A.P. newspapers took up.

There is not anything of that sort.

I am glad the hon. member has been converted. The Government newspapers and also the Prime Minister tried in answer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to give the impression that he touched on matters here in which nobody took any interest. The Prime Minister referred to “these negligible matters” that he had touched on; And what did the hon. member for Troyeville do? He stood up and said that the people outside were grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for bringing these exceptionally important matters under discussion, and he wished to say this as a consolation to the Minister of Agriculture that the people outside took so much interest in the matters which the Leader of the Opposition raised that they had suddenly forgotten all their other grievances against the Government. He said that on the Rand the interest in the matters which the Leader of the Opposition raised overshadowed everything.

Now he is hiding behind the women, behind the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon).

Despite the fact that he is hiding behind a woman, we must nevertheless admire the courage of the hon. member in admitting in the face of the Prime Minister and the “Cape Times” and the “Argus” that the attention of the whole of South Africa is fixed on these very important matters which the Leader of the Opposition brought under discussion.

What did the “Volksblad” say?

If I had the time, I should read out here what the hon. member for Hospital himself recently said about that same Government. One is almost grateful to the hon. member for Troyeville for having had the courage. But apart from that little bit of, shall I call it, valuable contribution to the debate, he delivered himself of the most arrant nonsense. What was his remark in connection with the most important matter with which the Leader of the Opposition dealt? That we had suddenly again taken a stand against Communism, but that at the time when there was an agreement between Hitler and Stalin, and until war broke out between them, we never said a single word against Communism. That is the greatest nonsense that has ever been spoken. We have never at any time stayed our campaign against Communism. On the contrary, during that very period, we time and again blamed hon. members on the other side for now saying nothing about Stalin’s war against Poland, and said that they were saying nothing about the inviolability of Poland now that Stalin was taking Poland. Day after day we asked: “What about Finland?” when Russia was attacking Finland. We are still asking that. It was not only Poland.

What about Holland?

I shall tell you. We immediately expressed our sympathy with Holland, and the Afrikaner nation in South Africa immediately collected money through the F.A.K. Now I want to put another question. Hon. members there argue that they are fighting for the rights of the small nations. What about Poland now? Russia apparently may take it as she pleases. What are they doing with poor Poland, with Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia? All those small nations are simply being collared by Russia, and Russia is doing it by violence. I can understand that the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) does not care a scrap for Poland. Perhaps he has a greater grievance against Poland than he has against Adolf Hitler. I do not care to say what the grievance is. In so far as the Jews and Palestine are concerned, he blamed us with the contention that the old Nationalist Party Under Gen. Hertzog was in favour of giving the Jews a home in Palestine, but that we are not. We still adopt precisely the same attitude. We are in favour of the Jews having a home in Palestine, and in that connection we shall not play the part that; Britain played against the Jews. To win the help of the Arabs during the last war she promised Palestine to the Arabs. After that she again by means of the Balfour Declaration promised Palestine to the Jews. Now the Jews and the Arabs are murdering one another there, and England sits looking on. We stand by our attitude that we are in favour of giving the Jews a national home, and the sooner we get them there the better. If the hon. member for Troyeville wants to go back there, then we shall not put the least obstacle in his way.

Dr. Malan said that he was in favour of the Jews having a home in Palestine, on condition that the Jews of South Africa did not go there.

I want to say here in all seriousness that in my opinion there is only one solution to the Jewish problem, and that is that the Jews should get a national home to which they can go. Then it will not be necessary for us here in South Africa to fight against the octopus activities of an Ernest Oppenheimer and others. I say it in all seriousness that I am in favour of the Jews getting a national home, and we shall do our best to bring that about. This too It applies to any member on the other side who casts aspersions on this side to the effet that we regret our war policy. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, we stand by what we said at the beginning, and that is that it was not in the interests of South Africa to take part in this war. We have always and consistently said that. But in addition we also said that if there were English-speaking people and Jews who were convinced that it was in South Africa’s interest to take part in the war, then we respected their convictions on condition that they would go and fight. The hon. member for Troyeville must not cast that aspersion on us. He has already had the opportunity on two occasions of going to fight against Germany, and on neither of those occasions did he make any use of his opportunity. He must not blame us. Then I should like to exchange a word with the Minister of Agriculture. He is not here, but the Minister of Finance is here as Deputy-Prime Minister, and I shall address my words to him. When during the debate that was carried on here during the past week or two, we said time and again in the House that people were starving; that there was a shortage of meat and that there was a meat famine in the country, the Minister of Agriculture told us here that there were ample supplies in the country but that the consumption had increased. I now want in all seriousness to point out to the Minister of Finance that there was a procession of women at the Salt River market, and a Provincial Councillor who supports the other side, had to go there and try to pacify the people. Those people asked: “Where is Strauss; let him come?” I hope the Government will give its attention to these things that are developing in the country. Does the Government want us to have a revolution here? If these things continue in this way, then we are genuinely in danger of having risings in the country.

You supported the meat scheme.

Let me now say once and for all that we did not support the scheme. We said that we were in favour of control, but not in favour of the Strauss control scheme. I want to deal with the situation that is developing in the country. Not only in Cape Town do we find processions of women, but in Pretoria protest meetings of women who cannot get meat for their children are being held, and the leaders of those demonstrations are the wife of a Government supporter on the other side and the daughter of a Government supporter on the other side. They lead a procession, while those two members sit on the other side and support the Government. Now I come to the Minister of Lands. I say that there is a shortage of bread in the country, a shortage of mealies and meat, so far as the consumers are concerned, and the Minister of Lands is responsible for the fact that hundreds of farms in South Africa on which hundreds of tons of food might have been produced, are lying idle.

That is absolutely untrue.

I shall prove it. I am always prepared to argue with a man, but here we find that a Minister who should realise his responsibility says over the floor of the House that I am speaking an untruth.

You cannot prove it.

I shall take my own constituency, and I refer the Minister to the New Belgium block. There we have sixty farms. On almost every one of them wheat could be grown, and they are lying idle.

There are only about 34.

And a little while ago there were none. With a few exceptions these farms are lying idle, and the exceptions are where the Minister of Lands has kaffirs on them. I can show the Minister letters from people who have been thrown out there. I say to the Minister of Finance that what I am saying here is a fact, and he should know what is going on there. There is a block of farms, and every one of those farms is suitable for the growing of wheat on a large scale. They are among the best wheat growing districts of Waterberg. In other parts of the district there are also farms lying idle. Thousands and thousands of bags of wheat could immediately be grown there.

That is a stock farming area. It is not suitable for wheat.

It is my own district and I know that area. I can tell the Minister that it is the best wheat growing area in the whole Waterberg district. Those farms are lying idle, and other parts are also lying idle, and then the people are pleading for food because there is a shortage. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether he and the Prime Minister axe going to allow the people to starve as a result of this whim which the Minister of Lands has and which he wants to carry out.

And you spoke here for weeks about the peoples’ tenancy being cancelled.

Not only is the Minister letting farms lie idle, but he is busy making other farms idle. I say that it is nothing less than a crime against the people of South Africa, that a man can do things of that sort and that he should be sitting on the Government benches. It is a shame to allow the people to go hungry while thousands and thousands of morgen on which wheat and mealies could be grown, are simply lying idle. Now I want to come to the Minister of Social Welfare. I hope that he is going to act otherwise than the Minister of Economic Development, and will reply to what we are saying here. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) brought up an extremely important matter here, but the Minister of Economic Development remained silent and said nothing in reply. I want to raise the question of malaria in the Northern Transvaal. From the days of the Great Trek it has been a part of the country where malaria was seriously prevalent. We know the history of Lydenburg, Ohrigstad, Soutpansberg, Schoemansdal, etc., which were originally populated, but which were evacuated again as a result of the large number of victims claimed by malaria. Later the people trekked in again, in spite of the fact that the Government did precious little, for malaria slowly disappeared in those parts of the Northern Transvaal. That is a large section of the country, which will yet some day become the refuge of tens of thousands of people, because it is the most fertile part of the whole Transvaal. I say that malaria has decreased there, and at a place like Springbok Flats we have had scarcely any malaria for 25 years. But this disturbing fact has during the past few years come to light, namely that malaria is increasing in a fearful way, both as regards its incidence and its intensity. It is becoming worse and worse. I am very sorry that the Minister of Welfare did not accept the invitation to be present at the meeting of the Farmers’ Association at Tuinplaas. Dr. Allan was there. The hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) was also there and he will tell the Minister the same thing that I am telling him here, and that is that the farmers in those parts are feeling very uneasy about the situation that is developing. I am speaking of the districts of Soutpansberg, Lydenburg, Nelspruit, Letaba, Pietersburg, Potgietersrust, Waterberg, Groblersdal and large sections of Pretoria, Rustenburg and Marico. That area has a European population of 80,000 people, and a non-European population of nearly 1½ millions. You can see from the population figures how extremely important it is to prevent malaria there. It happens that the farmers can get no labour at harvest time because the labourers are prostrated with malaria. The Government has done something, but it is precious little. The Government has a senior malaria official in the person of Dr. Annecke. He has one technical assistant. Then there are six native workers or “spotters”, four women health visitors and nine health inspectors. Then there are also a number of natives who assist in the work. I understand that the Government made an amount of £34,000 available for this work last year. Now we must take into consideration the fact that there is a European population of 80,000, that there are l½ million non-Europeans and that the area comprises about 72,000 square miles. You can see that £34,000 is precious little for carrying out the work over such a widespread area. Dr. Annecke and his staff have given valuable information and advice to the people. But so far as the actual prevention of malaria is concerned, quite too little has been done. Let me take another example, namely, the work of the women health visitors. In the whole area there are four. I can say that those ladies are doing valuable work. They are helpful in giving information and they also help with prevention. But there are four for that whole district from Pietersburg, with an arc running up to Piet Retief. In that area it is impossible for four women to do the work. They are a mere drop in the ocean. Where they are, they are doing valuable work, and I want to praise them for their work. But at the same time I want to urge that the Government should revise its policy in regard to that matter. It should appoint at least two of these women health visitors for every district. In my opinion these health visitors are not properly paid. Their salaries run from £270 to £330. In addition they get a subsistence allowance of 12s. 6d. a day when they are on tour, but then we must take their qualifications into account. They must have general training as nurses and must be qualified midwives, and in addition they must also have the public health certificate. They must have these qualifications, and they are doing important work. It is high time that more of them were appointed, and that they Were paid better remuneration, so that the Government could get the right type of woman to undertake this work. As I have said, we have only one medical official and technical assistant, the four women health visitors and the nine health inspectors. There is one health inspector in each of the nine districts which are regarded as the chief malaria districts. In the greater part of the Pretoria district which is also affected and in Rustenburg and Marico, there are no health inspectors to give information and to help in the prevention of the disease. The Government should follow the example of countries like Panama, the Argentine and Brazil. They were troubled by the same plague, but they spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year, or they did spend it, to prevent malaria, and we find that a place like Panama has eliminated the disease although years ago a white person could not live there. The Government must make enough funds available for the appointment Of the necessary experts and the necessary inspectors and also to supply the necessary native assistance and transport facilities, before malaria makes its appearance, so that the water can be sprayed with oil and the disease may be prevented in that way. An amount running into millions will not be needed. It will not be the millions of the war, but perhaps £100,000 or £150,000 for a few’ years, and then we can be rid of this plague. If we do this, we shall in a short time be able to know that malaria is a thing of the past. We must appoint health inspectors, even if it comes to two or three for each district; then we must appoint more of the ladies and make more transport facilities available, and perhaps employ natives on a large scale to work under the inspectors. All will work under the control of experts, and in a few years’ time we shall be able to eliminate malaria. If the Minister travels through those parts of the country, then he will see that malaria is now undermining the energy and health of the people there. As a result of the exhaustion and undermining of the health of the population during the past few years, it seems as if many of them no longer have the desire to undertake anything, and yet we know that some of those parts are going to become the most important agricultural areas of South Africa. If we travel through those parts at harvest time, then We see what tremendous losses those farmers are suffering, because they have not the necessary labour to do the work. The labourers are prostrate with malaria. Quite apart from the humane aspect of the matter, from a purely material point of view, it will be a very great advantage if we can get rid of the disease, and the Government should do more than it has done in the past. I understand that the Government has promised to make more transport facilities available. I understand that assistance has been given by the Defence Force, which has made lorries available for the transport of oil and spraying material. The Minister can say whether it is true that £34,000 was placed on the Estimates for the work last year. I could not find it on the Estimates. When I add up the various amounts under this heading, then it comes to considerably less than £34,000. But I have been informed that that is the amount that is being used for it. I understand that more will be made available this year, for it was stated at the meeting at Tuinplaas that £34,000 was to be made available for the Northern Transvaal alone. That is an improvement, but it is still far and away too little. I say again that if the Minister of Welfare wishes to eliminate malaria, then he will have to increase that amount perhaps to £100,000 or £150,000 for a few years, and then we shall be rid of this disease. I hope that the Minister will make use of this opportunity to make a statement and that he will take steps in advance every year for the prevention of this disease, and will not wait until it is there. In the Transvaal action must be taken through the whole area where malaria is prevalent, and if the Minister wishes to do that he must make more assistance available than has hitherto been the case.

I do not intend to follow the hon. gentleman who has just sat down in all he said this evening. He has covered a wide range. He has dealt with Communism, public health and a number of other matters, and then he finally came down to some serious business. I wish to follow him along the lines on which he concluded, namely, the question of public health. I would, however, like to remind the hon. member that when he chides this side of the House, and says that he was in favour of a declaration of war against Russia in the early days of the war, in 1939, when he suggests that his side, the Opposition, have always waged a war against Communism and always warned the country against the alleged dangers of Communism,—it is extraordinary that while they were doing their best to curry favour with Hitler and when Hitler had made an alliance with Russia, not a word was said against Communism. If this monster of Communism was such a menace to the peace of the world ….

What was your attitude?

I am not asking the hon. gentleman what our attitude was, but I am merely pointing out how inconsistent he has been.

That is your third speech on Hitler this Session.

I am now talking about Communism. I am just exposing one more fallacy proclaimed by members of the Opposition. In these days their standpoint has been proved to be wrong, they have been defeated at the elections, they know the country is almost 100 per cent. against them at the present time, and they are trying to keep going with foolish arguments, and my question is: If the Communist bogey was a bogey in reality, if it was a real danger, why in the days when Hitler was walking through Belgium, Holland and France and we were in danger, why did not the hon. gentleman say: We will come and help you; because Hitler had allied himself with Stalin and the Russian menace is a danger to South Africa? When Premier Stalin had an alliance with Hitler—Stalin kept it, it was broken by Hitler—hon. members opposite were silent about this bogey of Communism. They never sought to help us on this side of the House. So much for these belated attempts to try to hoodwink the electorate, which has found them out, which is very tired of them and which will never be bamboozled by them again. I want to deal now with the hon. gentleman when he gets down to matters more germane to the interest of the country, and to deal with this very important question of malaria in the Northern Transvaal. Before I come to that however, there is one matter I wish to mention briefly. It is the matter raised in the House this morning by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg), and it affected the committee on food which was appointed by the Government towards the end of last year. That committee was appointed by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and by myself. The Department of Social Welfare has now, for nealy 18 months, been experimenting with the distribution of essential protective foodstuffs to the lower income groups. In August, 1943, we began a system of distribution depots, the first depot being at Salt River, and the principle was that we should make essential foodstuffs available to members of the lower income groups. Wé started with citrus and later extended it to other things. That system was extended to other parts of the country and the Government decided last year, as a matter of principle, that it should proceed, as a matter of policy, with the subsidisation of foodstuffs to the lower income groups. It wished, however, to get the best advice as to how to proceed with this, as obviously this policy might have big developments. It wished to know whether the best method of proceeding with this distribution to the lower income groups—I am not dealing now with general questions of the distribution of food, which rests with the Food Controller—it wished to know whether under this system carried out by the Social Welfare Department it should continue with the depots, whether it should extend the food depots, and whether it might effect the distribution partly through depots and partly through the retail trade, and whether it should embark upon a system of communal restaurants. The Government appointed a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. member for South Peninsula. The terms of reference of that committee also enabled it to go further and deal with matters which came, not under the sphere of the Department of Social Welfare, but in the sphere of the Food Control Organisation. That committee immediately got down to work. It consisted of the hon. member for South Peninsula, Miss Doris Syfret, of Cape Town, who has done very good work for a number of years in connection with food kitchens, and Mrs. Thornton Archer, a member of the National Council for Women, who was very interested in the nutrition of the lower income groups. That committee did valuable work. It submitted a number of reports and most of the recommendations of that committee have already been accepted by the Government. For the first time in the history of this House we have a Minister of Agriculture who has had the courage to commit the Government to a policy of making margarine in this country. We are committed to that, by the Minister of Agriculture. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government’s appreciation to the hon. member for South Peninsula, and the members of that’committee, for the expeditious and enthusiastic manner in which they applied themselves to their work. The hon. member for South Peninsula this afternoon, in dealing not with the recommendations of the committee, but in the manner in which the work was carried out, or in which he alleges it has been carried out, referred to margarine. I am not dealing with margarine tonight because that is a matter which is in the capable hands of the Minister of Agriculture, but what I wish to emphasise is that the Government is committed to the manufacture of margarine, and any suggestion that we are going to run away from that policy is so much nonsense. We are committed to it and will carry out that obligation. The hon. member for South Peninsula, however, went on to say that the committee did not receive much assistance from the officials of the Department of Agriculture. It appears from what he said subsequently that he was referring, not to the officials of that Department, but tö officials of the Food Control Organisation. I think I should emphasise that, because the officials of the Department of Agriculture have had a good deal of criticism levelled against them, and I think it would be grossly unfair if any other criticism, however mild, is levelled at them in this House, which is intended not for the Department of Agriculture but for the Food Control Organisation, and that fact should be made clear. I emphasise, therefore, that although the hon. member in his speech referred to the Department of Agriculture, it is quite clear that the officials whom he had in mind were not officials of that Department but of the Food Control Organisation. I do not deal with these allegations themselves because these matters are in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture. But the hon. member went on to say that because of the attitude of these officials the committee was not proceeding with its work, solely because of the behaviour of the officials; and then he made the second statement, that the country should know why the committee did not complete its investigations. It was clear to me, and I think it was clear to the House, that it was a necessary inference from what the hon. member had said that that committee had discontinued its work because it was not getting assistance from a Department of State. If that is so it is a very serious allegation. I have had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the hon. member and it is quite clear to me—and I deal with this matter because I am one of the Ministers responsible for the appointment of that committee—that there has been a misunderstanding and I think it is only fair to the House, to the country and to the Government that I should quote very briefly to the House from two documents which refer to the position. On the 31st January of this year I had an interview with the hon. member for South Peninsula in which we discussed the progress of the work of that committee, and the question whether it was necessary for that committee to proceed further with any work. At that stage the committee had submitted four reports, (1) on the merits and demerits of various food distributing systems, (2) the production and distribution of margarine, (3) communal feeding systems and (4) controlled distribution of essential foods involving the registration of consumers. On the 31st January thé hon. member informed me that the committee proposed submitting a report on a short-term marketing scheme and that after it had done so it would be asked to be discharged. On the 2nd February the hon. member informed me, and this is reported in a document which the hon. member sent to me—

On the 2nd February the report was submitted to me, signed by the hon. member as chairman, in which he went on to say the following—

This document then goes on to recommend that in view of the possibility, or what was considered by the committee to be the possibility of further food shortages, the Government should ask the Distribution Costs Commission to submit an Interim Report. That was the final report of the Sonnenberg Committee. It was submitted to me and the hon. the Minister of Agriculture at most two days after my interview with the hon. member for South Peninsula on the 31st January. That report was forwarded to the Prime Minister and it clearly stated that the committee asked to be discharged because it had ascertained that the question of a short-term marketing scheme was being dealt with by the Stratford Commission. The first intimation we had that there had been discourtesy was when he made his statement in the House today. If there had been any statement at the time that any official had been sabotaging the committee, we would have investigated the matter at once. We would have been guilty of a flagrant neglect of duty if we did not do so. No such suggestion was made. It is clear, however, from the discussion I had with the hon. member that there was a misunderstanding, and I am making this statement with his knowledge and consent. I come now to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). He raised the question of malaria in the Transvaal. The House will remember that towards the end of last Session, during Maren or April. 1944, there were abnormal rains in the Northern Transvaal, and there was considerable perturbation amongst members of Parliament representing these constituencies, and we were constantly pressed for information regarding the malaria position. The hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) more particularly dealt with if. It is clear that the seriousness of the position then was somewhat exaggerated, but the Department of Public Health was in touch with the position and we got frequent reports from our Senior Malaria Officer there. On 27th April, 1944, Dr. Annecke reported as follows—

That was the report of the Senior Malaria Officer. It shows, of course, that measures were taken in the Northern Transvaal to deal with malaria. The staff of the Public Health Department acted in an advisory capacity and was responsible for arranging supplies of anti-malarial drugs and equipment in the area, and officials of the Native Affairs Department co-operated in the distribution. In 1943, towards the end, these abnormal rains fell and undoubtedly the malaria position was more acute during the early months of 1944 than it had been for some time. As a result of this I instructed the Department of Public Health to go into the question immediately at the end of the Session whether new and fuller measures could be taken to deal with the position in the Northern Transvaal. Following upon that instruction a conference was held in the head office of the Department of Public Health, on 6th July, 1944, at which there were present the Senior Malaria Officer, Dr. Annecke, Dr. Cluver, who is dealing with malaria in Natal, and other medical officials. Dr. Annecke then submitted a very comprehensive scheme to deal with malaria on new lines throughout the whole of the Northern Transvaal. After full consideration it was decided to make an experiment in a large area, but not the whole of the area of the Northern Transvaal. That was decided before the meeting at Tuinplaas on the 27th July. The hon. member referred to that meeting. He said that there was this meeting and that I had been invited to attetnd, but did not attend. That is true. I am grateful for having been invited, but the hon. member will realise that one cannot always fit in one’s arrangements for appointments made in outlying districts. In any event it was a technical matter in which it is far better to have my technical men present, than that I as a layman should be there. Following upon the discussions at Pretoria, and the meeting at Tuinplaas, it was decided to make a full-scale attack on the winter breeding grounds of certain rivers in the Northern Transvaal. This had not been done before. We had generally waited until the mosquitos came along and the damage was done. Now we were about to embark upon a new policy, to go to the winter breeding grounds and spray them before the mosquitos hatched. In order to do that Dr. Annecke asked for increased staff, and that involved quite a large additional personnel. It involved, over and above the persons already employed, five temporary European overseers, four temporary clerical assistants, 200 native malarial assistants and 210 temporary native labourers, involving an additional cost of £32,000 per annum. I went to my friend the Minister of Finance.

