I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

When I left off last night I had given several instances of different types of buildings now under construction or that have recently been constructed, and which cannot be considered essential from whatever angle they are regarded. I appreciate that we should have factories started to give employment to our men when they return from the front; but there are factories and factories, and some of them are designed for very different purposes for what we have in mind. I refer particularly to one big building now going up which will be an ice cream factory. Another big building which has been erected is for the purpose of the manufacture of synthetic drinks which may or may not be harmful to the men. There are also many instances of large buildings being erected and being occupied by various trading firms, many of whom were not in business before the war. In 1941, too, building control in Johannesburg was carried on by a committee comprised of, I believe, about seven men. These men knew the building trade inside out; they knew what they were dealing with, in fact they knew everything in connection with the building trade. Since then the central building control has been instituted, and has taken over the functions of the committee. This central building control has a staff of 45, with the necessary accommodation for them, and it is all a big expense to the State. In 1941 and 1942 we had very few complaints in connection with building. Today, and I say it in all seriousness, Johannesburg is seething with complaints in regard to the building control, and I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to the question whether it may not be wise to revert to the 1941-’42 system of control, to the committee, and thus save manpower at present employed in connection with building control, for work that is more necessary. I should like to see houses being built and our housing schemes being proceeded with actively, and I know the Minister is also anxious to see that. In this connection I suggest that matters could be speeded up if there was a temporary suspension, say for a period of twelve months, of the grant of all permits except in really urgent and necessary cases, and that we should concentrate entirely on the building of houses and on carrying into effect our housing schemes. Another point I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the chaos that exists in the Electrical Department of the Building Control. It was so bad that one of our district controllers, whose work was concerned with the grant of permits for electrical goods, sent in his resignation in the following terms—

This district building controller who sent in his resignation had an office in one building, while the building controller had an office in Empire Buildings. The district controller was given a list by the building controller of the items in respect of which he could issue permits to purchase. When firms approached him for permits, he frequently refused, not being satisfied that they had a good case. But they simply laughed at him and said: “Very well, we will go round to Empire Buildings and get our permit there.” They would leave him and go to Empire Buildings, and sure enough they got their permits. This district controller put the matter in this way—

I have before me a huge list running into twenty sheets of the names of firms and the particulars of their requirements which were refused by this district controller, but in respect of which permits were given over his head by officials at “Empire Buildings”. The district controller goes on in his statement to say—

Not only were permits issued for that type of work, but there was a worse feature, to quote again from this report—

From this hon. members will see that permits were issued by a department quite distinct from building control altogether. I pass on to another illuminating case. One of the residents of Houghton Estate constructed a fine ornamental swimming bath of big dimensions, and he wished to have a floodlight for his bath. After making enquiries, he got in touch with a party in the black market who offered him a floodlight for £10. He was so pleased with this that he passed on the good news to an acquaintance who had also constructed a swimming bath and wanted a floodlight, and he mentioned the name of the man who was supplying him. The owner of the second swimming bath made immediate contact with the black market, and he had his floodlight installed, but at the same time the floodlight in the bath of owner No. 1 had been removed. However, as it was a black market transaction, there was no question of anything being done by any of the parties concerned. These are examples of the maladministration of the permit system, which is bringing control into discredit, and which is a direct incentive to the activities of the black market, and unless this maladministration is vigorously attacked the black market is going to assume dimensions far exceeding those they have today. There is another aspect of building that I should like to bring to the notice of hon. members, It relates to the heavy prices we have to pay for small items required in the construction of houses. Let me take the case of water taps. Before the war I had been importing half-inch taps at 12s. 6d. a dozen; they were sold retail at about 2s. or 2s. 6d. Now a similar tap, perhaps not quite so good, is available at a cost of 6s. or 7s. That is a big price to ask the taxpayers to pay. He is paying that price to subsidise a local factory. Before the war the taps were imported from an English firm, and I believe it is the same firm that supports the local factory at Germiston. It is not likely, therefore, that any attempt to import taps at a price that will be cheaper to the householder will be successful. Another small item I may mention is this. Before the war we used to get a key made for a door lock at a cost of 1s. Today the price of a key is 3s. 6d., and you will be lucky if you get it at that price. Now, Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to put is this. Why in spite of our control system should the price of many building materials have gone up 300 per cent. or 400 per cent. while the majority of other materials have not gone up more than 30 per cent. to 50 per cent.? Seeing that we have a system of building control, these are matters that should be investigated. The public should not be asked to pay such very high prices for the privilege of buying locally manufactured articles that have for many years been manufactured by overseas firms and made available locally at a low price. My remarks have special reference to electrical equipment. Small firms in Johannesburg are given permits by the building controller for electrical equipment, and this material passes into the black market, where it is sold at high prices. Then an unsatisfactory feature of the operations of the building controller is that when a permit is issued the member of the public concerned is instructed to obtain the equipment at a specified store. He may know that he can get the equipment at a much lower price at another store. But he has no option; he has to go to the store indicated on the permit and pay the higher price. Here, too, I have several cases in mind, and I shall just mention one. One of my constituents in Kensington was in very bad health, and the doctor gave instructions that all his food should be chilled in a refrigerator. He was unable to buy a refrigerator, so some of his friends decided to get one for him. We went to the district controller and we got the permit, and were Instructed to buy the article from a certain firm, where we were asked to pay £75. We could get the identical article at another firm for £45. This was pointed out to the department of the building controller, but we could get no further with the matter. Meanwhile the need for the refrigerator had gone, and the matter was not taken any further. I do think that it is hard to understand a system of control that compels the public to buy at a shop where they have to pay far more for an article than they could get it elsewhere. What is the reason? I do not know and the justice I cannot see. But I hope that attention will be given to these matters by those who are in the position to make investigations, and that the evils that I have alluded to will not be allowed to continue.

Both the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) and the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) have referred to the change in the rationing of maize by the Food Controller. As I explained before, I am a new member of the Maize Control Board. I want to make it quite clear that I am not a member appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. I was nominated by the South African Grain Trade, and I stand on that board as the representative of the grain trade. The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) probably does not realise that the Minister receives a nomination for a seat on that board from the Trade and he appoints an additional member himself, so before he interrupts he should make certain of his facts. The position which I should like to go into, so that the House may see the present maize situation in this country, will necessitate my going through the history of the Maize Board since the commencement of the war. In the first season 1939-’40, in the first year of the war when there was a big crop of maize this board issued permits for the export of 13,000,000 bags of maize; of that 13,000,000, 12⅓ million bags were exported. In the second year they issued permits for the export of 3,000,000 bags; that was 1940-’41. In January, 1941, conditions were seen to be bad, and only 1⅓ million bags of maize were sold for export under those permits. I want it to be clearly understood by this House that maize was exported under subsidy. It was forced out of the country by the payment of approximately 4s. a bag in the first year, and in the second year a payment of 2s. a bag to the overseas market, and the subsidy was collected from the home consumers in this country. Overseas they paid in the neighbourhood of 7s. a bag and we were paying in the neighbourhood of 12s. a bag. That was the policy that was adopted, and that was supported by this country. You will see that we were quite prepared to feed animals in Europe at very much cheaper prices with our own maize than we were prepared to feed the people in this country. In fact, the position was so ludicrous that we gave a rebate in this country to stock feeders to feed their animals, of, I think, 1s. 6d. a bag, but not a rebate to the human consumers in the native areas.

Why not?

I do not know why not but I do not understand how on the one hand you can give a subsidy to feed cattle but not on the other hand to feed humans. In any case, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker), who these days is a different person from the one I knew in the first Session, will admit that the idea of exporting maize at 6s. or 7s. a bag while we are forced to pay 12s. a bag here is not sound business. As I mentioned there was a restriction immediately when it was seen that the following season was not too good, but then the damage was already done. We had not built up a reservoir of maize in the country. We had exported maize and the following year we produced 16,000,000 bags as against the previous two years’ crops of 29,000,000 and 24,000,000 bags; and as you know, not only were we forced in that year to prohibit maize for animal consumption but we were in the unfortunate position that we could not feed the people of this country on maize, maize which is the food of a large section of the people. That year rationing was brought in for the first time. It was forced on the country by the policy of the Maize Control Board in exporting in such large quantities. I would like to point out that that maize did not go as a favour to the Allies because they needed it, but we, of our own accord, were forcing it out of the country. If the Allies had wanted the maize, even to that exent, had it been necessary for them to have it I would have agreed that they should have it, but we ourselves forced it out. That was in 1941-’42, the year when rationing was first introduced. The following year we had a better crop of 23,000,000 bags. There was no export and rationing was continued, but there was a general weakening of the restrictions of rationing. It was open for animal consumption and in that way maize was allowed to flow a bit better than in the previous years. Subsequent to that year we had another catastrophe in the maize industry. Owing to the policy known as the fixed price policy of giving a fixed price to the farmer, all the maize was introduced into the market at one time. In other years you had fluctuating prices and it paid the farmer not to reap his crop and market it all in June, July and August. He got advantages—sometimes they were speculative advantages depending on the market,—if he held some of his maize, and as the result there was an overwhelming lot of maize on the market over a period of a few months, instead of coming in in more regular quantities. But this year with this stabilised price there was no inducement for the farmer to store his maize. He got no more for it and during that period he lost the interest on his money and was not paid for the storage while the maize deteriorated. The result was that we had thousands of bags of maize stored outside. I might add that although I and other members of the grain trade tried to point out these difficulties to the Maize Board and the Agricultural Department we were not able to impress them. That year over 1,000,000 bags of maize were damaged by rain. I do not mean that they were entirely usseless, for consumption. The damaged maize averaged right down to about 8s. a bag because of this deterioration. You, Sir, have not seen the cost in money this will be to the country. I suppose those figures will one day come before the House but on an estimate I should imagine that the loss was in the neighbourhood of £200,000, in money, besides the loss of a very good food. The following year, the year ending 30th April, 1944, there was also, with the policy of a fixed price, thrown on to the market a crop in the neighbourhood of 19,000,000 bags all at once, with the carry over from the previous year of nearly 2,000,000 bags. The result was that at one stage in this season we had very nearly 2,000,000 bags of maize standing out in the open and frantic efforts were made to get tarpaulins to cover it and to stack them so that they would not be damaged by rain; and if you had gone through the country you would have seen big stacks of maize with a little tarpaulin sitting on top of it trying its best to save the maize from the weather. Although a lesson should have been learnt the previous year, no change was made in the system of marketing. It was still the fixed price policy. When the suggestion was made that there should be an inducement held out to the farmers to hold the maize and for the miller to hold maize, nothing was done. Then the agitation was so great that something had to be done and eventually this maize which was outside, which was not covered, was removed to the mills by a method of freezing stocks and this maize was rushed to the consuming centres, and this year the position will not be so bad as regards damage to the maize. But that is not the solution of the problem. You have to get down to the root of the matter. The root of the matter is that the whole scheme was bad but no change was made. Why they were able to get rid of that maize was because they were fortunate in regard to weather and with regard to the crop being 19,000,000 bags instead of 28,000,000 bags. If there had been a crop of well over 20,000,000 bags, I feel that the task would have been impossible and we would have been faced again with a lot of wasted foodstuffs. Then we come to this season which we have before us, the present growing season. There is no doubt that, as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) stated, the position looks worse than it has looked for many years. In fact, if we do not get rain within the next two or three weeks, the crop which we estimate at 16,000,000 bags will be even less. It may be anything from 14,000,000 to 18,000,000 bags depending on the rain, and each week the position gets worse. Therefore it is essential, where previously that rationing was relaxed, that it should be tightened up again. I nevertheless feel that if we had had a real food policy in this country we would never have reached this critical state of affairs which we had in 1942, and with which we are faced now. At the present moment rationing has to be tightened up. Now the hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) were worried because there had been a reduction from two to one bag for permit-free maize. May I correct the hon. member for Green Point when he said that one bag would have to do for the whole family for a month. That is not correct. One individual can get a bag per month. The father, the mother and each child can get a bag each per month. There is no restriction in that way. In fact, it is purely a token attempt, to try to make rationing psychologically understood by the people and to make them understand that there is a shortage of mealies. I do not honestly consider that any hardship will be afflicted on the native consumers with regard to the change-over from two bags to one. The essential feature was to reduce the limit and discourage the feeding of maize to animals as dairy, poultry and pig feed. That is why the change was made. I can assure the hon. member for Pinetown that the areas where there is a big human consumption of maize will not go short, if I can help it, and I am sure the hon. member for Cape (Eastern) (Mrs. Ballinger) who now represents the consumers on that Board will see to it that every attempt is made that supplies are available in the native areas. But that is not a big restriction. To give you another aspect of this there is a large consumption of maize by industrial concerns for their native employees, the mines, etc. Their ration runs in the neighbourhood of 64 lbs. per head per month so that a bag of 200. lbs. should be adequate for one man a month in the native area. This has been slightly reduced in the industrial concerns and on the mines where there are other foodstuffs which they can substitute for maize but which is not readily available in the native areas. The chief reduction is intended for animal consumption. There has been a definite tightening up and decrease in the amount which was available previously. For instance, you can imagine that for draught animals, horses, when you are threatened with a maize shortage you can reduce their maize because you can get oats, which is available. In that respect the reductions which have been made are scientific. In the case of pig feed there is a percentage reduction in the ration and there they can substitute barely, and I think they can manage conveniently. I therefore feel that at this stage one must not exaggerate the position as regards rationing. We must definitely see to it that for human consumption at no time do we run short of this staple food because we are so short of other foodstuffs. But it must be obvious to this House that we will have to do something about the importation of maize this year, and that is really a major problem. Maize is more important to this country than wheat. I say that because wheat, in the form of bread, is a filler, but maize is a commodity which produces our protective foods, as well as being a filler. If we do not have maize we shall have decreased production of protective foods all round. The major problem in connection with imports of maize is the matter of shipping. I recently got prices from the Argentine of the F.O.B. prices at Buenos Aires for maize, 11s. for 200 lbs. in bulk. The freight is a major problem because we do not just want one cargo of maize. We may need three or four million bags, which is a considerable quantity. I must impress upon this House the importance of the matter and that if necessary we should subsidise the importation of maize into the country. It will in no way interfere with the market of the maize farmer this year, but if we do not get it it will interfere considerably with the future food position in the country. The hon. member for Pinetown raised the matter of wheat with regard to the offals, bran and pollard which he stated is necessary for the feeding of dairy cattle. Whereas I agree entirely with the hon. member that as soon as it is humanly possible, we must go back to white bread and to the production of bran and pollard, I realise at the present moment that this would necessitate also large imports of wheat. Without having the information available I do not know whether that would be justified from the shipping point of view. I rather consider that it would be better for us to concentrate on the importation of maize for the next year.