Is he the culprit?

Far from being the culprit he gave the money and this increased personnel has now been given, plus the pumps, plus the lorries which we got fröm Defence, and plus the other technical equipment required. And what had Dr. Annecke to say on the subject? The reports show that the expansion which has been undertaken falls into two parts, one being regarded as a State activity and the other as what the State expects from the farmer or the public in general. Dealing with the State activity he points out that—

By adult extermination I presume that he means extermination of the adult mosquito.

Moreover flying oil squads deal with the returns of provincial roads throughout the whole region under work by us.

So the hon. member sees that so far from being idle and carrying on on a “bloed weinige skaal” we have extended very widely now and I would like him to ask the medical opinion of the hon. member for Middelburg who can speak as an expert as to whether what we did was an improvement.

I said it was an improvement and that you were spending more money.

We arranged to spend an additional £32,000 on this experimental work, and if this experiment is a success—and we shall know that in the next two months—then that experiment will be extended throughout the northern Transvaal The Department of Public Health is watch ing very carefully the experiments carried out in East Africa. There aeroplanes flying low have been spraying D.D.T. over malaria mosquito infected areas. If we find that that is a reasonable success, after next July, when we hope to have fairly adequate quantities of D.D.T. in this country, we shall carry out experiments here. I hope that in View of what I have said the hon. member will realise that we are tackling this problem seriously on a much broader basis than previously, and I shall appreciate it if he would encourage the farmers in his area to co-operate.

The hon. Minister who has just sat down is apparently suffering from a Hitler complex, for every time that he gets up to speak we hear of Hitler and more Hitler. This evening he alleged against the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that when the trouble started in Europe and when England got into trouble we never said a word against Communism. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that we have always taken our present attitude towards Communism, and let me tell the Minister clearly that so far as this side is concerned, we have always stood for keeping our hands out of the mess of Europe. We want to have nothing to do with the troubles of Europe; let them solve their problems themselves. Now the hon. the Minister comes along and asks us why we did not help them in the years that lie behind us. I do think that it is a little too much to have expected from us as Nationalists that we should support a policy which we had always opposed. We did not do it in the past, and we shall not do it in the future. We say: “Leave Europe to settle its own mess. We want nothing to do with it”. I leave the Minister there. I am glad that quite a few Ministers are present tonight, and although agricultural affairs and matters that fall under the Department of Lands have been fairly well debated, there are still a few points that I should like to bring to the attention Of the Minister. As the hon. the Minister of Agriculture knows, a quota was fixed at the institution of the meat scheme, and it was decreased to 70 per cent. when the troubles started. Now, on account of the meat shortage, the Minister has announced that the quota is again to be reduced by 5 per cent. Now I must say that I do not quite grasp how the calculation is made by the Minister and his Department. I have here a telegram which I received from my constituency. It was sent to me by an attorney there whom I know very well, and he would not give me false information. The Minister says that the quota has now been decreased by 5 per cent. Let us see how that works out. According to this telegram it seems to me that the Minister has now become the clerk and the Controller of Food is the Minister and the Minister has to dance to his tune. The telegram reads:

Now I do not know how the Minister calculated that at 5 per cent. The telegram continues—

According to the Minister’s calculation, this is a decrease of 5 per cent.

Glad to hear it.

The hon. member naturally does not care if the people are to be starved and women and children must suffer hunger. He is glad to hear it. Let me tell the Minister that an end must be put to these things now. Up to now the district has been satisfied with a decrease of 30 per cent. and a meatless Wednesday.

You are quite wrong with the figure of 30 per cent.

The Minister is wrong. After his notice had been published I immediately tried to get the Department of Agriculture to give me information in connection with that, but his own department is so nervous that it no longer wants to give information, and they say that we should go to the Meat Controller, that we should no longer ask the Department of Agriculture. It falls outside the functions of the Department, they say. I repeat that there was a decrease of 30 per cent., and now the Minister has announced another dêcrease of 5 per cent.

The decrease announced was from 70 per cent. to 65 per cent. That does not work out at 5 per cent.

First it was 30 per cent. and now it is 35 per cent.

It was not 30 per cent.

We have already had so much information from the Minister which is wrong, that I do not want an argument with him. He agrees that it has been decreased by 35 per cent.

No, I think you do not understand.

It seems to me the Minister himself does not understand.

The former Minister does not understand.

The hon. the Minister must take more notice of the suggestions that come from this side of the House. Do not let our people outside starve. Do not commandeer meat. You will create a situation in this country for which you will yet be very sorry. You will bear the blame. Our people will not bear it that they should go hungry. If they starve through your fault, they will later turn to deeds about which the Minister will be very sorry and for which he will have been the cause. I want to mention another matter in connection with the Minister’s Department. The Minister knows that foot and mouth disease broke out in November near the game reserve, among the animals there. Now the Minister, or his Department, has said that it is the game which is spreading the disease ….

That is being investigated.

Yes, investigated. They have now sent a lot of cattle, expensive cattle, to the game reserve. The game reserve was closed. The cattle have already been there for 6 weeks. Not one has died as yet, and not one of them has foot and mouth disease. What must now be done with the cattle? They cannot get a permit to allow the cattle to be brought out. The cattle which could have been used for food must now be shot and buried there. That is the way in which the Minister is starving the people of South Africa in the interests of the Empire. The restrictions in regard to foot and mouth disease were at one time these: Farmers were prohibited for a certain time from sending anything to Johannesburg or any other place by train, and they were not allowed to move cattle from one farm to another. But after a few days they found out that the situation was not so serious after all, and then if a farmer gave a certificate that his cattle had not grazed on garden ground, he was allowed to transport his vegetables. The Minister should know that no farmer will let his cattle graze in a garden which is bearing fruit. Why then, such a restriction? No farmer may supply his neighbour with any vegetables, but if the farmer sends, his vegetables to the station, the neighbour is allowed to receive the vegetables at that station. What sort of control is this that is being carried out by the Department of the Minister of Agriculture? It is a sad state of affairs. But while I am engaged with the Minister of Agriculture, there are a few more things to which I should like to draw his attention. I asked the Department of Agriculture to give me certain figures in regard to the foodstuffs which the Department had exported out of this country. My letter to the Department reads—

When the hon. the Minister spoke here in answer to a previous debate, he said that he would give the figures. We are still waiting for the figures today. But what did his Department write to me. His department wrote—

I wrote three letters to the Department but I do not want to waste the time of the House by reading out all of them—

We on this side told the Minister that he was the cause of this shortage, that he allowed too much food to be exported while our own people were going hungry. We tried to get that information from the Minister, but in vain. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture wants to give us no information about that most important matter. I can give him the assurance that we shall go further into the matter when his Budget vote is under discussion. I put a question to the Minister in connection with agricultural schools. The Minister said: “See what we have done to help the farmers, we have given them information.” What has the Department done? For the last six years the Department of Agriculture has taken care to see that as little information as possible was given to the farmers. The five agricultural schools that were formerly the source of information for the farmers, have been closed. I then asked the Minister what he was going to do. He wrote me a letter in which he said that he was going to re-open the schools, that two of the schools would be kept exclusively for returned soldiers, and that other people would also be able to apply for admission at three of the schools but that the preference would be given to returned soldiers. Is that reasonable? Is it fair? We want equal treatment. We always said that the Government had made promises to the soldiers, and I am afraid that we shall be left to make good those promises when we get into power, for the Government is running away. Another question was raised here this afternoon, and that is in connection with the question of mealies. I only want to say to the Minister that last year the Mealie Board consisted wholly of buyers. Then permission was given to certain speculators to join in buying, but the instructions were that the co-operative societies should take mealies also from nonco-operative people and from natives. As a result of the heavy rains that we experienced damage to an amount of £130,000 was incurred in connection with mealies that became wet. The Minister said that we need not be concerned about the matter as it was a matter for the Government; the Government had given the instsructions that those mealies should be bought. Now it seems to me that the Government wants to offload that damage on the farmers. I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter and that he will see that the farmers who suffered those losses are properly compensated. They suffered those losses not through their own actions, but through the miserable policy of the Department of Agriculture. I think I shall leave the Minister of Agriculture alone at this stage for a moment. I just want to address a few words to the Minister of Justice. It seems to me that he has sat listening to the debate with pleasure and so far nobody has pointed a finger at him. I only want to ask the Minister of Justice what reason he has today to keep citizens of this country detained in concentration camps. There are a number of citizens of this country who are still detained in concentration camps. If those people are guilty why does not the Minister allow them to be prosecuted under the ordinary laws of the land? I only want to mention a few cases here. I mention the case of Mr. Eyssen. He was a teacher at Heidelberg. I saw the Minister personally about the matter, but after that the Church asked that Mr. Eyssen should be allowed to return to Heidelberg, because he was a very good teacher. Not only did the Church make this request, but the municipality and other bodies made a request that Mr. Eyssen should return to Heidelberg. But now he must be banished from that district where he has made his home and where his work is situated. What sort of pernicious policy is this? Is the Minister afraid Of Mr. Eyssen? I can nêver believe that a son of President Steyn can be so frightened that he does not want to allow Mr. Eyssen to go back to his own home. But there are a few other cases of the same sort where the Minister does not want to allow people to return to their own homes.

Who is the other person?

Recently Mr. Weichardt was again arrested and without any trial was simply sent to the camp. I want to say at once to the Minister that I do not agree with Mr. Weichardt’s politics, and this side does not agree with his politics. We do not stand for a dictatorship. We stand for a system of democracy where everybody will have his freedom. But Mr. Weichardt is a son of this country; he was born here; and now that the war is rapidly running to its close he is put into a concentration camp. Is it due to hatred and bitterness, or what is the reason why this man should be sent away from his business or employment, probably to come out of the concentration camp one of these days a poor white. I cannot believe that the Minister can act so harshly as he now appears to be acting. We continually hear that those people should note appeals. To whom? No, if those people are guilty of any offence then they should be brought up before the courts of the land. I hope that the Minister of Justice will in heaven's name open the doors of the concentration camp within the next few days and free those people. Surely those people cannot be a danger. I do not believe that the Minister of Justice, with his police force of about 100,000, is afraid of the 20 or 30 people who are still detained in the concentration camps. I now I want to say a few words to the Minister of Lands. I see he is already laughing. He says he is going to give preference to returned soldiers.

Hear, hear!

My hon. friends say, hear, hear! But now I want to ask the Minister of Lands: When is a soldier a returned soldier?

He does not know.

I now want to mention a case.

The member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) is a returned soldier.

Yes, the hon. member for Troyeville marched about with a rifle. He may be a returned soldier.

He still has his gun.

I think the policy of the Minister of Lands in this regard is very wrong. In 1914-18 there were many of our people who also suffered in the war. Those people fought in the war. I have here the case of a certain Mr. Rademan in Piet Retief. The Minister hired him a farm six years ago. He was told: “We cannot give you land now, but go and live there and pay your rent, and one of these days when we distribute land, your application will be taken into consideration. What has happened now?

If it was six years ago, then I did not rent it to him.

I do not say that the present Minister did it. But Mr. Rademan rented that land in the hope that he would be given preference because he was a returned soldier. Now I should like to know what is a returned soldier. Is a man who fought in 1914-’18 not a returned soldier? Is he now to be thrown away like dirty water? The case of Mr. Rademan is as follows. He lived on that farm and he paid his rent regularly. Now he gets notice from the Department of Lands that he has to vacate that farm on the 28th February. His crops are standing on the land, but on the 28th February he must vacate that farm. His attorney wrote a pleasant letter to the Department and the Deparment agreed that Mr. Rademan might remain until May, but then he must get out. Cannot the Minister realise that that farm will be neglected. The windows will be broken by natives and the doors will be broken down. Why cannot those people stay on until the farms eventually have to be distributed? There is serious dissatisfaction in the country about this state of affairs. One cannot understand how a Minister can follow a policy of that sort, simply to kick the people off the farms and allow them to wander between the devil and the deep blue sea. That land must now lie idle while at the same time we are told that the farmers must produce. I think that the sooner the Minister realises that that policy of his is wrong, the better. Tonight I want to move an amendment to the motion of the Minister of Finance, to the effect that this policy of the Minister of Lands should be altered. When the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) was speaking, the Minister took cover behind the Act, but naturally he made that Act in order to be able to shelter behind it.

But it is your Act.

My Act! If it was my Act, why did the Minister regard it as necessary to alter it. Is that not proof that what the Minister is now saying is not true? That story of the Minister that it is my Act no longer goes down. If this Party should come into power it will be one of the first things that it will repeal. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), one of the Minister’s own supporters, said today: “How can you expect that a man who will never acquire ownership should go on to that land?” That is one of his own members.

His own members have a headache about the matter.

They have more than a headache about the Act.

One of these days they will be kicking the member for Vryheid out of the Party.

I want to move this—

I should like to second that amendment, because we see that not only does that state of affairs create poor whites, for many of the farmers who are on these rented grounds must go on the road, and they are future poor whites, but also because that land will lie idle and as a result of that less will be produced. We are living in a time of food shortages and under the circumstances we feel that it is an absolutely impractical action on the part of the Government to create still greater shortages of food in a time of shortages, but I thought that the Minister of Lands, who is a practical farmer ….

He is actually a speculator.

…. who is a practical farmer, would act in a more practical way. He suggests that these people should leave these farms just before the winter in order to give the farms a chance of resting. But we know that from May onwards the grass ho longer grows. How can the farms rest if the growing time of the grass is over? If the Minister had said that the farms should rest from September or October when the grass could grow again, then we could have understood it. But no, these people must go away just before the winter when they have no chance of renting other land. But I think it is absolutely impracticable to put those people off the land. That will not allow the farms to rest. But I also want to deal with another matter here. Apparently we are on the eve of peace and the question is how the people of South Africa are going to meet the peace. There is a complete uncertainty in the mind of everyone. We do not know how the peace will touch us. The industrial world does not know whether it is going to get the necessary protection from the Government. In the agricultural sphere the farmers are not certain what is at their door. There is complete uncertainty in the land, and the various Ministers are engaged in making that uncertainty come ever more greatly and ever more strongly to the fore. We see that the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation has promised the country that he will have thousands of houses built within a year’s time. But in fact only a few hundred are being built. That is one of the things that justifies that fear that is among the people. Promises are made, and under these favourable circumstances those promises are not carried out. We have so often heard of the Government’s plans in regard to social security. We see that a commission has been appointed and the social security committee has produced its report. Everybody was looking forward with great expectations to that report. The report recommended that millions of pounds would have to be spent to safeguard the existence of the people. But those millions have gone on shrinking and now we have the prospect only of a few pounds for old-age pensions. Have we not the right to say that the Ministers are engaged in creating that condition of uncertainty when they raise expectations among the people that cannot be brought to reality. We see that the Minister of Labour has added his quota as well, for last year the Apprenticeship Act, to which everybody in the country was looking forward, was put through in this House. Everybody thought that we now had an opportunity of training artisans to meet the post-war period. But a year has passed now, and that Act has not yet been put into operation. It seems as if the Minister is systematically engaged in making that unrest that is in the minds of the people ever greater and greater. Even the Minister of Finance has contributed his quota. He is already warning the people of the dark days that lie ahead, and at the same time signs are becoming apparent that he is going to impose more and more taxes on the people. Those are all things which are helping to make that feeling of uncertainty in the minds of the people greater and greater. But allow me to accuse the Rt. Hon. the Frime Minister of also contributing his quota. I do not think that the Prime Minister realised what a lot of harm he was doing the country by the answer he gave in this debate to the Leader of the Opposition. When the Prime Minister rose, he said that the Atlantic Charter was only an ideal, and an ideal was only an aspiration that could not always be realised to the full. I am dealing with the impression which the Prime Minister has created in the country. I am sure that the impression which he has created is this, that the people should not bother too much about agreements and treaties and promises. If an agreement such as the Atlantic Charter is merely an aspiration that cannot be realised to the full, have the people not the right to be filled with hesitation, and to go forward to meet the future with anxiety and care? For the Prime Minister says that those promises that we are making are merely ideals. With that statement of his the Prime Minister has shocked the national faith in agreements. Can we then be blamed for paying attention to the rumour that is going around that the Government is determined to help the English Government after the war to regain the trade which it has lost during the war? We do not know whether that rumour is true, but the rumour is to the effect that this Government and also the other Dominions are determined to help England to regain the trade which it has lost during the war, and that at the expense of the workers of this country, for if that Government is again to be put on its feet, at whose expense is it going to be done? It will be at the expense of the producers. His products will have to be marketed as cheaply as possible. His raw material will have to be delivered as cheaply as possible to England so that England will be able to regain her trade. The industrial man has no assurance that he will get the necessary protection in the future, for if he is to get the necessary protection, England will not be able to be placed on her feet. And for that reason we are full of suspicion and we are inclined to believe that rumour. But even the Minister of Agriculture has added his quota to the strengthening of that feeling of unrest. Why? Because he has given information in the House which is aimed at creating a certain impression, and I must say that the Minister of Agriculture has succeeded in creating a feeling of distrust between himself and the farmers. We should have expected that the Minister of Agriculture would have guarded the good relationship betwen himself and the farmers. But whoever may be to blame the fact remains that there is a feeling today not only on this side of the House, but even among the Governmént’s supporters, a feeling of distrust between the producers and the Minister of Agriculture. Here the Minister of Agricuture can learn a lesson from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, as Minister of Defence, has brought about a very good relationship between himself and his soldiers. He has never said and done things to those soldiers which have created any bad feling between himself and the soldiers, and one would have expected that the Minister of Agriculture would have shown the same spirit of conciliation towards the producers.