What is the freight?

It is ordinarily about £1 a bag or £12 a ton. But that is the ordinary rate of freight. We have ourselves sent ships to the Argentine for other commodities and naturally our own freight, in our own ships, is much less. There are other areas where we may also obtain maize. The hon. the Minister has made enquiries in East Africa, which may be a source of supply, but I do not think they can supply enough for our needs. I may mention that the maize crop in the Argentine the previous year was in the neighbourhood of 8½ million tons, whereas this year it is only 2½ million tons, and whereas last year they were burning maize to replace coal I do not think they will do so this year. The other matter which was raised during this debate was the manufacture of margarine in this country. I do feel that the farmers of this country are losing their backbone. They were the backbone of the country but today, as soon as they see a little competition, and they think that a commodity like margarine can be manufactured here, they rise up and shout to high heaven that it should not be allowed. Surely that is not the true South African spirit which developed our farming industry in the past, and yet it is the spirit which we have found in the country in the last few years. Do the farmers expect us to starve because butter is not available? If you were subsidising the margarine industry to the extent of £2,000,000 a year you could complain, but not if margarine pays for itself. And what has margarine got to do with the Dairy Board? If it is placed under the Dairy Board and anything goes wrong with the margarine the Board will be blamed. What right has one group to say that this commodity should not come into this country to feed the people? Good Heavens, I would refer you to the year 500 A.D. when the Candelmakers’ Union tried to get a law passed that shutters should be closed at 6 p.m. so that more candles could be burnt. Are you trying to do the same? It is idiotic.

We are protecting our interests.

It is not a matter of protecting interests. I want to stand on my own feet and I think the farmers can do so too. I do not think that the dairy farmer has a wonderful time. I find that round about Johannesburg he works very hard and I would like to see him get maize and monkey nut seed and linseed cakes at a cheaper rate. If margarine is manufactured those things will be put on the market. Why should the farmers be so annoyed? I give the Dairy Board due credit for having kept the price of butter and cheese down. They have restricted it to such an extent that production has suffered, but let us take a broader view than the narrow view the hon. members are taking. Let us allow the margarine factory to develop on its own. They will give you the monkey nut meal that you need.

Oh no, they will not.

I do feel that there is a tremendous market in this country for the farmers, but he is killing his own market.

You are killing the farmer.

No, you are wrong. I am trying to give the farmers sound advice. When it comes to marketing the commercial man has more brain per square inch than the farmer has per square mile, including the hon. member for Cradock. They think that by increasing the price they are doing themselves a good turn, but all they are doing is to stifle their own market. Finally I would like to deal with the matter of the meat scheme. I think it is about time that the Government themselves realise that there is something wrong. There is such maldistribution of supplies as has never occurred before.

Who is doing it?

The farmers are doing it.

Are the farmers distributors?

No, but they can send their cattle in to the controlled areas but they have a better market outside, and they sell it outside. The position is that in the country areas they are getting 130 per cent. of their previous year’s supplies. In the towns we are getting 40 per cent. There is a lack of balance in the distribution.

Where do you get your figures from?

If the hon. member was in the House before he would know that I quoted the actual figures which showed that in the whole of the Union the slaughtering of sheep for one month was 95 per cent. of the previous year. In Johannesburg it was 15 per cent. although it had only gone down five per cent. for the whole Union. In Maritzburg it was five per cent. of the previous years. In other places it was 130 per cent.

Then your Minister’s figures must be wrong.

The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) is one of the people responsible because he wanted fixed prices for his meat regardless of the sufferings it would impose on other sections. I am not quoting the wrong figures. I can prove them. Months ago there were members in this House who said that the meat scheme was bad. We warned the hon. member for East Griqualand on the platform in Johannesburg, but he laughed at us, and still it goes on. It is about time that this House faced its responsibilities on the food issue. I say that in all sincerity. I will also face my responsibilities and I am prepared to say what I think. I would like to say that I do not want to be dismissed with the statement that I am an Adam Smith economist and that I am living in the past as far as economics are concerned, or even that I am a whole hogger for private enterprise. I am a whole hogger for that because I reckon it is a good system and has proved itself. But I will not be deceived by these wonderful terms of rationalisation and orderly marketing and co-ordinating and planned economy. That does not blind me to the realities of the position. All these words are just useless. Under this rationalisation scheme with a body like the Wheat Board, you have developed milling monopolies which are really a scream. I might tell hon. members that if you have a mill and receive a quota from the Wheat Board of 5,000 bags a month, you need not do any milling at all. You can sell the quota for ten or twelve shillings each. Sales have taken place. Mills have changed hands. They did not buy a mill for its assets, its machinery, but they buy it for its quota. They talk about rationalisation but the amazing thing is that in an area like Upington, which is a consuming area, they grow their own wheat and they had a mill which milled it to feed the people. Now they cannot do it. The wheat has to be sent to Cape Town or Johannesburg and the meal sent back. All that costs money. That position needs the attention of the Minister. While we are on this question I may mention the following matter. I think it was in 1938 to 1939 that milling quotas were being considered. The whole thing turned out into a scandal. Certain milling interests knew what was going to happen and they milled right up to the hilt of their capacity. They were in the know. What happened? In De Aar a small mill found that a big mill was supplying meal at a cheaper price than he could afford and he stopped milling. Now he cannot get a quota but the big mill has it. Our national income will not develop if we apply these principles to our economy, and we should work for a better system, and not take notice of all these wonderful words.

The House and the country at large is indebted to the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) for his exposure yesterday of a particularly flagrant case of malpractice and corruption in the Department of Demobilisation. The case mentioned by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) is in itself a very important one, but it raises the larger issue—from that angle it is most important—the larger issue of the existence of malpractices and corruption in this country, and more particularly in the Department of Defence and allied departments which have to deal with war measures. For some considerable time there has been a feeling in the country that everything is not well regarding the enforcement of certain regulations. From time to time we have seen reports in the newspapers. We have the records of criminal convictions. We have also from time to time seen hints in the report of the Auditor-General, and members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts will be able to testify to the fact that evidence has also been led before that committee which tends to show the prevalence of a state of affairs which is distinctly disturbing to those who stand for the maintenance of a high standard of public life in South Africa. It has been known for a considerable time that there is a certain section of the population in this country which has been battening on the pickings and profits of the war. They have been making money out of war contracts, making money out of the black market, making money out of profiteering. There has consequently been a growing resentment in the country, and for that reason I am sure that the exposure made yesterday by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) will be welcomed not only inside this House, and not only by hon. members on both sides of the House but also by thousands outside this House. I say it will be welcomed, and it will be regarded by many as the first step in the cleansing of the Augean stables of the Department of Defence and allied departments. Before dealing with this matter, I should like to refer shortly to the attitude taken up yesterday by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation when replying to the hon. member for Gordonia. I do not like dealing with the person of the Minister when he is not present, and I took the precaution about an hour ago of sending a telephone message to the private secretary of the Minister informing him that I intended dealing with the matter. The hon. the Minister is not present, and it will be appreciated that I cannot wait until it pleases him to attend. Therefore I am obliged to make these remarks in his absence, much as I regret having to do so. I refer to the sneering reference made by the Minister when replying to the hon. member for Gordonia, sneering references to the legal qualifications of the hon. member for Gondonia. The Minister said that the hon. member was a laywer and in a particular sneering tone, he added “or he professes to be a lawyer”. That was the tone adopted. It is not the first time that this young Minister has chosen to adopt that provocative and sneering attitude towards members on this side of the House, I think the time has arrived to deal with him.

He must have learned it from you.

I certainly do, and in strong language attack people politically, but I have never yet attacked a man in his personal capacity as the Minister did when he referred to the hon. member for Gordonia.

You are the worst of the lot.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) should not judge others by himself. [Interruptions.]

You have no right to talk; you are the biggest offender.

You are the biggest offender. If there is one man in this House whose speeches teem with references of a personal kind it is the hon. member for Hospital. This is his stock in trade. He has no other stock. I say that the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation yesterday showed what can only be termed a very petty spirit in dealing with this matter. What he said yesterday was in the worst possible taste, particularly coming from one member of the Bar to a fellow-member of the same Bar in the same city.

Get off your high horse.

I know it hurts. I should say that were it not for the fact that the hon. the Minister happens to be a Cabinet Minister, and if he had made these references to a fellow-member of the Bar at any time in public, it would be a matter for the Bar Council. Who is the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation, to refer in a sneering manner to the legal qualifications of the member for Gordonia? Was he such an ornament of the Cape Bar before he was elevated to the rank of Cabinet Minister? The Minister must not presume too much on the silk gown which he is now entitled to wear as King’s Counsel. Had it not been for the fact that he became a Cabinet Minister, he would never have smelt the silk gown of the K.C. The Minister should remember that the rank of K.C. is not necessarily proof of legal eminence. The Minister entered the King’s Counsel Chamber by the back door, and he should be the last to indulge in gibes at the expense of the hon. member for Gordonia. If the hon. Minister’s defence of himself yesterday in regard to the clothing scandal, is a sample of his ability as an advocate, then I sincerely hope that I may never have to rely on him as defence counsel. What are the facts? I do not want to go into the whole matter again, but here we have two outstanding facts. A certain official in the department of the Minister is to all appearances guilty of corruption ….