Midnight

But what do we find? The Minister of Agriculture has cast certain aspersions on the producers with the result that the right feeling of mutual conciliation does not exist, and where there is a feeling of dissatisfaction, nothing can come right. Let me mention a few examples to show why the producers feel aggrieved. The Minister of Agriculture has given certain information in this House with the object of showing that the farmers are in a most flourishing position today. I do not want to say that the farmers are not in a better position than before the war. That I readily admit. But I am dealing with the impression which the Minister of Agriculture has created with the figures and matter which he cited and which were not a true reflection of the position. We find that according to the Cape Central 4,205 sheep were sent to the Cane Town market during the week ending 3rd February, 1945. Of those 126 carcases were supers; 761 were prime; 2,346 grade 1, and 972 grade 2. In order to show how the farmers were flourishing, the Minister did not take the average figure for these sheep, but he used the figures for the supers. Perhaps he also included the primes, but he went no further. What is more, when he quoted the figures for the supers, he did not say at the same time that there were only 126 supers, according to the figures which I gave above. No, the Minister used the highest figures with the object of showing how the farmers were flourishing. The Minister gave figures for the carcases which were delivered during the first 7½ months of the meat scheme, namely from 15 May to 31 December, 1944. Then the average number of carcases supplied in the Union that were supers was 5.4 per cent. And then the Minister of Agriculture comes along and points to the flourishing condition of the farmers by saying that the farmers are getting those high prices for supers. He neglected, however, to reveal that the supers represented only 5.4 per cent. of the number of carcases. Primes were 36.9 per cent.; grade one 46 per cent. and grade two 11.7 per cent. By using the figures in that way, the Minister gave the country the impression that the farmera were getting very good prices. Let us look at the prices of carcases here in Cape Town. The average weight of supers was 47.5 lbs. The average weight of grade two was 31.5 lbs. Supers accounted for only 4.5 per Cent. of the number of carcases. For that the farmers got 10¼d. per lb. That is the figure which the Minister of Agriculture used here across the floor of the House. He did not point out that the average weight of grade two was 31.5 lbs. and that the farmers were getting 6¾d. for that. If we see what the farmers got for super carcases, then it works out at £2 Os. 7d. But in the case of grade two it works out at only £1 6s. 6d., on the basis which I quoted above. The farmer therefore gets 14s. 1d. less for such a sheep than in the case of supers. That fact is not brought to the attention of the public, with the result that the Minister, knowingly or unknowingly, creates the impression that the farmers are better off than is really the case. For that reason the feeling has arisen against the Minister of Agriculture that he has not brought about the right relationship between himself and the producers. If the Minister continues, to create that bad relationship, then a greater schism will come between himself and the farmers. It is natural for the farming community to expect of the Minister that he will support them. If he would do that, a better relationship would be created. Now I want to bring a few complaints to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture. How well grounded those complaints are I cannot determine, and it is for the Minister of Agriculture to find out whether there is any substance in them. The first is that there is too great a difference between the supers and the other grades. We find that the difference is 3½d. a lb. The farmers feel that that difference is too great, especially in view of the drought, a consequence of which is that very few sheep will be graded as supers. They are inclined to drop away to grade 2, and we have already seen what the difference is between the two. One has to consider not only that there is a difference of 3½d. a lb. in the price, but the sheep’s weight is also about 16.7 lbs. less, and that makes an enormous difference in the amount which the farmer gets for the sheep. The second complaint is that the producer does better if he sends his sheep to private agents than to the Food Controller. Again I must say that it is for the Minister of Agriculture to determine how much truth there is in this. It is said that if the farmer sends his sheep to a private agent and the carcases are marked as grade 2, then the agent goes along and raises an objection. Perhaps he has the money to use or he can exercise strong influence, and he has the mark changed to a higher grade. Again I want to say that this is something that the Minister of Agriculture must investigate, whether there is not perhaps a greater chance for private agents to have thé carcases moved up, for they have the necessary money and influence, with the result that the farmers feel that they have a better opportunity of raising objections and that the agents will get them better prices by having the carcases marked higher. It only shows once more that if one wants to control, then you must control 100 per cent., otherwise you leave so many loopholes that it becomes absolutely impossible to exercise control. The sooner the Minister of Agriculture tackles a different scheme, the better it will be. Then there is another complaint, and that is that at some centres the producers find that the grading is subject to supply and demand. I do not know whether there are grounds for this complaint. The Minister can determine that. The farmers maintain that if they send sheep to Cape Town and very little meat is available here, then they find it easier to get a higher grade. But if they send it in on another day, and there happens to be a lot of meat, then they get a lower grade for the carcases. If that is the situation, then we feel that the time has come for the Minister of Agriculture to give a little more attention to these complaints, especially if he wishes to improve the relationship between himself and the representatives of the farmers. I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he does not soon get rid of his good Minister of Agriculture, then the people will get rid of this Government.

The hon. member who has just sat down spoke so confidentially that one could not hear him, but it sounded very much like a chapter from the lamentations of Jeremiah. One point I wish to put to the Minister of Justice. I want to thank him for having acceded to the requests I have made on many occasions to allow certain young men who went wrong and who were interned, to be released. Some of them are from old Free State families and they were led astray by my hon. friends opposite. I want to thank the Minister publicly for what he has done. At the same time, I want to warn him that he should not let out those few who are still left behind; he must not be in a hurry to release them. He may ask why. The reason is that they will be a great danger to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. They are very bitter at present, and we do not want any recurrence of what has happened during the last few months, and we certainly do not want anything to happen to the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) has been having a private quarrel with the Minister of Agriculture in reference to the meat scheme but “Let the galled jade wince; our withers are unwrung”. They can carry on the quarrel. It is politically-speaking of course a case of “arcades ambo”. Translate that to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom; “arcades ambo”. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has made an attack on the Garment Workers Union and then he runs away. He is now not in the House. He has become an absolute chatterbox in this House. He makes the same old speech once a week, taking his full 40 minutes, and then he runs away. He goes on for ever and ever, only pausing when the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is behind him, fearing that that hon. member might hit him on the head. I want to make a challenge to the hon. member; I want to ask him whether it is not true there are no white girls working under coloured men in the clothing factories of which Solly Sachs is the Union Secretary. I challenge him to prove that in any of these factories there are any white women working under coloured men.

Talk about the food position.

I will come to that. These hon. members go through the countryside and they tell the unfortunate people there that in Johannesburg there is a mixture of black and white. It is all absolutely untrue. There is no man who does more for the Afrikaans workers than Solly Sachs. [Interruptions.] You can laugh at him, you can sneer at him, you can call him a Jew, but I happen to have observed that man’s work for many a year. He is courageous, he is honest, he is straightforward. Mr. Pirow endeavoured to throw him put of the country, but he stood his ground. He has raised the wage of the Afrikaans women workers of this country from 15s. up to £4 5s. a week. Is there any man who sits on that side of the House who can put his hand on his heart and say he has done anything at all for the Afrikaans woman worker? Not one. Is there any one even who can say that he has employed an Afrikaans woman worker? Not one. If he has he has probably paid her 6s. a week and she has to do domestic work, work in the garden and look after his children. Look at the advertisements that appear in the “Landbou Weekblad” and in “Die Transvaler”. The editor of “Die Transvaler” once advertised for a woman to come into his house to look after his family and children, and the pay he offered was £3 a month. That was Dr. Verwoerd, the editor of “Die Transvaler”.

It is typical of the whole lot of them.

I challenge the hon. member for Waterberg to deny that Mr. Van der Walt has underpaid his Afrikaner girls and that the matter has been brought up before the Trades Union. Why has the hon. member run away? Many of the Afrikaner girls who worked for Mr. Van der Walt do not get their 20s. in the £ when it is due to them. That is the Nationalist policy. They will do everything they can for the poor except get off their backs. I am not going into the highways and byways to dwell on this matter, but I want to say this—it is a matter that apparently the House has forgotten—that only four years ago when this House passed a resolution granting £50,000 to Finland because Russia was attacking Finland, my hon. friends there on the opposite side of the House supported Russia.

Supported Russia!

Let me put the position quite clearly. When the Union House of Assembly in 1940 passed a resolution granting £50,000 to Finland because Finland was under the heel of the Russian colossus, South Africa gave Finland £50,000. Why does the hon. member look like that; was he asleep then?

I want to know how we supported Russia.

These were the words that were used by the speaker, and you will find them in Hansard, 1940, Volume 38. The late Dr. Van der Merwe, speaking on behalf of the Nationalist Party, said—I do not sympathise with a policy which is simply stirring up feelings about the protection of small nations. Those are gentlemen who come into this House and attack the Prime Minister on account of Russia, but they were then on the side of Russia. While poor little Finland was lying bleeding, stricken down by that colossus, the hon. members supported Russia. They forgot that a large number of these Finns were killed at Magersfontein in the Anglo-Boer War.

Are you quoting from Hansard?

Where do you think I am quoting from, from the “Kruithoring”? Of course, I am quoting from Hansard, from the 1940 Hansard, Volune 38.

What page is it?

You can find it easily; I could turn it up for in a minute. These are the words that went out from the Free State Leader at that time—I do not sympathise with a policy which is simply out to stir up feelings about the protection of small nations. It is an extraordinary thing that there is only one member of the Stock Exchange here, and he sits on the Nationalist side of the House.

Who is he?

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé).

Why not?

Yes, why not? He is the only one here who is a member of the Stock Exchange. He is a very good broker, and good luck to him. He is the only “Hoggenheimer” in our Parliament. Everybody else is connected with something else. But there the hon. membersits with blushing beauty, and he buys and sells shares and has a good time at our expense. This afternoon he got hold of a little obscure paper published by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), and he read out a long article; and who do you think of all the people in the world wrote that article? Barnett Potter wrote that article. The man who says: “I am not going to speak Afrikaans; it is a bastard language; I will not allow my children to speak Afrikaans; it is a bastard language.” The Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party so as to make hay while the sun shines, quotes Barnett Potter. What are we coming to? And the hon. member knows it. He does not go to “Die Kruithoring”, he does not even go to the “New Era”—no, he gets hold of a little paper published by the hon. member for Houghton and says: “Look at this, this is what my friend Barnett Potter says.” And he thought he was going to shock the whole country. He has read out a lot about what Sir Ernest Oppenheimer has done and what he has not done. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) knows what the Opposition did when he was Minister. I do not think I need worry the House any more with the peccadillos of my friends on the other side.

Give them some more.

No, I am getting tired. The hon. member who has just sat down sent me to sleep three times. I want to say this though, it will not be long before the Hon. the Prime Minister goes overseas and the Deputy-Prime Minister will take his place. I do not know any better man to take his place. But the country is looking to the Deputy-Prime Minister, and the country is very anxious and very sick. If we had a proper Opposition in this country we would not today have been criticising our Government as we have, but we have an Opposition that is effete, and unable to do anything, except discuss matters of the dead past ranging from Slagtersnek to the Boer Concentration Camps. They live in the past. I should like to say a word about our taxation system. It is far too complex and has never been scientifically planned as a whole. It is just a mass of patchwork, and it has been further complicated by the war-time measures which have been drafted into the original structure. It is inequitable and produces anomalies while it also holds back new enterprise. I want to tell the Deputy-Prime Minister that is what we are feeling in Johannesburg. Johannesburg is lucky to be a rich town, but the only thing that can save us from a lot of trouble in the future is that gold should go up another £2; but also God help South Africa if it goes up another £2, because inflation will be so great we shall not know what to do. I just want to make an attack against the Government. First I would like to say this to the Minister. Take your old age pensioner. You pay an old age pensioner who lives in the country £3 10s. a month, and the one who lives in the towns £5 a month. Why do you not reverse it, and pay the man on the platteland £5 a month, as then more old age pensioners will go to the platteland, instead of starving in the slums of the towns? They will live a happier live in the platteland, because whatever we may say about the people on the platteland, they live a cheap life, and are happy, being quiet people, and it is bettter for the old-age pensioner to live on the platteland than in the slums of Vrededorp. Reverse the position and get the old people back to the countryside, where they can live a decent life. They all run to the towns now, because they get £5 a month. The war is drawing to a close. When the boys come back, 60,000 of them, they will find a wretched country—not touched by war, thank God; and that is due to this Party, but a country with absolute chaos reigning. Everyone in this House knows how I stand about food control, but the Ministers will not listen. Naturally they will not listen to the members opposite because they only talk politics, but I admit they will not listen to me either. Everyone on this side of the House is trying to make them listen. I say that is due to the weak Opposition. The Nationalists talk about segregation and being anti-English, anti-coloured, anti-Oppenheimer, until they are making this country a most unhappy one. That is the Party which wants to form a government. In the old days I might have joined hands with them, but I think there will now be a long, long time before we join them. It is bad for the country to have one Government all the time. It is good to have changes of Government. But the people are afraid to make the Opposition the Government, and for that reason our friends the Ministers laugh at us. They know we have no alternate Government. It is typical of the English system to have changes of government, but then they do not fear to have an Opposition as the Government. But because this Opposition let the people down in the war the people are afraid of the Opposition. Take the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He is one of the most difficult politicians the country has ever seen. He has given more trouble and unhappiness to South-Africa than any other man I know. I shake hands with a lot of men on the other side, but when they are led by a man of that type, sour because he did not get into a Cabinet, narrow and warped, I say how can that Party ever be a Government? That Opposition is both careless and inconsiderate. There are a large number of people in this country, of English descent who speak both languages and are 100 per cent. Afrikaans. They look upon both languages as their “mother language.” That is the case in my family. My brothers and I grew up with two mother languages. But such people are afraid of the members opposite. They do not know England. They have never been there. They do not know Europe. They have never been there. It is but a name to them. But they do know the Market Square in Bloemfontein or in Jacobsdal or the Dutch Reformed Church in Frankfort, and the rivers which flow through the country, and yet they are insulted from day to day by the members opposite, and they are told that they have one foot in England and one in South Africa, and that although they have fought for South Africa. Some of those men are lying in their graves in the desert with their arms entwined about the bodies of their friends, Afrikaners, and you cannot divide them. You can never divide them. I want to say that I do not want to be hard on the Minister of Agriculture. To my mind the Minister of Agriculture is not dealing with the problem of erosion as he should. This matter is being treated by our Cabinet today as if it were a matter for a village debating society.

I must remind the hon. member of the motion of the member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson).

Very well, then I want to talk to the hon. the Minister of … I do not know what he calls himself, but he has a long name. Oh, yes, the Minister of Economic Development. Very economic but very small development. What is he doing? There are goods we have overseas in England, and there is shipping available, and the Chambers of Commerce and the business men call out for them but his Department does not give us leave to import. That is the charge we have against him. He is getting a little swollen-headed. The charge we make against him is that we want goods in this country, British goods, if we can get them, and not the Argentine rubbish. We want to buy British so that we can help Great Britain to restore her position. I want everyone to know that. We will also buy from our Allies. I want to come back to the hon. Minister for Agriculture. Does he think he is playing the game by the people in producing and limiting margarine as he intends producing and limiting it here? The lower income groups in this country can never get butter, and if he is going to put margarine in the hands of the Dairy Industry Control Board and limit it the position will be hopeless, and therefore I again appeal to the Deputy Prime Minister, who very soon will be the Prime Minister. I then want to come to this question of building control. I want to know from the Minister, and I hope it will be passed on to him by his colleagues, why it is that my constituents cannot get building material, while the firm of Messrs. Stanley Anderson have been given a permit to build a shop of £60,000 to store motor-cars. Why is it that these people can get £60,000 to spend on what is called a postwar factory when I cannot get a nursinghome (not for myself), where they are looking after blood cases-and it will be a good place for my hon. friend the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) because the blood is rising to his head. I say that there is corruption in the building control.

Quite right.

I say to the hon. Minister that we must have a Select Committee to go into it. We cannot go on like that. It is bad for our party and for our Government, and we must clean it up.

Hear, hear!

We cannot say that the Attorney-General must look after these things. We must have a Select Committee of this House to clean it up. This is a clean country and a clean Parliament, and we have always had clean governments and clean Ministers, and we have clean Ministers today, but it is not fair to our Ministers, to us, or to the Opposition, that there should be charges of corruption. We must have a Select Committee and the sooner the better. I say this to the Minister who is going to be Prime Minister: What are you doing with the natives on the Rand? Why do you not allow them to have their own trade unions? They have all gone “underground” and have become a most dangerous force. The members of the Opposition are quite right when they warn you there will be trouble with the natives. They talk from a different angle from mine. I am what is called a “kafferboetie”. I am standing for a constituency on the Rand and as a “kafferboetie”, one who wants to see the natives get their rights, I say, as I said when I was an M.P. for Bloemfontein, that I am an Independent Party man. I also want to tell the Deputy Prime Minister another thing: What are you doing about the Indians in Natal? The Prime Minister made a mistake when he tore up the Pretoria agreement and does nothing about the matter, but the position is serious, because if India stopped our supplies of grain bags, what are you going to do about transporting maize and wheat?

Buy them from Great Britain.

You cannot get gunny bags from Great Britain. India won't, so we can get them, sell them to Great Britain. The feeling between India and South Africa has never been so bad as it it today, and there is no need for it. I thought I heard an Indian bellowing behind me. No! It was the hon. member for Drakensberg. He says, “Whose fault is it?” Whose fault is it that the English, the Jews, or the natives are here? It is our fault. We are a country of all races, and unless we set out to recognise the fact that the Indian was brought into Natal to build up Natal against the wishes of India, and that this continued until 1911, and Natal kept on doing it until the Indian Government stopped them, and not the South African Government, and unless we recognise the fact that the Indian is part and parcel of this country, this country will perish. White civilisation in this country is already tottering. I have come down to this particular part of the country for 35 years, and I found the Peninsula blacker today than it has ever been. They are today pushing the white man aside. The white man cannot reproduce his species fast enough in Natal today. Population figures show that. How do you meet it? Do not let us have piffling arguments. I am getting too old for that. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that I warn this House as one who will not come back to Parliament again.

Hear, hear!

You may cheer but you will be sorry to lose me. I warn this House that unless we get together on both sides and tackle these big questions, this country will go downhill. White civilisation cannot stand up against it; there are 2,000,000 whites, of which 1,400,000 can earn their own bread, and 600,000 cannot, against millions of black people. In addition there are also the coloureds and the Indians. We cannot stand against them unless we sit down to make peace with them. And peace in the war is coming. The parties in this House are not divided on the right lines today they are divided on hopelessly wrong lines. I should be sitting on the Labour Party benches, and some of those members there should really sit here. The time is coming for that division. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. member for Burgersdorp making a joke. But I say that unless we join hands we are doomed. I am not so certain that we are not doomed already. We will have to throw open our gates and welcome people from Europe, if they will come. We may get them from Holland. Better people we cannot get. They are your own people. It is very improbable that we will get them from England. The Scot is a very fine type of man, although that cannot be said of all the Scots in this House, but we cannot get them. I say to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that you should at once set out to do what the other Dominions are doing, put up committees overseas to bring out these people as an accretion of strength to us here. Bring young and new blood out here. If we can get five or six million new Afrikaners in this country, speaking the Afrikaans language, a language which has been nut into the Bible, a young language which shines like a gem in the world, these people will go north and north and one day we will have reached the top of the mountain and obtain Afrikanerdom as I want to see it, stretching from Cape Town to the Sudan.

We have become accustomed to the fact that when the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) speaks, then he speaks to all sides of the House. First he attacks the Opposition and says things which are not quite accurate, and he reads out letters or quotes from books which he has consulted, and then he turns round and attacks the Government. I must say that on this occasion he was not the only one of his kind in the debate. There were other members on the other side of the House who stood up and first attacked us and then shortly afterwards one heard “but” and then they started to attack their own Government. Now before the hon. member for Hospital runs away altogether I just want to ask hon. members what they think of that hon. member. You sat in this Chair, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Hospital quoted what purported to be the words of a man who is no longer alive, and who cannot defend himself. I think that what he said briefly came to this that we were against Finland and wanted to help Russia, and that the former member for Winburg (Dr. Van der Merwe) adopted that attitude. With your permission I should like to read from Hansard what the former hon. member for Winburg (Dr. Van der Merwe) did say. I very much want any member of the United Party who still has a sense of right and fair play to hear what really was said. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 38, column 3648, where the late Dr. Van der Merwe said the following—

That was in regard to the £50,000.

If the matter affected purely the question of Finland and Russia then there cannot be the least doubt that our sympathy is 100 per cent. with Finland. Where we have to do with a powerful nation as Germany or Russia or any other nation which is induced by imperialism to capture a small country and to harm a small nation, it speaks for itself that our sympathy in such a case is 100 per cent. with a country like Finland. There is nothing which disgusts me more and which I hate more than this world phenomenon of great countries that swallow up small countries and exploit them for their own purposes. That thing which is known as imperialism, whether it is German imperialism, Russian imperialism or British imperialism, is a thing that we hate, and for that reason too, we hate the fact that British imperialism has done those things during the last 150 years to the small nations of the world.

Then he says further—

The hon. member quoted here and said that he was quoting from Hansard. We asked for the page and he told us that we could look it up for ourselves. I do not want to use language which I am not allowed to use, and therefore I want to say this in Parliamentary language: I think that if a member can sink to such depths, then we can no longer take his word for anything in the House. May I remind members that the hon. member on a former occasion stood up and said that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) wanted to borrow money from him. When the hon. member for Humansdorp asked him later where on earth that had happened, he answered that he had merely said it in the House. That is the sort of member with whom we have to deal. Let us go further. He spoke against this side of the House, but before we met for this Session, he wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. With your permission, Mr. Speaker I just want to make a few quotations from the letter, to indicate what that member said about the Government and about the Prime Minister whom he now praises so extravagantly. On 11th November, 1944, he published the following letter in his journal—

That is what he said of the Government which he now defends and supports. Then he says further on—

This is the person who stands up and supports the Government, that is what he does outside. But when he comes here then he praises the Prime Minister. I still want to read just this out of his letter—

We cannot attack the Government more than the hon. member has done. What we feel bitter about on this side is not the attacks of the hon. member on us. We scarcely take any notice of him any more, but what we feel is that the dignity of the House must be protected, and where the hon. member quotes somebody who is no longer alive, and says such things as he has done, it is a thing which one does not expect of a white man. I should like to associate myself with the amendment which was proposed here by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). In my constituency I also have cases where people are being put off the land. I do not want to detain the House for long, but I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Lands the fact that here are people who got the land as much as 18 years ago.

How did they get it? Did they hire it, or what?

I shall explain just now. I should like to have a small explanation from the Minister. I have noticed that when the Minister gives a reply, when he speaks in a debate, then he continually talks about the policy of his Department. I want to ask him whether he, as the responsible Minister, takes upon himself the responsibility for the policy of his Department. I do not know why the Minister continually talks about the policy of his Department. Surely he is at the head of it, and I want to ask whether he personally takes the responsibility.

He is not sure.