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as these cases are sub judice is the hon. member allowed to discuss them? According to “Die Burger” two arrests were made today.

May I ask whether any charge has been specially brought?

I have no knowledge whatsoever of any charges having been brought, except the Minister’s own statement yesterday that certain arrests were contemplated. I am dealing at present with the Minister and his officials, and not with anybody else.

I hope the hon. member will observe the spirit of the rule, and that he will not make any statement which may prejudice a trial.

If I have transgressed the rule I shall bow to your ruling ….

You have to.

But, as far as I can see, I have not transgressed the rule up to the present. Nobody has appeared before the magistrate as yet, and I take it that the matter only becomes sub judice when the person concerned is brought up for preliminary examination.

Why don’t you read “Die Burger,” your paper; “the paper that never lies.”

I intend to discuss the matter further. There has been no appearance before the magistrate, and the matter only becomes sub judice when a man appears before the magistrate.

You are afraid of the truth.

In those circumstances it is clear that I have the fullest right to discuss the matter today.

No names have been mentioned. [Interruptions.]

No names have been mentioned. You are well aware, Sir, that very often somebody is arrested only to be released the next day. He is arrested on suspicion and then discharged. I submit I have the fullest right to discuss this matter in fullest detail. It appears from the information given by the hon. member for Gordonia that as a result of certain malpractices and probable corruption, trade was diverted into certain channels. The hon. member had before him a list of those firms who supplied the returned soldiers with clothes. May I again refresh the memories of hon. members on both sides of the House by pointing out that there are four large items on this list. Heading the list are the Elite Outfitters £2,279; the next is H. Freid £2,577; then there is the Marine Outfitters £3,462, that is a Mr. Derman ….

May I rise to a point of order. I understand that the persons referred to are actually under arrest. I submit that makes this matter sub judice and that it cannot be discussed in this House for the simple reason that the magistrate who is supposed to adjudicate in this case will be considerably prejudiced if he reads the deliberations of this House, and I submit that rules that out of order.

In connection with the point of order, I want to say that there is absolutely no official information before this House that any person has been placed under arrest, and until this House learns officially that someone has been apprehended hon. members may discuss the matter freely. It is only when information has been brought before the House that this person or that has been placed under arrest that an hon. member cannot discuss his case, but the fact that a private member rises to say that such and such a person has been placed in custody cannot prevent an hon. member from discussing the matter. It is all guesswork. It is information that has been given by a private member, information which is not at the disposal of the House. If the Minister has done his duty and has made arrests, he should be here to inform the House of that. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is discussing the whole question of the maladministration of the Department, and I want to submit for your consideration that you are not entitled to prevent him discussing the maladministration of the Department, even if A. and B. have been arrested, and that the hon. member consequently has every right to place this matter before the House.

It is all guesswork. Information as to arrests is not available to the House. If the hon. Minister had done his duty he would have been here to say that certain persons had been arrested, and that the matter cannot be debated.

Can the hon. the Minister of Justice give any information to the House?

I have received no information on this point. In the ordinary course I would not be informed officially, except as the result of enquiry on my part. I could make enquiries if requested by you, Sir.

In the meantime I would like to repeat that it is a well-recognised rule that a matter which is sub judice should not be discussed in a way that may prejudice the case and that I hope the hon. member will observe the spirit of the rule.

If I may say so, with all respect, Sir, your ruling is baSed upon the assumption that the matter is sub judice, and we have had from the Minister of Justice the information that he has no knowledge that this matter is sub judice. I do not wish to offend against your ruling. As a matter of fact I was not going into the matter of the accused any further. I was particularly referring to the manner in which trade had been diverted into certain channels and to the way in which public money has been paid out to a few selected firms. I have nothing to do now with matters which are sub judice. There are these large amounts in the list, £2,279, £2,577, £3,462, £3,971—there were five firms altogether who drew these big amounts. I come now to something that is certainly not sub judice, and that is that in each one of these cases the firms are owned by persons of the Jewish race. Surely that is not a matter which is sub judice. It is sub-Jewice! Surely it is not a coincidence that they are all Jewish firms? That is not a fortuitous circumstance. Here you have five firms each of which received trade of over £2,000 or £3,000, and the next highest is a certain Mr. Phil Moss, who has secured very much less than the others; his figure is only £355. This is a matter to which I direct the attention of our English-speaking friends on the other side of the House. We have the extraordinary fact that a well-known and old-established firm like Markhams secured only £73; Hepworths, another very well-known and old-established firm £88, while for Garlicks the sum is £26, and for Payne and Bonner £28. Those are well-known firms that were established in Cape Town many years ago. When I was a boy those firms were doing business, at a time when Mr. Sandler and others were probably working in Poland or elsewhere. I now come to the defence put up by the Minister. I am not dealing with a case which may or many not be sub judice. I am dealing with a defence put up by the Minister yesterday in regard to his action in dealing with this matter. The Minister shielded himself behind the arrests which he said were going to be made today, and of which we have had information from members on the other side of the House. That is his sole defence. The question that arises is: Why was action taken so late? The Minister told us a story which can only be described as a typical bed-time story. He started off by saying that advising the ex-soldiers to buy goods at certain stores was not necessarily a criminal offence, and when he was trapped on that point, and was asked why he did not take departmental action he said: ”But the matter had been handed over to the police, and if departmental action had been taken these people would be warned, and the police would have had to move very warily”. I am afraid that the defence put up by the Minister is very thin. He admits that he received information from the hon. member for Wynberg (Capt. Butters) on this matter six months ago. Does he ask the House seriously to believe that it takes six months to set the wheels of justice in motion? That is exceeding slow motion. This was not an intricate matter. I could understand the delay if it had been an intricate enquiry in connection with smuggling or something of that sort, involving a long and complicated enquiry. But this is a very simple matter. A certain man was suspected of having been bribed to send soldiers to buy goods at certain stores. Does the Minister ask this House to believe that it takes six months to investigate a matter like that? If he wants us to believe that I can only suggest that he is not very complimentary to our South African police.