Then we shall leave the matter there. The Minister has sought shelter behind the word “hirer” and behind the fact that he has the right to give three months notice. I want to ask him and members on the other side to be reasonable. I want to ask the Minister of Finance specifically whether this provision for three months notice was not put in simply to provide a sort of hold for the Government, so that if a person misused a farm or did not behave properly, the Minister might have the power to give him notice.

It is an ordinary contract of lease, with determined conditions.

Let us admit that it is a contract. We cannot accept it that those three months were intended to give the Minister the power suddenly to clear out the people from all these rented farms from one end of the country to the other. In my constituency there are also people who have had notice. Those are people who have already been on those farms for 18 years. The people originally got the land from the Land Bank. In this one case the land was bought 18 years ago and the man has paid £152 in cash. That was the one-tenth. They paid their interest regularly for a time, and then they fell into arrears in bad times. The result is that they were taken over by the Department of Lands, and the land was then rented to them. Now they have received notice that they must vacate the land. That means that the money which they paid has been lost. There are also improvements on the farms, and according to the Minister's interpretation of the contract, that means that those improvements have also been lost together with the money which the people have paid off.

The Act does not make provision for the hiring of settlement land.

Even if the Minister’s interpretation of the Act is correct, it still remains a fact that when the people came on to that land they were not under the impression that they might receive three months’ notice to clear out. I am convinced that that provision in the contracts was never intended to give the Minister the power to apply the contract so literally for the purposes of clearing the people off all these farms. If there had not been a war, and the Minister had not been so eager to help the returned soldiers, he would not have given these people notice. I should like to hear from the Minister: If there had not been a war or soldiers, would he have put those people off that land?

My Department is not a letting department. The land was only let for a few months.

I have just mentioned cases here where the people have lived on the land for 18 and 20 years. They lived there under a contract of lease, and now suddenly in this time of war they are put off the land. I say that the Minister would not have put them off had it not been for the war.

Why is he not entitled to give them notice?

The land was bought for land settlement, and not to be let.

I accept the position that the land was bought for land settlement, but these people have been living there for 18 years, and they were under the impression that they would remain there as long as they behaved properly.

With their contracts they could not have been under that impression.

It is clear that the Minister is trying to defend something which he has difficulty in defending. I put this question to him direct: If there had not been any returned soldiers, would the Minister have taken this decision? The Minister makes no answer, and that is also the true reason why he has put all these people off the land. I want to tell the Minister that a few nights ago after the debate in this House I met a soldier on the train who was still in uniform and who came from the north. These were his words to me: “How do you think I should feel if I had to go and live on a farm and I knew that I had pushed another man and woman on the streets for the sake of being put there?” That man does not stand alone. There are many soldiers who feel exactly as he does. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, even though the Act and the regulations give him the right to do this to change his policy now, even at the eleventh hour. We shall not accuse him of running away. We want to ask him to allow those people to remain on their farms. Now I should like to say something to the Minister of Justice. A little while ago I put a question to the Minister about fires. The Minister first said that I should express myself more clearly, and then he would reply. I then thought that the Minister possibly thought that I was referring to fires in houses. I then put the Question in regard to mountain fires throughout South Africa. Again the Minister said that I should say what fires I meant. I asked whether they had any idea of how the fires were started, and whether any arrests had been made in that connection. To that the Minister gave me a ridiculous and stupid answer to the effect that I should say to what fires I was referring. Well, there is one raging tonight on Table Mountain. I mean the fires that broke out here on Table Mountain, at Sir Lowry’s Pass, at Worcester, etc. I should like to know from the Minister whether the police have arrested anybody in connection with those fires and whether they have any idea of how the fires started; and also whether the time has not arrived to provide special protection and to punish people more severely if they set mountains on fire, whether purposely or otherwise. I hope that the Minister will not try to evade the question now, but that he will answer my question.

There are fires from the Cape to the Limpopo.

We are concerned with events close to us and not those far away,

Then why did you not say it?

Well, I am glad that the Minister now knows which fires I mean, and I hope that he will be so kind as to give me an answer to the questions which I put. People are paid 5s. a day for helping to put out the fires, and there is a possibility that some of them set the mountains on fire when they are without work, for the sake of earning something.

Or for the sake of getting the wood.

Yes, that is also the case. We should like to know whether special measures are being taken to prevent the fires during the summer time.

I should like to reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in so far as he said that the farms leased to these people have been unjustly taken away. I maintain that the Minister is only carrying out the wishes of the people in these localities, and that he is trying to fulfil a pledge to look after the interests of the people who deserve the soil and not to have a repetition of what happened in 1919 when the men returned from war service. I felt very perturbed at first when I heard of these people having to get off the land, but on second thoughts I believe that the Minister has acted in the best interests of the community by studying the interests of those people who are going to be allotted these farms in the future. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the wise steps he has taken in the matter. There is a matter of great importance which I wanted to discuss this afternoon, but unfortunately I had not the opportunity, and I am sorry that the Minister of Mines is not present now. There are cases on the Witwatersrand where people are practically debarred from earning a livelihood on the gold mines on account of the way that the two boards function. One is the Mines Provident Fund. A member of the mining community will be declared unfit by the Provident Fund Board and declared fit by the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau. The one board declares him fit and the other says he is unfit. The result is that these people are debarred from earning a livelihood, and I want to make a special appeal to the Government to consider the case of these people. Some of them have been on the gold mines a number of years, and on being sent for examination they have been declared unfit for further service. The Mines Provident Fund declares them to be unfit for further service on the gold or coal mines, but these people on presenting themselves on the same day, or a few days later to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau are declared fit to work on these mines. There are a number of cases which I could quote of people presenting themselves to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau for medical examination in order to obtain positions on the mines. They are declared unfit, but within a week or two they present themselves again under assumed names, and they are declared to be fit and are given employment on the mines. This is a very serious matter. I have affidavits here to support my statement. There is one here from John Frederick van Zyl, who attaches his birth certificate, and who states that he assumed the name of Frederick Johannes Botha because the Medical Bureau had failed him, and he took this assumed name and was passed as fit for employment. He says further—

I want the Government to take into consideration the fact that the boards as now composed are not carrying on in the interests of the people. This matter of men failing the medical examination and then being passed under an assumed name is common knowledge, and the miners are aggrieved to know that this state of affairs exists on the gold mines of the Witwatersrand. The people are very perturbed on the mines. Some of them are suffering and their families are suffering on account of the strange procedure. I hope that the Minister of Mines will see that it is adjusted.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition who is also my leader, discussed the international position as it developed from the war in a very moderate and intelligent manner but the hon. the Prime Minister, if I may put it that way, reacted in a very unworthy way. The truth of what the Leader of the Opposition said here penetrated to him and he really went into a flutter. Instead of getting up and putting the position as he saw it, and as he should do as the Prime Minister, he, in our opinion, just carried on. Flowing out of that speech by the Leader of the Opposition we had this phenomenon on the other side of the House that they accused us of being pro-Nazi and of being this, that and the other thing. I want to state here with emphasis, that we are not pro-Nazi, and when my Leader spoke he did not speak in a pro-Nazi strain, but strictly only in the interests of our country. The position created by this war and the further position which will still be created as the war proceeds was sketched by him, and he also spoke about the position which will arise after the war. I want to tell hon. members opposite that we are not so anxious about what happens to Poland at the moment. We are not so anxious about whether Russia will take a part of Poland and about what the other great powers will do. My leader only referred to Poland as an example of the hypocrisy with which the great Allied powers used Poland as a reason for entering into this war. We only refer to Poland in passing for that reason. I do not want to confine myself to the position of Poland. Neither do I want to speak about the interest of any other country in this war. I want to confine myself to the position of our own country. I want to ask hon. members opposite and the Deputy Premier whether it is not true that while we consistently adopted the policy of neutrality and gave definite reasons for adopting that standpoint, our country has been involved in great debt because of the war policy of the Government. In the first place I take our national debt. Because of the war policy of the Government it increased to such an extent that we cannot see how the nation will ever in future be able to pay it off. Our national debt rose, notwitstanding all the money the Minister of Finance squeezed out of the pocket of the taxpayers. Hundreds of millions were collected to pay for the war. I am now speaking about the condition this country got into as a result of the war. In order to get the support of the natives, coloureds and even of the Bushmen, we are today paying pensions to those sections of the community. We can ask members opposite the question—apart from what we are now devoting to the war—without debts we will have to load the poor European population after the war in order to cover those costs—what will be the amount which we have to repay and how will the nation have to be taxed in order to cover those debts? I put this question to members opposite and I have a right to ask them that; They shouted so loudly for war and voted for it; even now they are busy voting money for the war and to encourage the Prime Minister to, as it were, trot along behind in order to continue the war after Germany capitulates, and to wage war against Japan. What have we received up to the present moment for all the hundreds of millions of pounds which we spent on the war and which we are still spending and probably will still spend? I want to mention a few matters. What will be the position of this country after the war? How will the nation look after this war, after hundreds of millions have been spent? I will paint a sketch showing what we will get for all these sacrifices we have made. I will draw up a balance sheet and in the first place I will mention all the assets we will get for these hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the war, which we still spend and will spend in future, and for all the ruination we have had in the country. The first is that thousands of our sons have been killed. The second is that Haille Selassie, the native of Abyssinia, is again restored to his throne. The third is increased living costs and poverty. Then we have the decrease in value of our money. We have got increased and additional taxes. We had shortage of essential foodstuffs so that the nation is hungry. We have numbers of Afrikaners behind barbed wire and in prisons. I will now mention the assets, which we find on the balance sheet as against the hundreds of millions of pounds which have been spent. We have got shortages in building material with the result that our people are crowded together to such an extent that families must live in bathrooms and others have to look to coloureds in order to be housed. Further, we have a shortage of transport, and spare parts are unobtainable. The difference between the races in the country has been accentuated, and that in such measure that we will never forget, on this side of the House, the insults we received during this war, and which that section of the population we represent received. We also had our country soiled by the reckless visiting soldiers from overseas. We have a shortage of labour on our farms. Our country is sullied by foreign influences which threaten to undermine and besmirch the morals of our clean nation. That is also an asset which we received for those hundreds of millions of pounds. We had a flood of undesirable refugees in the country of whom hundreds and thousands sought refuge here and with whom we will be landed after the war. We had communistic propaganda. That is also portion of the assets we received for all our war expenditure. We further have this, that the Government is simply allowing the wicked communistic propaganda which is recklessly being disseminated in the country to continue. That is another great “asset” which we received. We have unsolved problems because we have a Government which only shouts war, and does nothing else. There is a great increase in robbery and theft and lawlessness such as has never been known in our country and lastly we received the flourishing group of home front capitalists and Jewish exploiters and bloodsuckers, and poverty and misery which afflict the nation. That is the credit side of the balance sheet. Can any hon. member opposite tell us we have received anything more for the hundreds of millions of pounds we spent on the war? Can they rise and point to anything we received? No, they can only talk about honour and duty. That is all they can say. I say that as regards duty I think it is my duty as a member of the community which. I represent in this House to see to my nation and my country first and foremost. It is my honour and my duty to do that. That is the only honour and duty I see in the matter. But it cannot be otherwise if we have a Government with a leader like the Prime Minister. He is not the head of a government exclusively for this country. We know that he floats in the clouds, and we know that he will sacrifice everything on the altar. We know that he said that he would go even so far as hell with the assets of this country in order to satisfy the lust for war and aggrandisement of his master, Great Britain.

Where did he say that?

He said it in Standerton and he will not deny it. I say it cannot be otherwise if we have a Prime Minister of that calibre who wants to sacrifice everything on England’s altar. He is not the head of a government for this country. He is the head of a government for the Empire. Most of his great speeches are made in England. He would still have been there today, even after his so-called explosive speech, if the V-l had not begun to fire on him. I say he is not the head of a government for this country but for other countries, and especially for England. Notwithstanding that he does these things and notwithstanding that he clearly shows us that he will sacrifice everything, our property and our blood, as I called it tonight without any compensation, they are still divided on that side, divided like the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). He attacks the Government. He talks to the left and he talks to the right. He speaks from Dan to Bersiba and one can almost say from Gad to Asar. We just see confusion on that side of the House. They have no firm policy; they just shout war. They do not mind how many millions they spend on the war. They do not mind how far they go, even though it is to the hot place, as their leader said, and then they are as divided as we see them here. Their wing, the Labour Party, is part of the pact formed to see the war through. They are divided. Their own people are in want. Famine stares them in the face. A cry goes up from all the women, at all times. They look up to the so-called champions of the worker, but the Labour Party keeps silent. When this side of the House puts forward proposals to help those people, to provide for their wants, they talk a little against us and a little against the Government, but vote for the Government. I say they sit there divided and then it is the Labour Party which attacks us on this side of the House. Can you expect that the poor section of the population, people who suffer in this war owing to the war policy of that Government whom they are helping, will support that party after the war? Can you expect the Labour Party to receive the Support of the poor after the war? No, they will not receive it and I prophesy that the Labour Party in Port Elizabeth also will not give their support to the Government candidate in the by election, because the Labour Party failed, together with the Government, to see to the interests of the poor section of the population in this country. But in that Government one also finds the colour-blind and amongst them we count the Minister of Finance who is sitting there.

Together with him one finds quite a few colour-blind, but most of them are not only colour-blind; they are totally blind to the interests of the nation. Those are the members of the Cabinet as you see them there. I say that the hon. Minister of Finance, who possibly will be the successor of the Prime Minister, if the nation does not throw them out before that time, is following a dangerous policy. I want to warn him that our small white population in this country surrounded by so many natives and coloureds, are in a dangerous position, that it is a great and serious problem, and that he must not force that reckless policy on the nation or the country. I wish to warn him that he is creating a bad position with which our children and our grandchildren will have to cope, because of his colourblind policy of equal rights. Sometimes he speaks earnestly of the expansion of the coloured vote to the north and such things. Those are dangerous policies to lay down. Then you have his colleague in the Cabinet, the Minister of Posts and Public Works. He is the man who unashamedly stated in Natal that we will have to give the vote to the coolies of Natal under certain circumstances. Can you imagine a member of the Cabinet saying such an irresponsible thing as that we should have to give the vote to the coolies of Natal? But we are not surprised that they say those things. I say it is all due to their blind policy of seeing the war to an end. The hon. Minister does not say that because he loves the coolies in Natal, but he says it because he is dancing to the music of Great Britain, together with other members of the Cabinet. He says it to keep India content with the policy of exploitation of Britain. That is why he says it. I have a pamphlet in my hand emanating from Natal containing a warning about the coolie danger. They are calling out for help in Natal about the coolie danger. They appeal to their brothers in the Free State, as they call us, to rush to their assistance. I want to tell the people of Natal, now that they see the tragedy we prohesied long ago and now that they cry for help because the danger threatens to overwhelm them, I want to tell them that for a long time that has been our policy. Why did they not in the past assist us in solving those problems? Why do they not assist us now when we are pleading to solve those problems? But I also say to them: We can only help you in your need if you now become true Afrikaners in the real sense of the word. Discard that red pigment of yours and discard that divided allegiance you have to this country. Here is a Party which favours a healthy colour policy and we will help you. But the Minister from Natal who represents those people preaches equal rights; he speaks about giving the vote to the coolies of Natal. I say the Government is pursuing a dangerous colour policy, a policy which must result in the spilling of blood between European and non-European, and we have already mentioned why they are doing this. They are bound to do those things in order to receive support in their war policy and to justify it. I said that the Government is without policy and without decision as regards a variety of problems which arose during the war period and especially in this country. For every problem which they have to take in hand and solve they appoint a commission. They are known to the nation, and that in a spirit of ridicule, as the Government of Commissions. One commission after the other is appointed, and when the report of one commission is published, another commission is again appointed to see how that report can be put into practice. So they continue, without policy and without decision, and in the meanwhile the population of this country is suffering. I said that I confined myself to conditions in this country. I am anxious that because of the extravagance of the Government in seeing this war through, they are creating a situation in the country under which the nation is suffering and will suffer in future. I say that the affairs of the country after the war will be in such a muddle that the nation as a whole will disown the Government. They will perhaps do so sooner than the Government expects. As against such a Government Party, without policy and without decision, as against the Government we have today, there is the Herenigde Nasionale Party, the bulwark of nationalism, which says South Africa first in every sense of the word, and with a very sound social economical policy. We have a solution for each possible problem in this country, which we are now busy bringing to the attention of the nation, and especially the English-speaking section of the population, by means of the new newspaper we are now issuing.

A beautiful newspaper.

Yes, it is a beautiful newspaper and it contains beautiful literature for the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll), if only he would let his brain develop a little. I say that our Party has a clear policy in regard to all the problems in this country. When this war is over and the nation struggles, complaining and bent, under the burden of the hundreds of millions of pounds spent by the Government, for which it can show nothing, this Party will be called, and will be able when it is called, to tackle all the problems and to solve them in the manner set out in our programme of policy and action. I say we are not afraid to say it; we are not afraid to say it to our English-speaking friends on that side of the House and in the country. We are not afraid to tell it to Great Britain. The policy of this Party is to break the British connection; to break it because we will never be able to give effect to this fine social economical programme of our Party while we are obstructed by that connection. We will not be able to do it. I say that we will remove all the stumbling blocks in the way of eventual republican freedom. When we reach that stage we will be masters of our own country, free of all bonds, free to do what we wish and to execute what we regard to be in the true interest of our nation. There are even English-speaking people, whether our Government wants to know it or not, who prefer a republic to being ruled by the blacks. They say it even in Natal; rather free from the bonds of Mother England than be ruled by the blacks in this country. Those are true words. That is the handwriting on the wall. It shows how the wind is blowing. It shows what is passing in the minds of the English-speaking section of the population of this country because they know now, after reading the explosive speech of the Prime Minister in London in which he said that England would emerge from this war proud but poor, when they see the impotence of this Party and this Government to solve national problems, the impotence of the Government in particular to solve the colour problem, and when in addition to that they have the words of the Prime Minister that England will emerge from the war proud but very poor, in fact, insolvent, that to argue correctly they must say: “What does it help us further to bind ourselves to a corpse, if that is going to be the position?” I say they rightly argue on those lines and they share our point of view. And when the time arrives when they realise that it is not in their interest to have a divided allegiance, to sacrifice everything in order to see England’s wars to an end, they will help us and will enable us to cut those bonds of the British connection. The Prime Minister is again going to this Peace Conference. He is not going there to obtain anything good for us or to plead for us.

How do you know that?

Because I have experience of his peace conferences. He will go there in order to try to bind us to a still greater extent. He will again go there to sow evil, as he sowed the seeds of war at Versailles. He will again sow the seeds which bear the germs of World War No. 3, if I must have regard to his expressions the other day. He will again do what he did at Versailles. At that conference he will sow the seed which will bring about World War No. 3. And then, because he says that the old horse has entered his last race at the last election, he will be satisfied to retire from politics; just as bankrupt as England came out of the war, just as short, of policy and principle will he retire from this Government completely satisfied: “I have done my last bit; I have made my own people and country suffer the effects of the wars of Great Britain; I sowed the seeds and helped to plant them for World War No. 3.” Then he will return satisfied and in his pride tell us what he did. That is how I see it. So our country has been affected by this war-mongering government and the Party which supports it. I make another appeal to them: I challenge them to come and show me what we gained in this war by way of an asset for those hundreds of millions we spent in this war. Come and prove to me what this country gained by it. I say you are just assisting to let small countries like Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia and others be swallowed by the great bear and other wolves. That is the asset you will exhibit. You will land us in debt and impoverish us as has been done here, but you can point to nothing of a permanent nature which is to the benefit of this country. I say that with emphasis. I say it with all earnestness. Rise and tell us what we got out of this war. I say it is nothing; it is just worry and anxiety, misery and debt such as we have never had in our history and which we do not know how to pay in the future. [Time limit.]

A few days ago I was in my constituency and I am very glad that the hon. Minister of Agriculture is present so that he can listen to a few difficulties I met with there. In the first place I must tell him that the dairy farmers are thankful to him for the increase he consented to grant in connection with dairy prices. But the dairy farmers instructed me to ask the Minister of Agriculture to see to it that the prices for cheese milk and butter fat are increased above the prices of last year in the winter months which lie ahead, by at least 3d. to 4d. per gallon, for milk, as also a similar increase, proportionately, for butter fat. The farmers are already busy sowing green feed and unfortunately the insects are again so busy that what they have sown is fast disappearing. The coming year is therefore not at all rose-coloured for the dairy farmer in the Free State. There are numbers of farmers who fear that if the prices of dairy products are not increased in the winter months they will be obliged to let their cows dry up. There is also the danger that the creameries, of which there are 20 in my constituency, will have to close down. For the rest they request that the rail tariff on cow fodder should be brought down so that the farmer will be able to feed his cows, and it is of importance that the Minister of Agriculture should see to it, if he now grants an increase in the price of dairy products, that it should be announced as soon as possible so that the farmers can decide what to do—whether they will feed or not. There is also much maize which has been so affected by the drought that it is hardly worth harvesting. But if dairy products are not raised in price it will be better for the farmers to harvest this bad mealie crop whereas otherwise they could turn those mealies into fodder for the winter months. Another nightmare which is riding the farmers is the question of margarine, and they would like an assurance from the Minister that he will not allow margarine eventually to get into the hands of unscrupulous manufacturers who will kill the dairy industry. I hope that the Minister later will give us a reply which we can convey to the Dairy Union and the Farmers’ Associations on behalf of whom I am speaking here, and to help us out of this difficulty. Another matter which should receive serious consideration is that of wheat production, especially in the eastern portion of the Free State which is principally a wheat-producing area. Last year practically all the lands in the. O.F.S. were sown and there was a total crop failure, with the result that barely five per cent. of the farmers reaped the amount of seed they had sown. Already the farmers have had two mealie crop failures one after the other in the O.F.S. The wheat crop last year was also a total failure. A loan has been approved of according to which farmers can buy up to a certain quantity of seed wheat. But they feel that the seed wheat costs more than £2, and many of them will not put in only a quarter of the wheat when they have to buy at that price. The Minister is now being asked if it is not possible to subsidise part of it. I wish to put it this way. It is practically a national question today and if the Government is in earnest to save the country from possible famine, I think that the State should encourage the farmers by subsidising their seed wheat, so that we can reap a full crop. I think we can say with safety that in the last year approximately 400,000 morgen were put under wheat in the Free State and the year before those lands yielded a crop of 1,770,000 bags. For this year 600,000 bags are expected, but I doubt whether it will be that. I am almost convinced that in the Free State we will not even reap the seed sown by the farmers. It means that they must get 100,000 bags before they have what they sowed. As I said, 95 per cent. of the farmers did not even get back their seed. That makes the farmers loth to sow. It means that the wheat farmers have this year suffered a crop failure of wheat to the value of £2,650,000. You can imagine how that discourages the farmers from sowing again. A further question asked by the farmers is this: Cannot the Government do anything to fight the plague which is really the cause of this disease, namely the wheat louse? I understand that in Australia and America there are patents which are used in an attempt to eradicate this wheat louse. We want to ask the Minister of Agriculture to devote his serious attention to the matter. The millions of pounds lost last year was not so much due to the drought but to the lice. They practically ate the lands bare from one end to the other and the Department of Agriculture, as far as we can ascertain, can do nothing about it. But we hope that the Minister of Agriculture will erect a monument to himself by eradicating this wheat louse. If he can provide a remedy which will eradicate it he will be performing a service for which the farmers will be very thankful. Then there is also a harmful weed, the “plantakkerwinde”, and it appears that the Department of Agriculture did not take the matter seriously. It is spreading in districts like Thaba ’Nchu, and I can give the Minister the assurance that no remedy has as yet been discovered for it. It goes as deep as four feet into the ground and if it is found on a farm the buyer immediately offers £3 a morgen less for the farm. The more one tries to eradicate it the deeper it goes, and the danger is that there are many persons who still sow wheat on those lands and the pest is spread by sowing that wheat as seed, and it will be an evil we shall never be able to eradicate if we do not try something now. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will devote his attention to this matter and that he will take steps to combat this evil.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to talk tonight—or rather this morning; it’s now 4 a.m.—on a subject which has not yet been touched upon. There was a conference held in Johannesburg at the tail end of last year—a conference where 75 to 100 delegates attended—on a very important subject, concerning demobilisation. The only result of that conference—and it is a similar result of many other conferences—was this, that the members, after a great deal of talk, passed a resolution to form four sub-committees to go into the question which they had been discussing for hours.

So really nothing was done.

Nothing! They acted just like the Opposition; talked but did nothing. Since I entered Parliament and been compelled to listen to the Opposition members I have come to the conclusion that most of their tongues must be hung in the middle and wag at both end. There is far too much useless talk in this House.

What are you doing now?

This is the first speech I have made in this House this Session; and when I think of Sid Warren and Gerhard Bekker ….

Order, order!

I am a dummy compared to them. I say that we continue to talk and talk, while if we spent half the time in doing what we ought to do towards demobilising soldiers, instead of talking, we would make a very great deal more progress. When I read the minutes of that conference, on this very important subject, and I considered the loquacity of one of the members attending the conference he left with me the impression that he could talk until the last day at breakfast time. He said it would take 100 years to complete the programme which Johannesburg had made out in regard to satisfying the returned soldiers.

Satisfy them on what?

I have told you already: on demobilisation. Later on I will give you the details of what I am talking about. That is one thing in my favour; the Opposition on the other hand never tells you what they are talking about. The 100 years member of the conference came from Johannesburg, the place wrongly called the hub of the Union. You can take it from me that if we continue to talk instead of acting, that when the men come back from the war Johannesburg will be the hubbub of the Union. The people attending that conference wanted to form a sub-committee to look into the inherent difficulties of the present system. That phrase gets my goat. It means nothing. It is just words and words and words, and all the time this delegation had met for the purpose of doing what?

A Caledonian dinner.

You look as if you wanted one. They had met for the purpose of bringing about not only an improvement in the system but something which we in this House should be thinking about all the time and every day. But the talk ended and the Minister of Welfare did not get one step forward in regard to one of the greatest schemes, and the most important scheme that is required in demobilisation.

What scheme is that?

I said I would tell you later. Now, while the Johannesburg delegates were talking, the Cape Town delegate was arguing whether we should give certain men priority in this country and he was trying to introduce a scheme on his own. Durban, through one pf its councillors, indulged in one of the many laments it always indulges in, and its delegates considered that everyone at the conference was wrong but himself. I want to say something about Durban provided I am allowed to speak on the National Health Service. Durban is causing a great deal of trouble in this country and in this House, not on the Indian question alone but on the provincial question. We as a Parliament cannot get through certain necessary amendments because Durban wishes to keep the provincial system intact and keeping that system intact very often is diametrically opposed to measures we want to pass. I say definitely that Durban is causing unnecessary trouble. It is a fact that the Provincial Council in Natal is Durban and Durban is the Provincial Council. In that respect it is very different from any of the other Provincial Councils. Once when I was chairman of the Rugby Union in Port Elizabeth we wanted to get a test match there, but the authorities in the Rugby Union said that the test matches would be in the three largest cities in the Union, viz., Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg. I spent some time taking out the figures of the population of the Eastern Province as compared with Natal. [Laughter.]

If the hon. member persists in irrelevance and repetition, I shall have to direct him to discontinue his speech.

I am sorry but I was interrupted. The population of the Eastern Province at that time was exactly double that of Natal. We proved to the Rugby Union that the Eastern Province was entitled to a test match and we got it.

Who won the match?

We did. But these interruptions have caused me to deviate from the main point of these remarks. I am now going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what I am leading up to. I expect, immediately I tell you what I want to speak about at length that I will get into hot water. I want to tell you that this conference I have been speaking about was a conference on housing and I want to say something further about housing.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

You see, there you are. That is exactly the reason why I did not tell you what I was going to discuss. I was told that I could not discuss housing for some unknown reason.

The hon. member cannot discuss the subject of housing while a motion dealing with the matter remains on the Order Paper.

I represent the only city in the Union that knows anything about housing, yet I cannot discuss it. I am sorry that I have to sit down.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) made certain statements and then left the House as usual. We are accustomed to it. He reminds me of the small child who has the bad habit of continually sucking his thumb. The hon. member also sucked many stories out of his thumb tonight. I remember that last year he made certain statements in respect of the City Council of Cape Town and in respect of the Mayor, and as far as I know the hon. member was later obliged to withdraw his words and to make an apology to satisfy the City Council. What he said about the City Council, was also sucked out of his thumb. We have no objection to his making statements in regard to a member of this House in his presence, but to make statements in this House and to pretend that it appears in Hansard, and to give this House to understand that the late hon. member for Winburg (Dr. Van der Merwe) made certain Statements and that those statements are confirmed by Hansard, while there is nothing of the kind, well, one cannot find language to express one’s indignation. I think the hon. member for Hospital has rendered no service to this House. If he were a member of this side of the House, we would have humiliated him as much as we could. He has rendered his own side no service. If he wants to be consistent, he ought to apologise to the House, since it has been proved out of Hansard that he made an untrue statement. He is an old member, not an irresponsible person, and I therefore want to make an appeal to the hon. member to look up Hansard, and if he finds that he made an untrue statement to this House, he ought to withdraw his words.

Read “Die Burger” and “Die Transvaler” of those days. Don’t talk rubbish.

I listened attentively to this debate. It was certainly a historical debate from the beginning, and it will remain history to the end. It was definitely unique. Serious charges were made against the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Those charges did not only come from this side. If they had only come from the Opposition, it would definitely not have been as important, but even the Labour Party acted as Opposition; the Dominion Party came forward with charges against the Government and strongly condemned the Government. The same applies to the representatives of the natives; but what about the Government side? A great number of members on that side made charges against the Minister, charges of maladministration. That is why this debate is so historical. In all the years that I have been in the House there has never been a debate in which both sides have attacked the Government. It proves indisputably that there is a screw loose with the Government. Only on Friday evening a protest meeting was held at Salt River, and that meeting challeged the representative of Salt River and invited him to bring the Minister of Agriculture with him. It was not a protest meeting of the Nationalist Party, but of supporters of the Government who challenged the Minister to make the statements which were made in this House, that there was no emergency, hunger and want. The whole country is up in arms against the Government. There is only one element which did not protest, and that is the Troyeville element, the Jewish element, which has never suffered want during the war, and which has never stood in queues. They and they alone are not up in arms against the Government. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) exploded this evening against this side of the House. I just want to remind the hon. member that at the time of the Second War of Independence, we in the Transvaal thought that the poison had come from England. Later it was proved that the poison had been spread by two Jews who came from England and millions of pounds were spent to create a feeling of bitterness through which Great Britain attacked the Republics.

Read the history of South Africa. It is untrue.

I want to warn the hon. member for Troyeville that there is still a great feeling of bitterness in the heart of Afrikaneydom against those who incited Great Britain against the Republics. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) stated here that flats in Johannesburg were being used as shops. In the Gardens in Cape Town there is hardly a house which is not a shop. I remember an occasion when I met an English-speaking woman with her daughter. It was the only English shop which was left in the Gardens, and they complained bitterly that refugees from overseas had overwhelmed them with shops and businesses, and that thousands of trading licences had been granted to them. They are none other than the Troyeville group. [Laughter.] You may laugh, but the English-speaking people ought not to laugh. In the past the English people were the business people of South Africa, and we had a very fine and clean trade. As a boy I knew no other business people but the English. They treated us well and the trade was clean. That clean trade has disappeared from South Africa because it is no longer the English people who control the trade. Take Cape Town, for example. Where are the wholesalers? Their names are still there, but the Jewish element has inundated everything and the hon. member for Troyeville is now championing the cause of the English, but I want to tell the hon. member that the English-speaking people feel deeply hurt and hold exactly the same views as we do. I want to ask the English-speaking members to open their eyes. Who are the advocates of Communism in this country? Who is behind the Communistic propaganda? Is it the English-speaking people or is it the Afrikaans-speaking people? No, it is the other element. They preach Communism with it dangers and threats. We have 8,000,000 non-Europeans and they are tainting and poisoning the non-Europeans with the doctrine of Communism. It is a crime towards European South Africa. I want to express my surprise at the Minister of Agriculture. He reminds me of the three soldiers behind the front, a Tommy, a Yankee and a Springbok. After they had rested for a while, the Tommy said to the others: “You know, we have a man with one arm and he is the best cricketer in England.” The Yankee said: “Well, we have a man with one leg and he is the best footballer in America,” and the Springbok said: “Well, I can believe that, because we have a man with a wooden head and he is the Minister of Agriculture in South Africa.” The Minister of Agriculture has all the facilities at his disposal. He has all the State machinery, all the expert advice and all the money at his disposal. He lacks nothing. Even though he is young and inexperienced, he should have acted differently to what he has done up to the present, with all those resources at his disposal. We have a big country with a tremendously big production; we have a small population, which is very small in comparison with that of other countries. The population in our urban areas, where the position is so critical, numbers less than 1,000,000 Europeans. The Minister cannot provide a million people with the necessities to enable them to live decently. Compare that with England which is a small island with approximately 40,000,000 people. Moreover, they have to contend with difficulties such as V1, V2 and V3, and nevertheless there is no disorder and no under-nourishment. A young man who lived there for 9 months told me that there was not an abundance of food, that food was not plentiful, but that the distribution left nothing to be desired, and there are no complaints. I think it redounds to the credit of England and its Cabinet that it has taken care of its people in such a way that one section does not walk off with everything. In this country there is one section which has never suffered want, but the English-speaking women, with their small children in their arms, have to stand in queues, and still hon. members are satisfied with such a Minister. We produce a great deal in our country and the Minister has all those resources at his disposal which I have mentioned, and yet Cape Town is without meat and in other cities the position is critical. It is no credit to the Minister that such a position exists. If there were no products, we could understand it, but that is not the case. We feel, and a large section on the other side feel that there is definitely a screw loose somewhere. With the Minister’s qualifications we cannot say that he is unqualified. We do not know where the fault lies. Let the Minister tell us where the fault lies, and we shall help him. The Leader of the Opposition offered his assistance. We want to co-operate in order to put a stop to this position of chaos, because it is a disgrace to South Africa. I can say that the fault does not lie with the Opposition. We did not in the least thwart the Minister, nor did we boycott his scheme when he put it into operation. I say that the fault does not lie with the Opposition. Where does it lie then? The Minister should get up and tell us where the fault lies and where the hitch is. If this side and the members opposite are not to blame, with whom does the fault lie then?

Speak Afrikaans.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) should rectify his own faults. He has already had to apologise to the City Council. And now he is being ignored by the City Council. When we come to the platteland we find that everything is plentiful, but when we come to the cities, the position is critical and there is no food for the people. When the hon. Minister gets up here, he tries to make us believe that there are no difficulties, but he has already been challenged by the women of Salt River to say in front of them that there is no shortage of food.

Those were the Communists.

No, it was not the Communists. All parties were represented because the people are hungry and their children are undernourished. The platteland is not in distress. It is the cities which are in distress, especially those places where there are English-speaking people. If the cities had supported the Opposition, we could still have understood their desire to starve the people. But the position is the reverse. It is their own people who are in the cities where we have no seats. There is no trouble on the platteland, but to go places like Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg, which are represented by the United Party. I honestly do not know who is to blame. The Minister is the only one who can explain why the necessary food cannot be supplied to the population. A century ago certain people in England were concerned about the slavery of coloureds in the Cape Colony. Those slaves were treated well. They got everything they needed. In the slums of London there were not thousands, but hundreds of thousands of Europeans, men, women and children, who lived in the most ghastly state of starvation. But they were not concerned about their own people. They concerned themselves with the few thousand slaves in the Cape Colony. They did not concern themselves about their own people, their sons and daughters who had sunk into a state of indescribable misery. The slaves were in a much better position than those poor people. It gives me the impression that the Minister of Agriculture is forgetting his own people in the cities, and that he is only thinking of those overseas. They want to save others, but their own people are being doomed. On the platteland everything is plentiful. The Minister of Agriculture can bear me out, he himself has thousands of sheep and cattle on his farm. He knows what abundance there is, and here in Cape Town I have hot yet been able to buy a piece of meat. Is it a credit to South Africa that our people in the cities should be in such a position while there is an abundance on the platteland? We have the money. We spent millions overseas. It is debited to the Government. Is there no money to get the necessary food for the people in the cities? I hope and I believe that after this historical debate which has been conducted here the Minister of Agriculture will change, improve and rectify matters within a few weeks, and that he will be able to build up his Party by helping them in their difficulties.

I should like to make one or two remarks on the use of land in South Africa. I feel that a very great improvement could be made, and I would like to suggest among other things that a reorganisation of the Agricultural Department would be of very great benefit to this country. The Agricultural Department has, recently, been loaded with a tremendous amount of extra work owing to the various food controls that have been introduced, and I think it would be an excellent arrangement if Forestry were transferred from Agriculture to Lands. Possibly another form of assistance would be for soil conservation to be treated separately; I do not know whether that should fall under the Lands Department or the Agricultural Department, but I think a great improvement could be effected by better organisation in this connection. One point I want to make is in connection with the training of more people to go into the Agricultural Department. Today, as we all know, recruits for the Agricultural Department must have a degree in agriculture. This can only be taken at Stellenbosch or Pretoria universities, and I think it is time that the English-speaking people of the country were given a chance of entering this very important branch of the public service. I should like strongly to support the plea made for a faculty of agriculture in Natal. The Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer) indicated that the Government had not yet made up its mind on this question. The time is ripe for the Government to make up its mind, and it is essential that money should be provided on the Estimates this year to make a start on this important work. Another question urgently calling for attention is that of the price of dairy products. It is essential that price relationship as between fresh milk, condensed milk and cheese milk should be placed on a more satisfactory basis. I do not intend at this late hour to elaborate these points. I just mention that these are two or three very important matters, and I think that the Government should give early attention to them.

I want to say a few words in regard to the amendment. I received a letter from the Chairman of the Tenant Farmers’ Association, and I just want to submit it to the Minister so that he can see what the position is.

But does the tenant farmers’ scheme relate to this amendment at all?

These people are on hired land. This man is the chairman of the Association. He writes that the position of the tenant farmers is becoming very serious—

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to see to it that a change is brought about, because I know that the position is serious. These people are living on hired land, and they cannot follow any other occupation as an alternative. I hope the Minister will give them an opportunity to remain on that land until it is distributed, and then we shall see what the position is going to be. I want to give him the assurance that the position is very bad, particularly as a result of the drought. For that reason I also want to ask the Minister to see to it that drills are made available to the district.

Order, order! The hon. member may only discuss the amendment.

I bow to your ruling. The Minister stated that he was not responsible for the fact that the people did not plough and gather their crops. I want to say definitely that that was the case and the fact that for the past two years their crop has been a failure contributed a great deal to their difficulties. I think they ought to be given a proper chance, and we shall appreciate it very much if the Minister will bring about a change. I think it would be a great concession to these people. Then I want to bring a few other matters to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture.

The hon. member is now wandering from the amendment.

I am again going too far. I shall not trouble the Minister any further, and may I conclude by once again making an appeal to him to assist those people. They cannot find any other refuge and if the Minister does not meet them, they will have to give up their farming, and go to the towns.