Is it an offence in our law?

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to, but I say it is most improper for the Minister to wait for six months before taking action. [Interruptions.] I am accusing him of having been dilatory, and of not having sufficiently guarded the interests of his Department. He did not guard the interests of those ex-soldiers of whose interests he has always professed to be so solicitous. Why was he not solicitous of the interests of the soldiers? Why did he wait six months? [Interruptions.] Now we know who are the friends of the exsoldiers. Hon. members opposite do not mind ex-soldiers being done down and cheated in this manner, as long as the Minister can be defended. They do not mind that five different firms are making enormous profits out of them. [Interruptions.] They do not mind five firms making enormous profits, as long as the Minister can be defended. The Minister was the one who said yesterday that the hon. member for Gordonia was making political capital out of the matter. That is what he said. Who is making political capital now? Those hon. members, and the hon. member for Hospital are considering their own political interests in defending their Government and in defending their Minister against the interests of the soldiers. Now we turn to this other point. On his own admission the Minister was warned six months ago ….

And he took action.

Not only did he take no action, but he allowed these malpractices to continue. How do my hon. friends explain that? How do my hon. friends explain that the Minister allowed these malpractices to continue with the very thin excuse that if he had suspended the official the accomplices would have been warned. The Minister, in spite of his pretending to be a friend of the ex-soldier, allowed this to continue. The Minister and his Department stand convicted of dilatory action in connection with this matter.

Nonsense.

One wonders what the reason was for the delay. Was the reason that the Minister gave us the real one? One wonders whether some influence was not brought to bear in this particular case.

If you said that outside you would get six months.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that hon. member over there said that if the hon. member who is speaking had made that remark outside he would get six months; is that Parliamentary? The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) said that.

I did not hear that remark. Did the hon. member make it?

I made the remark, and I assumed that the interjection would be taken in the spirit it was meant.

Such an interjection is very unbecoming and unparliamentary, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it.

I certainly withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some information.

Is the hon. member willing to allow the hon. Minister to give some information?

I am not prepared to allow the hon. Minister to speak now; my time is short. I am finished with that part of my case. The hon. the Minister can have his say after I have sat down.

What are you afraid of?

The hon. Minister can only give that information with the hon. member’s consent.

They are interrupting all the time and jumping up and down.

All right, let the Minister make his statement.

In pursuance of your request Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that two men were arrested this morning and are appearing on remand ….

What is the charge—rape or murder?

…. in connection with allegations that were made in this House.

That does not affect the position one way or the other. In conclusion I want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition yesterday said in reference to this matter, that the whole affair leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I go further and say it leaves a rotten taste in the mouth, and (apart from any actions that may be taken or any actions that may be sub judice), it is incumbent upon the Minister to institute a searching enquiry not only as to what happened in Cape Town but as to what is happening in other centres.

He will do that.

If this has been happening in Cape Town we can well imagine what is happening in Johannesburg. This case raises a larger issue which I will deal with now. I want to nut the question, Mr. Speaker, whether what has happened here in Cape Town is not part and parcel of a general organisation right throughout the Union of South Africa, an organisation which is responsible among other things for the black marketing and profiteering that has been going on during the past few years.

You seem to know a lot about it.

Let us be frank in this matter. If we look at the newspapers and read the reports of convictions, there is no doubt whatsoever that in the very large majority of cases those who were convicted for black marketing and profiteering, the large majority of Europeans convicted in these cases bore Jewish names. Now I want to come to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Some time ago the hon. member took exception to a certain statement I made in addressing a meeting in Johannesburg.

Maritzburg.

It does not matter, I made the same statement in both cases. You have a double-barrelled charge now. I made a statement in Johannesburg, and I may have made it in Maritzburg, in which I referred to thefts of galvanised iron that had taken place.

Cement; speak the truth.

The hon. member must not be so impetuous. He will get it all right. I am dealing with galvanised iron. I pointed out in my speech that large quantities of cement had been exported overseas.

I was dealing with the housing shortage and said that that was one of the prime causes of the shortage of building materials. I dealt with the export of cement, and inter alia pointed out that certain Jews had been arrested in Cape Town, and charged with stealing large quantities of galvanised iron.

That is not what you said.

I will come to that point. Just wait a minute. The reporter got mixed up with cement and galvanised iron, but does it make any difference whether these Jews stole cement or galvanised iron? Now the hon. member shelters behind the fact that these good boys did not steal cement but galvanised iron.

But it was not true.

The hon. member knows all about the case which came before the court. Large quantities of galvanised iron were stolen. I referred to the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts from which it appears that large quantities of galvanised iron had been left unguarded and unprotected against weather and theft, and I then said, and I repeat it now, that that explains where the black market galvanised iron came from. I say that these people have been fattening on the war. They are fattening on scarcity, and now they will fatten on the demobilisation and on reconstruction. That is the next step. It is not only the Nationalist Party and I who are concerned about these conditions in the country. There is general resentment over what is happening. Even the hon. Minister of Finance is worried. He addressed a meeting in Cape Town and took as his text the Christian principles and race problems, and then he said inter alia: “A process of anti-Semitism has been developing in the Union and large sections of the community have been influenced by it.” On a previous occasion he expressed his concern for the development and referred to “the feeling on the Jewish question amongst supporters of the United Party”. I have a letter here which was put into my letter-box the other day by a member of this House, and from the Government side of the House. The heading has been torn off and the name was torn off. This letter reads—

This letter was addressed to a member on the other side of the House.

How do you know that?

Because it says so here.

You may accuse one of us of writing it.