I want to tell the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that he made certain statements here this evening which were alleged to be quotations from Hansard and which have already been rebutted. I want to rebut what he said in connection with the speech of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naude). He stated that the hon. member had quoted from the Journal of Bernard Potter. That is not true. He quoted from the Mining and Industrial Journal, from writers like Hirschhorn and others. But the hon. member, because it suited him, intimated that the hon. member for Pietersburg had quoted from Bernard Potter. It fitted in with the bluff which he tried to put across. We can at least expect a member of Parliament to speak the truth when he gets up in this House. It is not the first time that the hon. member for Hospital has made himself guilty of that type of conduct. This is the second and the third time that he has made that type of insinuation. We have the right at least to expect that it will be the truth when a member purports to quote from certain documents. We do not expect wild statements from members in this House. I want to say a few words in regard to meat. I have the right to talk about it because I have always supported the Minister’s scheme in practice, although I lost a great deal of money as a result of it. He cannot say that I sold my sheep at public auctions as many of his supporters have done. We know which of them have done it—the Minister of Lands as well as others. We have always pleaded for better prices. At the outset we approached the Price Controller and we stated that the scheme would only be a success if we got a decent price for the product. We stated that we would not be satisfied with less than 11d. per lb. He stated that we should be quite satisfied if we could get that price for mutton. Unfortunately we then went to the Wool Conference in Bloemfontein, and there we got the biggest shock of our lives when it was published in the “Friend” that the Minister had announced 7⅞d and 8⅞d. as the price. We then sent a deputation to the Minister, but he pointed a revolver at the heads of the delegates and informed them that if they did not withdraw their resolution, he would regard it as a motion of no confidence and in that case he wanted nothing further to do with them. We are not opposed to the principle of control, but then there should be 100 per cent, control, and if we want 100 per cent. control we must have storage facilities, in other words, cold storages. But what has the Government done as far as cold storage facilities are concerned? The Industrial Development Corporation instead of their taking over the cold storages at the low price basis at an earlier date, invested £60,000 in the Imperial Cold Storage, which had the effect of driving up the shares of that company. Now it has become impossible to take them over. The only alternative which is left to the Government is to build cold storage facilities on a large scale and to place the cold storages under the State and under the Municipalities. The Municipalities are there to protect the consumers, and the State is there to look after the interior and, in the last resort, the export. We cannot do so unless we have cold storage facilities. Unless we have the cold storage facilities under the State and under the local authorities, it cannot be a success. I think the Minister has already discovered that his scheme is a hopeless failure. If he had had control on the platteland at that time, he could have exercised control in the cities. We on this side pleaded for higher prices. We feel that in the first instance the producer is entitled to a legitimate price. The Minister should see to that and he should not interfere with the distribution itself to the extent he is interfering. I think we have all learned in South Africa that we cannot have proper distribution unless we first see to it that we have the machinery. We have the Meat Council and the Minister overlooked the fact that he must first have the machinery before he can carry out such a plan. Today we have no control; we have a big black market and the whole meat scheme is in danger of becoming a total failure. I hope the Minister will still heed the advice of practical people at this stage. We as farmers said that we would place our services at his disposal if only he would listem. Unfortunately he did not heed the advice of practical people. He acted on the advice of people in his Department, who are good theorists but not practical people. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he does not still want to make a success of the scheme. We are not satisfied with the composition of the Board for a long-term scheme. We want to tackle this matter properly. Is the Minister not prepared to increase the price of mutton? It is no use putting up the price of lamb by 1d. and another grade of meat by ½d. That only represents an increase of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. on the price. If the Minister goes into it he will find out that the farmer gets no more than 9d. or 9¼d. per lb. for a first grade wether. If the Minister gives the farmer 10d. for first grade and 11d. for super grade, it will pay the farmer to put his wethers on the lands and to feed them. If the Minister increases the price it will not only assist the farmer, but he will also be able to make a success of his scheme. Today the grades are too far apart. There used to be a difference of only 2d. or 3d. between prime and first grade and second grade and third grade, but today it is 40 per cent. The difference is too big. If the Minister increases the price, many of the medium sheep will come to the market. Of course it will pay the farmer better to send prime and super grade, because they are of a better quality and it pays the farmer better; but if the Minister increases the price of mutton by 1d. he will get more meat. The farmer cannot live if he has to sell below production costs. The Minister has often asked what the costs of production are. We worked it out for him, but unfortunately the Minister has not got sufficient confidence in the practical farmers. We worked out the cost of meat alone, without the wool, as well as the production costs of méat and wool, and we then added 5 per cent. Unfortunately we are not getting 5 per cent. on our invested capital. I am convinced that even the townsmen will not begrudge the farmer a return of 5 per cent. on his capital. If the Minister acts on those lines, he will make a success of this scheme and he will not experience all the difficulties which exist today. Unfortunately it is the Imperial Cold Storage which today fixes the prices. They are the wire pullers behind the scenes in Cape Town the I.C.S. owns 25 per cent. of the retail butcheries. The small man cannot make a living. He used to get 10 or 15 sheep and today he only gets five. How can that butcher pay his blockman and cover the expenses of the shop and make ends meet with the 37 per cent. which he is allowed at present? The big man can do it because he is the wholesaler as well as the retailer, but the small man cannot do it. What is the Minister doing to encourage the people to send meat to the cities? If he gives the people a quota of 80 per cent. and a better price, the necessary meat will be obtained and the scheme will be a success. If he does not do it the scheme will not be a success. A great deal has been said in regard to the black market, but we can imagine the difficult position in which the small butcher finds himself. He has his family to support and he is now expected to make ends meet on a small quota. How can you blame him if he trades in the black market? I think the Minister should make the prices sufficiently attractive for the people to send in sheep and he ought to increase the quotas. Then the scheme will be a success. Now I just want to say a few words in regard to margarine. Today I saw the wolf in his true colours. The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) has shown that it is their idea to take the margarine away from the control of Agriculture and to bring it under the control of the Department of Commerce and Industries. If that were to happen I foresee great difficulties for the dairy industry. The farmers paid thousands arid tens of thousands of pounds to import good stock, to be able to provide the country with milk, butter and cheese. Today we have many fine cattle in this country, cattle of such good quality that we have a good export market, even at the present time, and if margarine is to be sold as was suggested by the hon. member, it would mean the end of the dairy industry. Someone pointed out that there were many children who were not getting milk, as for example the children of the foresters at Knysna. Here we see the thin end of the wedge if margarine is to be produced on a large scale and in competition with butter. I hope the Minister will be firm. I understood him to say that it would be controlled by the Diary Board, and I hope it will remain there and not be placed under Agriculture. It should remain under the Dairy Board, and the Minister ought to give slightly extended powers and opportunities to the Dairy Board. I am afraid the Minister is making the Boards unpopular in this country and killing them. I am a member of the Board and I know what is happening. A certain proposal is made; it is referred to the Marketing Board, which is practically an understudy of the Cabinet. We have a sub-committee of the Cabinet which knows nothing about these matters. They are interfering and they have great powers in their hands. It immediately becomes a political movement. The price is no longer in the hands of Agriculture but of the commercial people, and we visualise great danger in allowing the commercial people to fix the prices. I feel we ought to have producers’ boards. We could have a consumers’ board and even a board of distributors, but let us have a board apart from producers, and let there be consultation with the other boards. Let the producers’ board fix a reasonable price which will enable the farmers to live. We do not want to eliminate the distributors altogether, but we want people there who know their work. I think we farmers also made a big mistake. But the farmers should fix the prices, within limits, and not the Chamber of Commerce, as is the case today. Now I want to say a few words in regard to wool. I had not intended discussing the wool situation, but the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) made certain comments on wool the other day. I shall tell you what our policy was, and we were and are very proud of it. Before the war Japan bought from us, but she exported much more to our country than she bought. I was one of those who said that if Japan exported on such a large scale to this country, she ought to buy a greater quantity of wool from us. There was nothing wrong in that. I was also concerned with the German Agreement and I was very proud of it, because it stabilised the price of our wool before the war about 5% higher than the Australian market. When the war broke out I pleaded for an open market as we had during the previous war, when it was a very great success. At that time there were only two countries in the market namely Canada and America, and they bought all the wool and paid good prices. There was no other country which competed in the market, and I believe that even today we could have got a very much better price than we have been getting. Some of our wool, for example, is being sold in America today for 86d. The average price is 32d. to 36d. America would therefore have been willing to buy in our market at a higher price. But what is the position at present? You will remember that in the first year of the war we got 12d. for our wool. The following year the British Government pointed a revolver at our heads and told us that we would have to deliver all our wool on the basis of 10.75d. I protested and said that we could not be satisfied with 10.75d. in the second year of the war, after the production costs had risen and after having got 12d. during the first year. That is not fair towards the farmers. I also protested against the type basis. And I pointed out that it was not the same as that of Australia. We pointed out that we were not getting 10.75d. We persevered until eventually the British Government agreed to an increase. In doing so they admitted that we were right and that we were not getting 10.75d. But throughout that time when we pleaded for a better price for wool there was not one member on the other side who got up to help us. Only Australia helped us. They stood together as one man. We made a strong plea to the wool farmers and the people cursed me for daring to do so. We have no reason therefore to be grateful towards the Government. You will ask me why I am in favour of having the contract extended. I have said on previous occasions that the whole marketing system of the past had been broken down. The people who would otherwise have competed in this country, were not here. What are we going to do the first year after the war? After the war troops will have to be sent home, food will have to be sent to Europe, and there is very little shipping space. For that reason, and not because I am so enamoured of the scheme, I thought it would be better in the circumstances to leave the scheme in existence tentatively. I believe it is now the intention to carry on with the scheme for longer than a year after the war. I do not want to go into that now, but one point which I feel is that we ought to know what profit we made in the past four years. We have the right to ask the Minister, since contracts were entered into, what profit we made in the past four years. As a contracting party to the agreement, we ought to know where we stand. Although the information may not be altogether correct, we do want to know more or less where we stand. There is something else which worries me even in connection with this scheme, and that is, if my information is correct, that the British Government is delivering to the British manufacturers at 10.75d. That straightaway means a loss to us. I should be very glad to hear from the Minister whether that is the case. We in the Union are also very anxious to expand our industries, and as far as I know, industrial wool can be sold to our industries on the basis of 13.1d. plus 10 per cent. We can see how unfair it is that the British industry should pay 10.75d. for the wool while our own industries have to pay 13.1d. plus 10 per cent. I am perturbed about it, and I should like the Minister to make a statement in this House whether or not that is so. Then I also feel that since wool is the second largest industry in this country, it is the duty of the Government to protect the industry in all respects. The Australian Government appreciates the difficulties which lie ahead and the work which will have to be done in the sphere of research as well. The Minister of Lands said that the money which we had, had to be spent. I do not think the Minister of Lands appreciates the fact that we are today paying a large sum for research, that we are spending £30,000 on it, that at Grootfontein we had to erect buildings at a cost of £17,000, that buildings were erected at Onderstepoort for £15,000 and that all these things had to be paid for out of the levy fund?

How much money is left in the fund?

I can give the Minister the assurance that it is not too much.

How much?

The Minister can ask his colleague. Don’t put such questions to me. If you are interested in your work and if you are interested as a wool farmer, you can get that information from the Minister. If we are not careful we will have very little money after the war for research work. For that reason I ask the Government to do what was done in Australia, where they built up a large fund. In Australia for a large number of years they took 2s. plus a levy of 2s. I ask our Government to do the same. Then there is another point. The Minister gave the wool farmers to understand that he would introduce legislation this Session to give us the right to spend some of the money derived from the levy.

No.

The Minister brought us under that impression. If that is not the case, why did the Minister not say outright that such a levy would not be agreed to? Why did the Minister make fools of us by allowing us to negotiate with the Industrial Co-operation on the basis of fiftyfifty? They approached us and informed us that if we could impose a levy of 2s., they would make us shareholders on an equal basis. This is a national industry. In that case the Minister misled us as well as the farmers, 25,000 farmers. Why did the Minister not tell us that he was not going to impose a levy? Then we would have known where we stood. Another point in connection with which the Minister kept us on a string, is that we felt that statutory powers should be given to the Wool Council. Can the Minister deny that he promised to give it to us as soon as possible? Can he remember that he called me to his office and sent me to Bloemfontein with a scheme which had been drawn up by his own Marketing Council? I submitted that to 25,000 farmers. Does the Minister remember that? If he did not mean it, he made a fool of me and of 25,000 farmers. The farmers were consulted in regard to the factory and the granting of statutory powers. The Minister must remember that he is dealing with a big industry, the wool industry, in which £160,000,000 has been invested; that he is dealing with the best organised group of farmers in the country. If the Minister now says that statutory powers cannot be granted, he misled me and the wool farmers. The Minister summoned me to his office and handed over to me a scheme which had been proposed by the Marketing Council. I still have it in my possession. The Minister still told me to advise the people that they ought to accept it. Those statutory powers were never granted to the wool farmers. There are other boards which have statutory powers. Then there is another point which I want to mention. There are too many members on our boards who draw Government salaries and who are of no value to the wool farmers or the dairy farmers. It is a smoke, screen because the Department dictates to them and tells them what to do, and if they do not do it, the Marketing Council comes along and prevents the plans of the farmers from being carried out, and then there is still the Cabinet which further frustrates the whole scheme. I think the wool farmers have reason to be dissatisfied. We spent many thousands of pounds of our own money. The Government did nothing for the wool farmers. We used our own money. We used dur own money to train our own people. Countries like Germany and America admitted that the classification of our wool was as good as that of any country in the world. I do not want to talk about the Minister’s action towards me. I want to be bigger than the Minister. I do not want to break down my handiwork which I built up for the wool industry, just because the Minister was petty. I want to tell the Minister that it will be worth his while to co-operate with the wool farmers, and it will be a good thing if he can gain their confidence. Unfortunately the Minister has dragged in politics, and that is to be regretted. I have never done so.

Why then were you opposed to the British wool scheme?

The hon. Minister does not know what he is talking about. The Cabinet decided en enter into a treaty with Germany. That was under the old coalition Government of which the Minister was also a member. I remember at that time there was a movement against the German Treaty and I was packed off in an aeroplane to rush to East London to put a stop to it. That was the Cabinet which was supported by the Minister. At that time they did good work. It will not help the Minister to talk about the German people. Of course, the Minister of Lands has always been against the organised farmers. He has never put his shoulder to the wheel to help; all he has done has been to criticise.

Why then were you opposed, to the British wool agreement?

I explained what I did. When the British Government pointed a revolver at our heads, I made a plea for a higher price.

Did you make a mistake?

Not at all. I pleaded for a higher price. That rotten agreement which was entered into is responsible for the fact that or wool farmers lost £500,000 a year. We insisted on better treatment for the farmers, and eventually we succeeded in getting a higher price. What did the Minister of Demobilisation do?

I did not tell tall stories.

You are a tall story yourself. I am sorry the Minister is making interjections in connection with matters that he knows nothing about. We on this side want to give the Minister reasonable assistance, but at the same time we want to criticise him when we think he is wrong. During the previous Session I said we ought to keep agriculture out of party politicis as much as possible. The Minister rejected our friendly approach. When a joint committee was set up in connection with the dairy industry, he refused to accept our recommendations. They were later accepted when pressure was exercised. I ask the Minister in all seriousness not always to appoint people to the boards who are his supporters. He should put a stop to that.

Where did we do so?

Surely you know what has been happening in recent years. The best brains of the country ought to be appointed to these boards. Please do not appoint people to these boards who draw Government salaries, because it makes the whole thing a fiasco. Do not look at the man’s political convictions; appoint the best men who are available.

That would exclude you.

I am prepared to stand back if I am not good enough. I really think that a man like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) deserves to be on the Meat Council, a man with the experience which he has of the black market. I cannot understand how you can keep such a man off the Meat Council. He knows the black market and he would be an asset to the Council.

Let us hear from your colleague who was fined £50 for perjury.

The hon. member wants to be mean now. I do not want to go so far. I am certain he is riot so perfect that he can tell other people what they ought to do. I want to leave him there, but I want to ask the Minister please to appoint him to the Meat Council.

I would like to make use of this opportunity to ask the Minister if it is his intention to tell the House what the actual policy of the Government is regarding the Indian question, and we, as well as the public outside, are particularly desirous of information as to the attitude of our Government towards the challenging attitude of the Indian Government in regard to a matter of a purely domestic nature. It is a matter which is purely internal. As hon. members know, the Natal Provincial Council passed the Residential Areas Ordinance on the 2nd November, 1944, and that ordinance evoked violent protests, not only from the Indians in South Africa, but more especially from the Indian Government, to such an extent that they threatened us in all sorts of ways, firstly to boycott South African goods, to isolate South Africans living in India, to break off trade relations with South Africa, to sever diplomatic relations with South Africa, and so on. What are the actual reasons for this outburst? What are the implications of the Residential Areas Ordinance? In the first place that ordinance lays down: That only in predominantly urban European areas Indians, without the consent of the licencing board, may not acquire property or reside therein. But the same principle also applies to Europeans. In predominantly Indian localities Europeans are not permitted to purchase property or reside there. And secondly, Indians are permitted, as before, to purchase property in the urban and business quarters, such as flats, but they may not occupy them. Furthermore Indians may, as in the past, acquire property in any part of Natal, except in urban and business quarters. In that respect they are not restricted and this mild form of segregation has caused this tremendous outburst in India. I want to say right away that India should be well aware of the fact that if, as a result of this mild policy embodied in the ordinance, such repercussions occur, then in the future she must prepare herself for far greater outbursts when once this side comes into power, because this is not only the declared policy of the Re-United Nationalist Party, but this party is irrevocably convinced that the only way in which peace and prosperity can be achieved between the European and non-European races in South Africa, is the path of segregation, also in respect of Indians. I have already said that this should be perfectly clear to India and to the rest of the world. I would like to state further that India with the attitude she has adopted regarding the Indian question, lias most definitely not rendered a service to the Indians in this country. To the contrary, few things have happened recently which have so fundamentally disturbed the relationship between Europeans and Indians in South Africa, as the attitude now adopted by India. It is a fact that the relationship between the Indian and the European is rather strained. I repeat that India has rendered a disservice to the Indians in South Africa. She has created a barrier which will take years to break down. This attitude on the part of India is undoubtedly in years to come going to have bitter consequences in South Africa. It is not the first time that India has tried to interfere in the internal affairs in South Africa, but in the past she has been wise enough to do so in an indirect manner, namely through the medium of the British Government, and the British Government was always the intermediary, to such an extent that members of the other side and particularly the Prime Minister have laid down as a fundamental principle that the Indian question in South Africa has an Imperial aspect. That is the principle adopted by the other side of the House as a result of the Indian attitude. Not so long ago India tried to do the same thing in Kenya, but there she went further and directly concerned herself with the problem in Kenya. We know that in regard to this matter, the future holds out no rosy prospects for the Indians in Kenya either and now India is adopting this challenging, provocative attitude and is interfering with the domestic affairs of South Africa. We would like to know from the Government whether England once more has tried to interfere in this matter, whether England has tried to interfere with a matter which is of a purely domestic nature. Judging from “The Times” which has called this Bill “that black Bill”, we can only come to the conclusion that England once more, in an indirect manner, has tried to interfere in regard to this question. We demand from the Government a very clear and resolute stand in this matter, We expect the Government to state emphatically to the world and to India that as far as the Indian problem in South Africa is concerned, it is a domestic matter in respect of which South Africa accepts full responsibility, and that it is a responsibility resting with South Africa, and that South Africa, neither from India nor from the British Empire nor from anyone else outside, will suffer interference in this problem of South. Africa which is of a purely domestic character, particularly if our policy is founded not on a principle of injustice, but purely on a principle aiming at achieving the best results in the interests of the well-being and happiness of both the European and Indian community in South Africa. Let me say that those Indian leaders who today are up in arms are the last people to talk of the Indian’s status in South Africa. It is only necessary to mention the caste system in India. The caste system in India is something of a much worse character than the policy of racial segregation in South Africa. I refuse to discuss the question of segregation with Indians as long as in their community the principle of the caste system is upheld. I say that no Indian in those circumstances has the right to discuss the principle of racial segregation in South Africa. But those very same Indian leaders who today are making so much noise are too weak to look after the interests of their own people in their own country. There is no nation in the whole world, with the possible exception of China, where the people are exploited in such an unscrupulous manner than in the case in India. There is no nation in the whole world, with the possible exception of China, where the working classes are earning such low wages as the millions of Indians. I say there is no country in the whole world where the wage level is as low as it is in India. There is no country in the whole world where in this enlightened 20th century use is made on such an extensive scale of child labour as in India. There is no country in the world where on such a scale misuse in made of women labour as in India. They are the last people to talk about the position of the Indians in South Africa. I challenge any Indian to deny that the worst condition of the weakest Indian in South Africa is not better and infinitely better than the condition of millions of Indians in India. Let them first look after their own Indians, and when they have done that, they can come to South Africa and try to interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa. We also expect the Government in no uncertain terms to announce the policy in regard to the Indian problem. I can assure you that the people outside are perturbed over the Indian policy pursued by this Government. As a matter of fact, we do not know where we stand. Looking at the evidence outside, there is only one policy they follow, and that is the policy of equality as far as the Indian is concerned, to try to make Europeans of the Indians in South Africa. That is the corner-stone of the Government’s policy. People outside are not only perturbed; they are extremely worried. People are justified at feeling alarmed, in the first place when they look at the Cabinet. There we have the Prime Minister. What is the attitude of the Prime Minister? I have already indicated that he has laid down the principle that the Indian problem in South Africa has imperial aspects, and we know that the Prime Minister has always subordinated the interests of South Africa to the interests of the Empire. But that is not all. The Prime Minister went further. In 1942 he made this very important statement in regard to the question. He said—

In other words, the whole policy of segregation is rejected. We have the Minister of Finance, the successor to the Prime Minister, who naturally is also responsible to a large extent for the policy in regard to the Indian problem. We know what his attitude is in regard to this matter. When you talk to Indians outside, they always mention the Minister of Finance, not as the hope of South Africa but as the hope of the Indians in South Africa. There is the Minister of the Interior. We know how clearly he set out his policy. Only recently he made the following statement—

That is a clear policy of equality. And he went further to elucidate the matter and stated openly that he was in favour of the franchise for Indians as far as municipalities, provincial councils and also the House of Assembly are concerned. That is the attitude of the Cabinet. There are other Ministers favouring the same policy. As far as the rest of the Ministers in the Cabinet are concerned, we know that one can say only one thing about them and that is that when these three Ministers have taken their stand the Zulu word “Siyavuma” applies. As far as the Cabinet is concerned the people of this country have every reason to be alarmed. The people feel very concerned over the policy of the Government in regard to the Indian question. It is often said here—and I regret that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Roodt) is not present: “Yes, but all the Government does is to carry out the Cape Town Agreement and that was the policy of your Leader.” I want to devote a moment to the Cape Town Agreement, and I hope when I have finished we will no longer have these misrepresentations of facts. The Cape Town Agreement contains three provisions. In the first place it lays down a scheme for the assistance of emigration of Indians. A free train journey and free passage to India is offered to Indians. They are granted a bonus of £20 in regard to Indians over 16 years, and of £10 for each Indian under 16, and pension privileges for infirm Indians and aged Indians. The second provision deals with the entry of women and children of Indians who are already domiciled in South Africa, and further limitations are imposed in this clause. And then we come to the so-called upliftment clause. That is briefly the contents of the Cape Town Agreement but the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition dealt fully with the matter subsequently in this House when he stated that the purpose of the Cape Town Agreement was to repatriate as many Indians as possible from South Africa. Just as emphatically it was put in a letter which he wrote to the Chamber of Commerce of Potchefstroom, a letter which anpeared in the “Star” of the 12th April, 1927. There he says—

But to show that even the Indian Government itself views the matter in the same light, I want to quote what the head of the Indian delegation, Sir Fasil Hussein, said in 1932 at Kimberley. He said this—

All doubt is removed. I even say that India endorsed the views of the Leader of the Opposition in these words used by the leader of that deputation. Even as late as December, 1944, Maurice Webb, whom nobody can accuse of sympathy with this side of the House, wrote the following in the paper “Race Relations”—

I have mentioned these few things only in view of what the hon. member for Vereeniging and others are continually saying, and I hope that this matter is now cleared up once and for all. More emphatic language could not be used. It is clear that the policy of the Opposition was only aimed at one thing, and that is that as many Indians as possible should be repatriated from South Africa. We got rid of more than 17,000 Indians under the Cape Town Agreement. In 1932 an Indian deputation was received to go into the question whether Indians could not be repatriated to other territories. Fusion came and that was the end of the Cape Town Agreement. I say that all of us are alarmed when we look at the policy of the Government in relation to the Indians. There is its educational policy, the policy to admit Indians in our European universities, there is the policy of admitting Indians to go into European bars, there is the policy to admit Indians in European passenger coaches on trains. One can quote many examples. There is the policy of the Government to grant trading licences to Indians on a big scale. There is the policy of equality in practically every sphere. In the third place, we feel very concerned about the dimensions this problem has gained lately. I want to say a few words about that. Take in the first place the population. The census of 1936 shows that there were 220,000 Indians, of which 10,000 were in the Cape Province, 26,000 in the Transvaal and 184,000 in Natal. According to calculations, by 1960 there will be well over 300,000 Indians in South Africa. That is the report of the Murray Commission which proved to us that between 1932 and 1938 122,215 transfers of property were registered in the interests of Indians, representing a value of £104,000,000. But I want to deal with the position in the two provinces, which are mostly affected by this problem, namely the Transvaal and Natal. Somewhere about 1900 we only had a small number of Indians in the Transvaal. The number of Indians in the Transvaal has grown from 16,000 in 1921 to 26,000 in 1936, an increase of more than 10,000 over a period of 15 years. But let us look at the trading position. Go to places like Brits, Pietersburg and others, and you will be amazed at the extent of Indian trading in the Transvaal. There are hundreds of flourishing trading businesses in the Transvaal in the name of Indians. In 1903 there were only three Indian companies registered in the Transvaal. In 1916 they had increased to 103, representing a capital of £480,000. Look at the position in regard to immovable property. According to the Broome Commission which was over-careful, it appears that the Indians from 1926 to 1940, acquired sites in the Transvaal to the extent of 339. But I want to deal for a moment with the position in Natal. The position in Natal is simply alarming. Indians are supplanting the Natal people in every sphere. They are largely in possession of the gardens of the Garden Colony and I want to warn hon. members from Natal that they are not only accelerating the tempo in which they are acquiring the gardens of the Garden Colony, but they are acquiring the whole Garden Colony. I want to warn hon. members if they are not careful the same will happen to the English in Natal as has happened with the English on the Phillipine Islands. There the English Capitalists at one time imported Chinese labour to work the rich copper mines, and what was the result? Today those self-same Chinese coolies are the owners of those mines, and I have been told that there are cases where the descendants of these rich English people are today the labourers of the rich coolies. I want to warn them that the same process is going on in Natal. Now I want to quote a few figures in regard to the population. Somewhere about 1866 there were only 6,000 Indian labourers in Natal, in 1884 they had increased to 30,000; in 1891 there were 41,000 and in 1904 there were 101,000. In 1911 there were 133,000; in 1936 there were 184,000. In 1940 their numbers has been estimated at 202,000, whilst Prof. Burrows, who made a very conservative estimate of the position, calculated that there will be 263,000 in 1960. As a matter of fact the contention is that already now there are more Indians in Natal than Europeans Vital statistics show a birth rate of 37 per 1,000 as against 20 per thousand of the European population; therefore almost double that of the Europeans. But I want to draw the attention to another interesting fact and that is that the Indian population of Natal is a very young population. In 1936 no less than 47 per cent. of the Indians in Natal were under the age of 15, as against 27 per cent. of the European population, whilst only 13 per cent. of the Indians well over 45 years of age as against 26 per cent. of the Europeans. One can see very clearly from these figures that within a few years this question in Natal is going to assume far greater proportions as was the case in the past. And now I come to the question of trade. It must not be forgotten that the Indians were originally brought to Natal to work on the sugar plantations. And What is the position today? Today only 4 per cent. of the Indians in Natal work on the sugar plantations, and a great number of them are already producing sugar themselves. In 1934 6 per cent. of the sugar crop was produced by Indians and in 1943 it had increased to 8.4 per cent. In Natal today there are somewhat more than 2,500 flourishing trading concerns. According to the Minister’s answer, during the period 1940 to 1943, no less than 29,443 trading licences have been issued to Indians in Natal. I could quote one example after another of this nature. A most conservative estimate made by Prof. Burrows places the annual revenue of the Indian population of Natal at £6,000,000. In Durban in 1870 there were only 2 small Indian trading stores: in 1885 there were 75, and in 1940 the number had increased to 136. But now I come to the ownership of property. These people were imported to work on the sugar plantations. But what do we find now? As far back as 1891 there were only 10,000 indented labourers as against 30,000 “free” Indians. In 1920 they owned approximately 90,000 acres of land. In 1934 it had increased to 105,000 acres and in 1939 to 119,000 acres, in other words about 46,000 morgen, which means that in Natal by 1939 one out of every 135 acres belonged to Indians, that is without taking Zululand into account. The Broome Commission calculated that between 1926 and 1940, in the country districts of Natal, 398 plots were acquired by Indians. In Durban alone from 1940 to 1943 they had purchased 326 plots from Europeans of a value of £601,385, whilst the Europeans had bought 16 plots from them at a cost of £25,325. From 1927 to 1943, 838 plots valued at £1,327,306 were purchased in the old city area of Durban. The value of immovable property in Durban alone belonging to Indians is fixed at £3,488,000. This is enough to show in which direction we are moving. We want to emphasise, and I hope that the English-speaking people in Natal will listen carefully to our point of view, that we can only solve this problem if we have a government which is intent on carrying out the policy of segregation. That is the policy of the Re-United Nationalist Party. I say that we do not want any further immigration of Indians to South Africa. Another 700 Indians have come to South Africa instead of Indians being sent out. We want to pursue a determined policy of repatriation in order to send as many Indians as possible out of the country. In the third place we lay down as our policy that we will not suffer any interference on the part of India, the British Government or any other country, in connection with this matter. This is a purely domestic matter for which we have accepted responsibility. In the fourth place we lay down as a principle that we will not tolerate any further penetration of Indians into European areas, and those Indians who have already penetrated into European areas have to be removed so that the policy of segregation can be carried out. Let all those who talk such a lot remember that the Indian has his large India with all its fabulous wealth and he can prosper there as he likes. We have only South Africa, and we are determined to safeguard South Africa also for the Europeans.

I am sorry that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture are not present, because I wanted to bring a few matters to their notice which affects not only my constituency; a large part of the country is interested. First of all I should like to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Lands, and I want to put these questions to him. We have had this peculiar feature during this Session that whenever matters are broached concerning any department the first person to intervene in the debate is the Minister concerned. Now we have had this development, that an amendment has been proposed affecting the department of the Minister of Lands, but the Minister of Lands is as silent as the grave. We are not aware why he has set an opposite course to his colleagues. The temporary lessees were notified to vacate the Crown lands, and we should like to know from the Minister whether notice was given separately to each temporary lessee. It seems to me that the Minister of Lands does not know. We are asking the Minister in order to get information, but his principal officials are not present to tell him whether notice was given to the people separately and consequently we can also understand why the Minister has not participated in the debate. If the Minister of Lands has not given notice to these people individually I want to put this question to him: What is he going to do if these people have not vacated their lands by the prescribed date? He cannot expect that it will come to their notice by means of wireless or through the public press. I presume that if a responsible department of State does anything of this sort they would not leave it on such a loose footing, and that every lessee would personally receive notice, otherwise it passes my comprehension that affairs should be administered in such a way by the Government. If it is really the case that notice has been given, which is the logical result that any right-minded man would expect, then I put this question. Why has the Minister not given us the information at the outset regarding how many temporary lessees received notice? Why does he not want to give us that information? It is one of two things. He does not know, or he deliberately will not provide us with the information. He does not want the country to know how many thousands of poor people are being thrown on to the waggon road, and that moreover in the times that South Africa is now experiencing. Our country is undergoing one of the worst droughts with which it has ever been stricken, and that is particularly the case in those parts where these temporary lessees are. The people cannot obtain land and grazing for their stock, and then the Minister of Lands comes and drives them on to the waggon road. He is definitely driving these people into the camp of the poor whites in South Africa. Now he produces the argument that he wants this land for returned soldiers. May I then put the third question to him: When does he want that land? If the Minister believes that he will need the land in the near future then one could perhaps understand his action if we regard the matter from his point of view. But he will not require that land in the near future for the returned soldiers. A considerable period must still elapse before this can happen, and consequently we cannot understand why the Minister, who is himself a practical farmer should thrust these people on to the road in these distressing times, because they will be able to get absolutely no grazing for their cattle. The Minister wants to place exclusively returned soldiers there. But the Minister has himself had experience of such a policy. At Vaal-Hartz, at Ganspan, an experiment was made with ex-servicemen. I know about this, because it occurred in my constituency. I have been there on several occasions and I have seen what has gone on there. A number of holdings were cut off and they were allotted to semi-fit returned soldiers. These people receive extraordinary privilegs. They receive an allowance of £3 10s. a month.

They fall under Social Welfare.

But they serve as an example of your soldier settlements. Those people receive these allowances. In addition, they get a free house and free medical services. That is, of course, a considerable item in that part of the country, because if the unfortunate settler requires the services of a doctor it cost him from £40 to £50 to get the doctor to call at his house. I go still further. Those people get a portion of their food. They receive, for instance, milk at 1d. a pint. That is all very fine. On the other hand we have settlers who have to stew in their own juice. They receive no support from the State, no allowance, no free house and free medical services, and no free milk. They must provide all those things themselves. They must look after themselves and they have remained on those lands notwithstanding all the difficulties in which they were placed. But what now of the returned soldiers? These were in many instances people who had never heard a sheep bleat nor an ox bellow nor have they seen water run over a plot. The Minister can see the result with his own eyes. Of the first 23 returned soldiers who came there 13 went away in spite of all the splendid assistance that they received. The other day the Minister of Lands said that of 51 no fewer than 30 went off. That was the result he gave.

What place did they leave?

Ganspan. That is part of the Vaal-Hartz settlement.

You don’t know what you are talking about.

That hon. member talks, but he does not know what he is talking about.

No returned soldiers have gone from Vaal-Hartz.

I said they had left Ganspan, and that is part of Vaal-Hartz. Say a settlement was the size of this House. If we cut off a corner of it and we give it the name Ganspan, does that mean that it is no longer part of that settlement? It is fed by the one canal, and now the Minister of Lands tells us that I do not know what I am talking about. Here we see the results of the Minister’s policy. We have people there who are fending for themselves under difficult circumstances. The people have remained on the land there, but those who have been placed there by the Government and who have been subsidised will not and cannot remain there. They have not got the love of the soil, nor have they got the necessary knowledge to make a success of that undertaking. I want to go somewhat further in regard to the conduct of the Minister. Today he goes and takes away land from people who have found a haven there for many years, but as has been pointed out by another hon. member, he does not only allow that ground to lie idle, but he allows big blocks of land to lie idle and unproductive. He is making the position even more difficult for people for whom it is difficult enough already. One of the greatest difficulties with which these people have to contend is the question of water. I remember that four or five years ago the Minister of Lands stated that he was going to make a wonderful number of boreholes. We are still waiting for them. They have become less and less, and now he has taken away from the people even the small number of boreholes that were allotted to them. People who have sat and waited all these years for a borehole find now that the Minister of Lands has can celled the borehole just before it came to their turn, and he is boring the land where no mortal has ever lived. In this way the Minister is making it impossible for these people to live any longer on those lands. Instead of the Minister coming here to assist those people, to make it possible for them to remain there, he obliges them to trample out their veld because their stock have to go on to neighbours’ property for water. I am sorry that the Minister of Justice is not here. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Wolraransstad (Gen. Kemp) said here over the group of people who are still in the internment camps. I am glad that the Minister of Justice has now come in, and that he has given heed so quickly when a call has been made on him, and that he has not done as one of his colleagues did, who would rather go and stand in the lobby and chat than attend the debate here. I understand that there is a group of people who, for one reason or another, are still being kept in the camps, for other reasons than those for which they were interned in the past. The Minister knows what I am talking about. I am concerned in how he is going to treat those people. The people for whom we are pleading are people who have been there for years, and we want to ask the Minister in all seriousness to take the position of those people into consideration. When there was still a large number of those people in the camps they could still enjoy each other’s company. The one could give a lecture, and in that manner they could entertain each other and pass away the time. The Minister will agree with me that that opportunity no longer exists. These people are now there just as a small group. It is not necessary for the Minister to come and tell us that those people have not appealed. With all respect to the Minister I want to tell him that he knows that all those that have appealed have only done that as the result of pressure by members of this House. We asked them to do this, but they did not do it because they attached any importance to it. The Minister cannot mention a single instance where an internee’s appeal has been granted. It has always been refused, and then he later gets a letter saying that his appeal has not been successful, but that special grace has been shown him and that he is being released. Accordingly, these people regard it as a farce to appeal. The Minister has shown mercy to many of these people, and if those who are still there have been guilty they have nevertheless been kept for a long time in the internment camps. The Minister will be doing a favour not only to the members of their families but he will be doing a gracious deed to them which will not be taken amiss by anybody at all.

We want to go further and to ask the Minister this question. He has released many people from the camps, and many of them have also been released under certain restrictions. To my knowledge the Minister has never had any difficulty in regard to any of them. There is not one of them who has taken a false step as a result of which they had to be sent back to the camp. Last year the Minister told the House that what he wanted was—and I believe that the Minister of Justice was sincere—that the people should return as soon as possible to their normal spheres of employment. But a number of those people are still there, separated from their homes and from their families. Accordingly, I want to ask the Minister to be big enough at this stage to release not only those who are still in the camps, but also to withdraw the restrictions in respect of those who have already been released, so that they can be restored to their former spheres of employment. Now I want to say a few words to the Minister of Agriculture. When we refer to agriculture we are speaking about an industry which lies at the foundation of the whole structure of our State. It is an industry that provides a haven to far and away the largest section of the population in South Africa. I believe that it gives a haven to at least 65 per cent, of the population of South Africa. The gigantic amount of about £500,000,000 has been invested in this tremendous industry, but we find that there is only a slender return of about 12 per cent. to the farming community, and a limited contribution to the national income. We see thus that we have here to deal with an industry which we have to handle carefully, because if that industry is damaged then we shall damage the haven of the largest section of our community. One of the largest sources of revenue in this great industry is the production of meat. Not only is it one of the largest sources of income in the farming industry, but it is also one of the principal items of diet in our country. That is why we are making this appeal to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not want to go into the whole matter. We all admit that at the moment farm labour in South Africa is a difficult problem. In a large portion of the Western Province we have a number of farms where the farmers have only Italian prisoners-of-war as labourers. And what do we find now? We find that the Government is making an offer to these Italian labourers that if they again fight they will receive an increased rate of payment. The Government is taking these people away from the farms, and in many cases they are the only supply of labour open to the farms. The Government knows what the position is in connection with farm labour, and they come along as a matter of fact and try to take more labourers from the farms. I want to say again that meat is one of the principal sources of revenue in the farming industry, and then I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture this, that his meat scheme will profiteering. The Minister will not claim that his scheme is perfect. There has been an abundance of complaints on his own side of the House. For instance the system of grading is hopeless. I will mention two items that have come to my personal knowledge. One farmer had 150 hamels. He took them to the public auction and received an offer of £1/15/6. He was not satisfied with that. He counted off 50 in my presence and sent them to the controller in Johannesburg. He was paid £1/10/6. that is 5/- less than what he could get at the public auction. A week later he took the remaining 100 to the following auction sale and there he received for the hamels £1/18/-. Where are we with such a state of affairs as this? The wheat farmer knows when he has made up a bag of grain that if it is first grade, he will get £1/16/- for the bag. In the same way the meat producer wants to know that if his product is prime or super he will be paid for prime or super. The farmer wants to know where he stands. Today you get so much on one market and that much on the other market. I want to mention another case. Another person had 100 hamels. He picked out the 60 best and sent them to the controller in Johannesburg and got £1/6/-. The man was afraid of the drought, and sent the other 40, which were in poorer condition, to the Kimberley controller, and there he got £1/8/-. This is all under the Government scheme. For the better sheep he received less than for the lean sheep. There is no uniformity. And there is something else that makes us suspicious. One man had a number of oxen. He divided them into two lots, and in his judgment the oxen in the two lots were more or less the same weight. He sold one lot locally at the auction sale at £22 a head, and the speculator that brought them sent then to the controller and made £3 profit per ox. The remainder he sent himself to the controller, and he got £18 per head. The system of grading is hopeless and it awakens the suspicion that certain interests in South Africa are always receiving the best of it and work behind the scenes to exert influence in certain circles and to get higher values for their products at a higher grade. I want to put the question, what salary is paid to the graders? This is technical work, and competent men are required. When we take into consideration how many thousands and millions of pounds may easily be wasted in the country, it is clearly the place where better remuneration should be paid so that these people should not be placed in a position where they may possibly be bought over by other interests. We make an appeal to the Minister not to be obstinate but to take our advice so that a success may be made of the scheme. Otherwise not only is it all up with the organised farmers of South Africa, but we shall never again be able to call such a scheme into being. If the Minister does not listen then he will go the way we predicted on the first day he was appointed Minister, that he at the same time will also dig his grave as Minister.

I rise to say a few words in connection with the amendment of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). It is a peculiar thing that the Minister of Lands sits there and does not answer the questions that are put to him. There can be only one reason for that, and I want to tell him to his face that the Deputy-Prime Minister has told him that he must not speak, that he must not reply.

Absolutely untrue.

If that is not the case let him stand up. But we have a very strong suspicion that this is so. I want to tell the Minister that he is the most unpopular Minister with his own side of the House because he does this sort of thing. He has not condescended to take the trouble to stand up and give an answer, notwithstanding the serious representations even from his own side. The Minister has been sitting there since yesterday until 5 o’clock this morning. What is he doing here? He may not even vote on the amendment. When we vote he must walk out. From every side of the House the case for the lessees on Crown land has been presented to him, and we ask him to take these reasonable representations into consideration and to modify his attitude. He is afraid of his own people. He makes blunders every time. Last year he also frightened them on account of all the mistakes that he made. He knows their feelings. What have we got this time? Only that at the opening of the debate he immediately rose and replied. With the moving of the amendment he got a further chance to take part in the debate, but he did not think it worth while taking any notice and he never replied to the amendment. The Minister is naturally in a very awkward position. The other side dare not let him talk because they are afraid that he will make blunders. I want to charge the Minister. Complaints have been made here by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) in connection with the lessees. Then his turn had gone, so he had a private conversation with the hon. member for Barberton over the things he said in the House. After that the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) and other hon. members also laid complaints at his door. He has now the opportunity to reply to them, but he refrains from doing so. He will talk to them privately at the back door and make promises to them. Where does he get the right to do so? The assets administered by the Minister belong to the State and are not his own, nor do they belong to his party but to the State and to the taxpayers. Where does he get the right to treat this matter with such contempt and to make promises? The Minister of Lands has a special task, to encourage a love for the land and to see that as many people as possible are absorbed in the agricultural industry. Instead of discharging this function he is more active than anyone else in uprooting the permanent population and in putting the people on the road. He is no longer satisfied with having last year chased old people and the young men from the plots. Now he comes with this measure and seeks to drive away the lessees. Year after year money is voted for his department by Parliament, and the obligation rests on the Minister to devote the money to the provision of land for people who are landless. The State must be helpful in this respect as far as it is possible. Now the Minister comes with the absurd reply that he does not know how many people have received notice. The Minister should not sit there for a moment longer when he does things like that. He is carrying out a policy but he has not the slightest idea as to how many people are being affected. His lessees are there. The Minister dare not furnish the figures for fear that the public will become wise to what he is doing behind the scenes. If he does not give the figures we must harbour the suspicion that he is busy pulling the wires, in order that he may keep people whom he wants to keep there and chasing away others. Where does the Minister get the right to do that? The land is the property of the State and the Minister has no right to dispose of it at his own sweet will. More than a year ago the Minister made this responsible statement and as a matter of fact since the time the war broke out, he has seized every occasion to discuss this matter and has said: I am not going to allot any land as long as the war lasts. But he added the assurance: I want the land because I want equality for all, and on the day that the war ends everyone will be able to submit applications on an equal footing. Right throughout his argument has been that those who take part in the war should be able to make application on an equal footing. That is the attitude that he has taken for quite a few years.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, must we hear all these boring repetitions?

The hon. member may proceed.

First he announced the policy and then he altered it. What right had he to change it. He personally gave an undertaking that all the potential applicants in the country would get an equal opportunity. Year after year he put it that way, and after that he twisted and now he wants to discriminate in favour of the one group.