This is not my handwriting. It is free for anyone to decide the matter. It was addressed to a member on the other side, and he put it into my letter-box, after having torn off the name and address.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) made an insinuation that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) had written that letter himself and disguised his writing. Is it Parliamentary for one member to accuse another member of forging a document produced before the House?

Has the hon. member for Hospital made that accusation?

Of course I did not. I deny it. What I said was that the hon. member may have accused one of us of doing it.

As far as I am concerned, the matter may be regarded as closed. I regard anything coming from that hon. member as a compliment to me. I would be very much disturbed if at any time he said something to my advantage. There is no doubt about it that this letter was addressed to an hon. member opposite and he put it into my letter-box, clearly showing that there are hon. members on the other side who feel as we do. May I also refer to a statement showing what the feeling in this country is, a statement made in 1943 by A. G. Barnes, President of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. During an address he said: “Cape Town is at present being overrun by an undesirable type of trader. These people are mainly evacuees and refugees from Eastern Europe.” Then we have the extraordinary position, the alarming position, of the large numbers of Jews still entering the country. A new procedure is now being adopted. Instead of, as formerly, entering on a permit for permanent residence, they now come in on temporary permits and members opposite will be shocked at these figures. During the years 1939 to 1940 the following numbers of Jews entered South Africa on temporary permits: In 1939, 2,900; in 1940, 2,600; in 1941, 2,500; in 1942, 1,900; in 1943, 2,970; in 1944, 2,887. Altogether during the war years, 16,180, of them entered this country on temporary permits, and we have no assurance that they left, because these permits are renewed from time to time. No wonder the country is upset. No wonder the Minister of Finance is obliged to raise his voice in warning against Anti-Semitism. No wonder that amongst the members of the United Party, and thousands of its supporters in the country, there is growing anxiety about this Jewish question. The reason for it is that the leaders of that Party and the man whom the member for Hospital calls the Deputy Prime Minister, have closed their eyes to the situation, whereas we on this side of the House are determined that this Jewish problem will be tackled. I want to refer to another matter, namely the extraordinary attack made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) a few days ago on certain control officials. An extraordinary feature of that attack, something which is a real mystery to everyone, is that a day or two afterwards he and his satellite, the “Cape Times” retracted. But these charges still stand, and the question which now arises is this: serious charges of discourtesy were made by the hon. member for South Peninsula against high-ranking officials, controllers and others. Are we to assume that it is the practice of high-ranking officials in our Civil Service to be discourteous? I have had occasion many times during the last five or six years to deal with many officials and I cannot recall one single instance where I have been treated otherwise but with courtesy by the officials whom I went to see on official business, and the question now arises: What is behind this? Members on the other side will probably tell me, as the “Cape Argus” said the other day: “Mr. Louw sees a nigger in very woodpile.” I am convinced that there is not merely one nigger in this woodpile, but several. Certain explanations are necessary. Serious charges have been levelled against high-ranking officials, officials who have to carry out very important duties in the country, and I say that the air will have to be cleared, and the hon. member for South Peninsula has to substantiate his charges. I suggest there is only one way of doing that, and that is that the Minister responsible should order an enquiry, a special enquiry, into this matter. I think we will find that when an enquiry is held I shall be proved to be correct, viz. that this was not merely a clash of opinions. It was not a clash of temperaments. I say that what we have had was a clash of interests. What we have had has been a clash of interests, the interests of producers and consumers on one hand, and the interests of a certain section of the distributors on the other hand. [Time limit.]

In connection with the question which was raised earlier this morning as to the discussion of matters which are sub judice or are likely to be sub judice in the near future I wish to refer to a precedent which occurred during the 1931-’32 Session (V. & P. pp. 553 and 558). On that occasion a member wished to move the adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the ill-treatment of certain persons on Dassen Island which in at least one instance had resulted in death. Mr. Speaker, having ascertained from the Minister of Justice that a Commission of Enquiry had been sent to Dassen Island for the purpose if they found it necessary of opening a preparatory examination which might result in one or more persons being charged with murder, said that “under these circumstances although the matter could not be held to be sub judice the motion should be postponed” and added that “if no charge was laid or arrest made the motion would be allowed on the following day.” On the following day Mr. Speaker, having ascertained from the Minister of Justice that a number of arrests had been made, stated that “any discussion of the matter dealt with in the motion would be prejudicial and irregular within the meaning of S.O. No. 73.”

As the Minister of Justice has informed the House that two arrests have been made I cannot allow any further discussion on the matter which would be prejudicial to the case.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

I think the House listened with a great deal of regret this morning to the attack made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) on the hon. Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation.

I only hit back.

The attack was wholly unwarranted and unjustified.

Unwarranted.

It was not warranted by any remarks which were made by the hon. Minister.

Well, I never.

The hon. member for Beaufort West is surely the last member in this House who should criticise any member who makes any personal remarks. His record in this House is not one of which he need be proud.

Mention one single case where I made an attack of a purely personal nature, not a political attack.

When he made these very personal references to the hon. Minister, all apparently because the hon. Minister made one frivolous reference to the legal qualifications of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) ….

Frivolous.

It was, somewhat frivolous, because he knew perfectly well that the hon. member was a lawyer and he twitted the hon. member when he said that as a lawyer he knew perfectly well what the procedure was and that he was surprised that the hon. member had made the speech which he did.

He said a lawyer or one who professed to be a lawyer, that is the difference.

He said it in such a manner that the House laughed, but there was certainly no justification for the very vicious and bitter attack which the hon. member for Beaufort West made on the Minister. He went back into the Minister’s record; he made scathing references to his entrance to the Bar, all with a view to turning the House away from the hollowness of the charge which the hon. member for Gordonia had made. And which, on the explanation by the Minister, was found not to be justified. You ruled this morning, Sir, that I cannot refer to that matter, and naturally it precludes one from dealing as fully as one would like to do with the charge that was made. But I may say this, that since the beginning of this year—and I think hon. members on that side of the House should know that demobilisation committees were appointed throughout the country—one of the tasks that was entrusted to those demobilisation committees was to see that the allowances were properly spread, that the soldiers were not rooked and to protect them in every possible way against unscrupulous persons. That has been the position since the beginning of the war, and I venture to say that the steps now taken will give the soldiers the protection that everyone in this House wants. Let me say at once that there is no question at all of anybody on this side of the House or anyone in commerce or industry wishing to hide or to shield anyone who does something wrong or breaks the law or commits any offences. Far from it. Commerce and industry will welcome any steps that are taken to protect the soldiers and to protect the public. The hon. member in speaking this morning said that he could claim that never in this House had he made any attacks on individuals.