The hon. member should confine himself to the amendment.

The lessee who is on the land has directly to do with the matter. The Minister has stated that all will be able to make application on a uniform basis, and some of the lessees are involved in that. Did the Minister at that time have it up his sleeve to chase off the land sooner or later the lessees who had developed the land? What has become of his announcement that evryone would be dealt with on an equal footing, including the lessees? This is a very serious charge against the Minister, and he stands branded as a person who has adopted a policy which does not conform to the functions of the Department for which he is responsible. He will stand branded as a man who distributes things on an unequal basis, things that belong to the State and to the whole nation. What right has the Minister to come and say of people who have been twenty or thirty or forty years on the land, and who have been successful as lessees that they have been misfits there, and that they must be sent packing? Why should they be chased into the towns?

I must say that I also am amazed. The Minister of Lands is usually firm and says what he wants to, but here we have an extraordinary position. In the lobbies it is whispered everywhere that the Minister has made a promise to his side that he will withdraw this cruel regulation, and deal with every case on its merits. Is that true?

I have never made such a promise.

Here we have the position that the greatest inconvenience has been caused by the State to a large number of people. Two years ago the same Minister of Lands stood up here and expressed regret about the position of the lessees, and he went on to say that where the people could not get more land to lease the State would have to take action. Is that not true? Two years ago the Minister gave the people to understand that the wretched people who could not get land to lease would have to be helped. In the meanwhile nothing has been done.

What I said was that Section 11 is at their disposal.

I read here what the Minister said concerning the position of the lessee—

Not only has the Minister not done anything, but he goes further, and now he wants to place another group of these lessees in the same critical position and to chase them off the land. We feel that an injustice is being done here. This is the Minister’s plan, to place some of the returned soldiers as farmers on the land that is vacated. We have no quarrel with that, but it is known that the Minister has a lot of land at his disposal. The Minister has himself stated that he has no idea how many returned soldiers will be settled on the land after the war. But still he is now giving notice to the lessees of Crown land that they will have to vacate the land. Those returned soldiers will, in most cases, first have to be trained in agriculture, and their training will occupy a considerable time, and there is enough land for those who have already been trained. Should it later be found that a further amount of land is necessary, notice could be given to lessees. But the Minister has shown that he is obstinate, that he is unshakable, and he has given notice to people who do not know where to go. He has been appealed to. For days we did not propose any amendment, but eventually during the night we were compelled to move such an amendment. I make an appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the feeling on both sides of the House. If the regulation is withdrawn he will be obliging many people who otherwise will be in a fix. This will do obsolutely no harm at all to the interests of the returned soldier, and in the meantime he will not be creating a difficult position for thousands of people by throwing them on to the road so that they will be homeless. It is the hard truth that today we have many lessees, perhaps thousands of lessees, who have passed a great deal of their lives as lessees, but who under existing circumstances have been driven away as a result of the competition of people who are well off and who have squeezed them out. We sympathise with these people, and here the Minister is placing people in the same position. We ask him to withdraw this. In my constituency circumstances are very difficult today. We are enduring one of the biggest droughts that we have ever known. Here and there a little rain falls, but the position again is that the drought is very bad. Our stock, even though the rain should now fall, will not be able to remain on many of the farms, because it is too late for the grass to grow sufficiently for winter grazing. I make an appeal to the Minister concerned to help. We know there are thousands and thousands of morgen of native land. The law lays down that the land belongs to the Native Trust, but it is at present lying idle and there is lovely pasture; and I make an appeal to the Government to give the farmers, who are in difficulties as a result of the drought, a chance to let their stock run there. We all know that in the winter you can graze lands without the veld suffering any damage. We do not ask that the land should be grazed in the summer months, but we ask that the people should be accommodated during the winter. I want now to make an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, the man who must look after the farmers in our country, to help us by throwing open these native lands so that the farmers can have recourse to them in the winter. I want to ask the Minister something else. If a farmer has to drive round to look for veld, then he can easily travel 100 or 1,000 miles. That is not possible owing to petrol restrictions, and I want to ask the Minister whether his Department cannot find out where there is suitable veld, and then intimate that through the magistrates in the drought-stricken districts.

I am doing that.

That will mean a big economy for the farmers. We know that there is a seed-wheat scheme for which we are grateful. But I want to appeal to the Minister to apply it in a different way. At the moment we have the position that about five-sixths of the district falls under the scheme. But there are parts bordering on it which do not fall under the scheme. That is unjust. Why has the scheme been applied by way of districts? I should have thought that if a farmer was a bona fide wheat-grower, and if the magistrate and the Assistance Board certify that he is a bona fide farmer, then they ought to get their seed-wheat if the district is experiencing circumstances that necessitate the appplication of the scheme there. It appears to me to be wrong and improper to apply this by way of districts. I know that this was the policy in the past, but I feel that in these times when we want to encourage production we should not proceed on the lines of districts. I also want to ask the Minister that where a district has not yet come under the scheme, and a recommendation has been made that has to be approved by the Minister of Finance the matter should be accelerated. In the South-Eastern Free State, and in the North-Eastern Cape, the wheat has to be sown early. When the wheat is still short then it is used for fodder. That does no harm to it. It is harvested later, but then the wheat should be sown early. Someone wrote to me from my constituency—

He then pleaded that the seed-wheat should be provided in good time, and I want to ask the Minister to see to it that in respect of those districts I have mentioned, the farmers get the seed-wheat in March, otherwise it will be too late for them. We hear the whole day long that the national income of South Africa is low, and that we must increase it. We see that 65% or 68% of the population who constitute the farming community, are a group with an exceptionally low income. Some 68% of the population has only about 13% of the national income and accordingly I feel that if we want to increase the national income we must increase the income of that group. That can be done by increasing production. In this connection I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture—

The answer was that there was application for seven butter factories and for 42 cheese factories during those years. I then asked how many licences had been granted, and the answer was that of the 49 only seven were granted. Nevertheless the Minister goes and allows margarine to be manufactured here. Why does he do that? Thousands of farmers begged and entreated him to give them a chance to make butter and cheese in great quantities. Those applications were made during the war years, but they were regularly refused and we have seen how many licences were granted as a result of those applications. Nevertheless the Minister is permitting margarine to be manufactured. Now my question to the Minister is this: Why are these things done? Why have dairy farmers, who for years have begged and prayed to be given the opportunity to make cheese and butter not been granted a licence to establish a creamery? This was consistently refused year after year, and while it was refused to those farmers the manufacture of margarine was allowed. I want to make serious objection to that. We know that in the past there was a so-called overproduction of dairy products, but the whole country talks every day of better days after the war, and that after the war there will be a larger consumption than before the war. Why is the Dairy Board allowed to play with the interests of a large section of the farmers, and why are vested interests being allowed to dig themselves in for the post-war years while thousands of farmers have to perish and not have the opportunity to furnish the necessary products. I make an appeal to the Minister to see that that policy is changed in the future. A great proportion of our country is adapted for sheep farming. We know that the wool industry has also to do with artificial fibres and if the wool industry receives a setback and collapses, then the farmers will only have stock farming to fall back on. But if we now in the early stages begin to undermine that stock farming, then we shall be taking away the pillar that supports our farming community. If these farmers now come and beg that they should be given the opportunity to open a creamery the Minister will not permit them to do that.

I cannot do that.

But we see that by far the greater proportion of licences were refused, and the manufacture of margarine is allowed. When the Minister does this he is undermining our dairy industry at an early stage. I want to make an appeal to him to see that such unreasonable action will not be taken by the Dairy Board as to prevent the farmers from extending their production, and that they are given the opportunity to place their products on the market.

I gather that my rising is somewhat welcome to certain hon. members. I feel that I should commence my reply to this debate with an apology. I am not going to apologise for a lengthy speech I intend to make, but I think I have to apologise for the fact that I have to bring back this financial debate to the plain straight highway of finance. The debate has lasted just over 35 hours, there have been 80 speeches, and of those 80 speeches not more than eight have touched on finance in this financial debate. It has not been a very fruitful harvest from the point of view of the Minister of Finance, and therefore there is not a great deal, happily for me to reply to. There have been other much more interesting subjects to discuss during this debate—international affairs, Communism, Land Settlement lessees, the meat scheme and the Deciduous Fruit Board have all been much more fruity topics than what falls within the scope of the Treasury. So I have to apologise for getting back to the subject of finance. First of all I take the opportunity to state that it is intended that the Budget speech shall be delivered on the 28th February, Wednesday week; the Railway Budget on the following day, and the Budget debate will commence the Wednesday after that.

Will the Budget speech be in English or in Afrikaans?

The speech this year will be delivered in Afrikaans. Let me, Sir, refer to those few speeches that have been made on financial questions. First of all the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), made (it seems a long time ago) an interesting and suggestive speech in which he ranged from Dan to Beersheba. He covered so wide a range, touching on so many subjects, that it is virtually impossible to reply to his speech in relation to a debate so long as this one has been. The hon. member was concerned with a subject of general interest to us namely, the steps we are taking in the direction of reconstruction. For the most part he was satisfied with what the Government is doing, but for him we are not going fast enough nor far enough. Now, Sir, this is the only point I want to remark on in the hon. member’s speech. The crux of the matter as far as he was concerned, I could not help feeling, was a distinction which he drew between forecasting and planning. He suggested that the Government was not doing enough planning. It was content in many respects with fore casting. Let me say this, I think it is a point of some general bearing, that planning is very necessary and desirable. We certainly do not under-estimate its importance, but there are limits to planning, certainly under a democracy. With some people planning has come to be a blessed word. Many people ask for planning who do not quite know what it means. It is an odd thing how many people there are who want planning and who also want less bureaucracy. You cannot have it both ways. The hon. member for Durban, Berea (Mr. Sullivan) made a plea for more planning, but he also said he did not want the luxury of an army of controllers. If you want more planning you will have to have more controllers, and I am afraid too many people do not realise the connection between these two things. I suppose there is nothing that has done more to stimulate the bureaucracy which a good democrat abhors than the modern craze for planning. The hon. member for Cape Western does not like forecasting, and he wants more planning. Let me say, the more you plan and the less you forecast the hearer you get to dictatorship. The democratic way is to recognise that you cannot plan everything, and then you must occasionally be content with forecasting. Then I pass to the hon. member for Durban (Berea), who has also retired to take his rest, but whose speech nevertheless merits a reference. He made a thoughtful speech in which he rightly stressed the point—he is apparently looking ahead—that the Budget is not a matter of bookkeeping, but has an important effect on the economic life of the country. I am very conscious, of that fact. I entirely agree with the hon. member when he says that. The hon. member also inveigled against what he calls the obsession of a balanced Budget. But the hon. member’s remarks were based on British rather than on South African procedure, just as his quotations were from British text books. The hon. member admitted we had not had a balanced Budget in South Africa during the war—nor, of course, has Great Britain. But the hon. member did not seem to appreciate that unlike Great Britain we also did not have a balanced Budget before the war, nor shall we have one after the war.

We had surpluses.

That is where the hon. member makes a mistake. He can rest assured we shall not have a blanced Budget after the war. I have made the point time and again that there are two aspects to the financial picture, revenue account and loan account. And while you may have a balance on your revenue account you cannot really claim to have a surplus while you are borrowing money on your loan account. We have always had two budgets—the double budget for which the hon. member for Durban (Berea) pleads. It is proper that a developing country should have two budgets, and we shall continue to have two budgets for quite a considerable time. We have our Revenue Account financed out of taxation, we have our Loan Account financed out of certain items of revenue of a capital nature, out of recoveries of loans, and out of borrowings. The difference between what the hon. member for Berea advocates and the present system is not a difference of principle. There may be differences of detail but there is no difference of principle. It is true that he said what he wants is not a loan account but a workcreating instrument. But in fact our Loan-Account with its provision for Railways and Harbours, telegraphs, telephones, public works, forestry, provincial services and housing, has been and will continue to be a work-creating instrument, and it will, I have no doubt, in the years to come be so to a greater extent than it has been during the years through which we have just passed. My hon. friend may rest assured that we do not aim at a balanced budget in the true sense of the word. Of course we believe that expenditure of a current nature should be met out of current revenue, but our total expenditure is not determined by a desire to strike a rigid balance between current incomes and total expenditure. It is rather determined by the amount of money that is available to meet expenditure out of taxation plus the amount that can and, having regard to the interests of the country as a whole should be raised by borrowing. And there I must leave the matter; to go further would involve anticipating the budget. After what seemed to be many days, we again heard something about finance, when the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) returned to the field yesterday morning. My reply to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) will largely serve as a reply to the hon. member for South Rand. He was also anxious that we should not concern ourselves too much with a balanced budget, and he emphasised the importance of the use of loan funds for the stimulation of full employment. I need not assure him that the Government is fully conscious of the importance of full employment. May I suggest this to the hon. member for South Rand, that that money in the banks which is not working today and which worries him so much, is going to play a big part, in stimulating full employment. It is there very largely for the replenishment of commercial stocks and industrial development when the war is over. Let me refer to some other points which my hon. friend mentioned. He talked about unit securities. On that point I want to tell him that legislation to deal with the matter is now being drafted and I hope will shortly be introduced into the House. He said that no one with an income of £400 should pay a penny piece in taxation. I have every sympathy with people who have an income of less than £400, but as I have pointed out on other occosions, even allowing for differences, these people are much more gently treated in South Africa than people with similar incomes in other countries. The hon. member has also referred to the means test in relation to old age pensions. That matter was dealt with quite fully in the Government’s memorandum on the social security proposals, to paragraph 6 of which, owing to the lateness of the hour, I shall refer my hon. friend without any further comment. Then, Sir, the hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) has raised the question of the war damage insurance fund, and has appealed for a refund to the policy holders of the balance in the fund. Let me tell my hon. friend that that question is not an open question; that question was settled when the Act was passed, and when the scheme of war damage insurance was instituted. There is a clause in the Act which says quite clearly that if there are any moneys in the fund when the Union ceases to be at war and when all liabilities within the fund have been paid, the Minister shall deliver these moneys to the Public Debt Commissioners, who shall use them for the redemption of State debts. It was with full knowledge of that clause in the Act that policy holders took out their policies, and surely they cannot now expect that we shall cancel that clause and hand the money back to them. There is surely an extraordinary conception of business underlying that suggestion. Actually, this has been an extremely favourable insurance scheme. The parties have been insured with the State and their premiums have reduced their tax liability to the State. In many cases the State has paid 15s. and more of these premiums. I do not think my hon. friend has appreciated that fact. If he did he would hardly have expected us to refund to these people not only their money but our own money. Sometimes when the farmers are criticised for trying to get too much from the State, they may get a little of their own back on the hon. member for Mowbray for also trying to get a little bit too much from the Treasury for this business community. Then the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) raised two points. One affected the law in regard to pensions, the position of a widow in cases of accidents where the accident is not connected with military service. On that point I would say that we have a committee investigating the war pensions law and its administration, and that matter will no doubt fall within its purview. The other point he raised is in regard to the payment of a cost-of-living allowance to civil pensioners. I have discussed that matter very fully in this House on previous occasions. I have made it quite clear there can be no question of the payment of such cost-of-living allowances as a matter of right. The pensions received by civil pensioners are fixed by statute. We cannot reduce them. We could reduce the salaries of public servants, and have in the past reduced them. We cannot reduce the pensions of civil pensioners when the value of money increases, and they cannot therefore as a matter of right claim that we shall increase their pensions when the value of money is reduced. We have, however, as a matter of grace, agreed to help the people who need help, but that means that there must be a means test, to which my hon. friend objects. There are some people who have quite large pensions. For instance, the Commandant-General of the Ossewa-Brandwag has quite a large pension. I take it my hon. friend would like to see him drawing an allowance as well! Some have got small pensions. Some pensioners have other sources of income. Quite a number of pensioners are being re-employed by the State. Others have no such sources of income. A means test is thus unavoidable in this connection. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) referred in the first place to unit securities as well as to the control of stock exchange operations. He also spoke of the desirability of controlling misleading advertisements. I must repeat what I have already said to the hon. member for South Rand, extending my remarks to include both these subjects, the stock exchange and unit securities. We propose to introduce legislation and to send that legislation to a Select Committee, which we hope will assist us in hammering it into shape. I cannot go all the way with my hon. friend the member for Pretoria (East). He wants us to protect all the many people who are being had. There are limits to the extent to which you can protect people who are being had. The trouble is there is so large a part of the public who seem to like being had. If I may follow the example of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and venture on a Latin quotation: Mundus vult decipi. I do not want people to be caught by the gentry to whom the hon. member has referred, but there are limits to which legislation can go in saving people from themselves. The hon. member also said some interesting and useful things about taxation and tax evasion, but with the budget as close at hand as it is, he will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said. Finally, he referred to the question of legislation in regard to estate agents. I have not any knowledge of such legislation, though my colleague who sits behind me may have such knowledge. Then the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) referred to the question of the depreciation of our currency compared with sterling. For an answer I am merely going to refer him to the last statement of the Reserve Bank. For a country whose position is as disclosed in that statement, any such action as suggested by the hon. member for Boksburg would be entirely unjustifiable.

†*From the other side only one speech has come to which it is necessary for me to reply as Minister of Finance, and that was the speech of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) at the opening of the debate. His first question is: Why do we apply for such a large amount? He wants to have the assurance that no new services will be covered by this amount. Well, I can give him the necessary assurance. I want to refer him to Clause 2 of the Bill. The amount is exactly the same as was asked last year, and there are no other reasons for the increase than those I have already mentioned. My hon. friend has said that military expenditure should decline because 100,000 people have left the army. A hundred thousand people have left the army but 100,000 have replaced them. It does not mean that the army is smaller. My hon. friend says there is only one division in the North. That is a mistake that hon. members often make. There are many other sections of the army in the North. There is the naval force, the air force and engineers, the medical services, the technical services, and so forth. The total strength of our forces in the North has not been reduced. The total strength of our forces has increased. If the war comes speedily to a close, there will of course be a reduction in our army, and in our expenditure. But the reduction will not take place immediately. It will take time to bring back our forces, and it will also take time to demobilise those forces. Then my hon. friend referred to the report of the Auditor-General on the war account, and he says that it indicates an expenditure of £111½ millions for the war but that only £102½ millions was voted. Various newspapers have also apparently been misled by these figures. My hon. friend asks where the £9,000,000 comes from. In the first place two items are specified on that account—£350,000 from the South African Railways for the Essential Services Protection Corps and £200,000 from the Department of Trades and Industries. These are two small amounts, but furthermore, as the hon. member will see, there is on the revenue side of the account the war expenditure refund account, in other words, the money that is coming back from other countries. That runs into an amount of £26¼ millions. A part of that also appears on the other side, in other words £16,000,000 of direct disbursements on behalf of other governments. But what my hon. friend has not seen clearly is the footnote that indicates that not only do we make disbursements for other governments in which we virtually act as their agents, and get the money back from them direct, but we also incur indirect expenditure—costs in respect of stores and equipment, which are incorporated in the Union’s stores and at a later date issued to other governments and which are not included in this item but appear under the relative heads. Thus my hon. friend has not taken into account the munitions, the clothing and possibly foodstuffs that have been paid out on our account, and which is demanded back from the other governments to whom that material was sent. That is the explanation of that apparent discrepancy. Then there is one more point to which I have to refer. My hon. friend has referred to certain abuses in connection with the application of State funds, and there was one point that he mentioned that directly affects the Treasury. It is in connection with over-payments of military pay. In the first place I want to say this: It is not surprising that these over-payments occur. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) has already replied to that. In proportion to the total amount that was expended on military pay, this sum of £194,000 is not really large. In addition to that we must take into account the fact that the system of military pay is very involved. There are all sorts of allowances. All sorts of alterations are made from time to time. There is not always very close contact between the troops in the field and headquarters. The mistakes that were made were unavoidable. The amounts bn the average were very small. On 17,000 accounts the sum of £194,000 works out at an average of £11 per account. What did my hon. friend really expect? Was it really practicable for the Treasury without appointing a corps of officials to investigate those 17,000 accounts? The Auditor-General himself said it would be impossible, and that the procedure that was followed was really the only procedure. Would it have been possible for Parliament or for a Parliamentary committee to have examined those 17,000 accounts? Of course not. The only point is this, and that is the point that the Auditor-General also comes down to, whether the Treasury should have taken final steps in connection with the matter, or should it have been required for the matter to have been laid before Parliament? That is a point that is being dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee and I am quite prepared to leave it there. I think that I have now replied to all the points which affect me as Minister of Finance.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dekker, H. J.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sutter, G. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Booysen, W. A.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Bremer K.

Olivier, P. J.

Brink, W D.

Potgieter, J. E.

Conradie, J. H.

Stals, A. J.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Steyn, A.

Erasmus, F. C.

Strauss, E. R.

Erasmus, H. S.

Strydom, J. G.

Fouché, J. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Grobler, D. C. S,

Van Nierop, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Warren, S. E.

Klopper, H. J.

Werth, A. J.

Le Roux, J. N,

Wessels, C. J. O.

Louw, E. H.

Wilkens, J.

Ludick, A. I.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped. Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill at the next sitting.