Of a personal nature like that.

Or that he never attacked a person. Well, I would ask the hon. member how he thinks he gets his reputation of being the professional Jew-baiter of South Africa, and that he is fast becoming the junior Streicher of South Africa. He is known throughout South Africa as the professional Jew-baiter.

We are talking about personal attacks. You are going to prove that I made personal attacks, on anyone in this House. Stick to your point.

The hon. member says that he has made no personal attacks on anyone in the House. Well, I say that when he suggested in this House that the Jewish people are rogues and thieves—all of them—and he quoted this case of the offences that had been committed in South Africa, and when he said that they were all committed by one section, namely the Jewish section, what is that but a personal attack on the Jews?

Did he mention any names; was he personal?

I said the great majority. Take the convictions for profiteering and for black marketing. I challenge you now; we can go through the newspapers of the last two or three years. Do you accept that challenge?

To be perfectly fair, if any member on this side of the House got up and said that a large number of Afrikaans-speaking people were guilty of malpractices what would everyone on that side of the House say?

It would not be true.

Whether it is true or not, those hon. members would take strong exception to it. And they would regard it as a personal reflection on everyone of them. When you make remarks reflecting on a race, it is a personal reflection on every member in that race. Every member of that race, and they have the right to feel hurt. Let us admit that there have been many undesirable practices in the last year or two. We know perfectly well there have been. A section has come into the country during the last year or two that is wholly undesirable.

So you admit it?

It is well known, but that does not mean to say that they belong to the race the hon. member attacked this morning. I say that the hon. member himself is one of the last people in this House who can make any remarks in regard to any member of this House. The hon. member himself made an attack on the Prime Minister the other day. He made sneering references to his record and how he was looked upon overseas, attacks that were brutally resented by this side. The hon. member for Gordonia also made an attack yesterday; he made an attack in this House on the members of the University Council because, he said, there was a clique.

We shall deal with that later.

He said there was a clique who keep certain members off and that they, the Afrikaans-speaking people, were kept out. I want to ask those hon. members who are so keen to defend the rights of the people, why no voices were raised at the time when they broke faith in connection with the Pretoria University. I remember the time when the Pretoria University was on a fifty-fifty basis, and when they asked the citizens in Pretoria to subscribe £50,000 of £100,000 to put them on a firm basis, on the pledge that that University would remain on a fifty-fifty basis. I was on the town council at the time and other English-speaking members. We persuaded the town council to prescribe the sum of £25,000 to the University to keep it on a fifty-fifty basis. We realised the need and we did our best. We got it through in the face of great opposition. What happened? That £25,000 was spread over a period of five years, and before the fifth year had expired, a clique in the Pretoria University got control of the council and turned it into a 100 per cent. Afrikaans University, and was a word of protest raised? No, not at all. It was hailed with glee by all those hon. members. There was joy that the English-speaking people had been beaten, and that at last they had their own Afrikaans University. I can tell hon. members that at that time there was very great feeling as to whether the Pretoria Town Council should continue to pay that amount of £25,000 which they had pledged themselves to do.

What do you call the Witwatersrand University?

I am dealing with the Pretoria University.

You cannot have your cake and eat it.

In that case, when the test came, it was put up to the Pretoria Town Council and they said: “No, although the other side had broken faith, they would pay the whole sum.” The hon. member talks about the Witwatersrand University. I am not complaining a bit. If the Pretoria University had been 100 per cent. Afrikaans from the beginning, there would have been no complaint. But my complaint is that they got this money on the promise of keeping it on a fifty-fifty basis, and then broke faith after having got the sum of £25,000 from the town council. Now the hon. member for Gordonia holds up his hands in horror at what he calls the clique in the Cape Town University. I want to ask hon. members before they start criticising the English-speaking people in South Africa to look into their hearts to see how they treated the English-speaking people in other parts of the country. We are willing to keep faith. When the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was on this side of the House—I merely mention it to show how times have changed—when we were in Fusion, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad wanted to appoint a Commission of Co-operation. He asked me if I would go on that commission. I pointed out to him my own limitations in the question of language. The hon. member said to me: “No, we feel that we want businessmen on the commission who can deal with this thing, who can help us through”; and I gladly accepted his invitation. I say that the spirit that the hon. member revealed in all these years of Fusion, helped to bring about co-operation in this country. To my regret I differed from the hon. member on other occasions. But I say that because we differ on matters that go very deep into the hearts of all of us, there is no justification for these bitter personal attacks that are made on us and on the Jewish people. I venture to say that many of us have given good services to this country. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Wolmaransstad may laugh. I will challenge the hon. member to show that he has rendered better services than the majority of the English-speaking people on this side of the House. Whatever bitterness the hon. member may have, he must remember this, that it is bitterness that causes all the trouble, and I say—with few exceptions—one does not find bitterness in the hearts of the English-speaking people in the country. We do not find bitterness that we find time and again when members like the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and other members over there make these bitter attacks on different sections. One day it is the Jewish members and another day it is the English-speaking members, and another day it is the Afrikaans-speaking members who sit behind us on these benches. One despairs for the future of this country, but one has faith that in the leadership we have had from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in the last six years, a leadership which has inspired the people of this country and which has made the name of South Africa stand high in the council world, there is hope. When we remember that, we feel that there is after all hope for the future of this country, and we English-speaking people and the other section on this side will do our best to see that our Prime Minister is not let down; we will do our best to see that South Africa is not let down, and we will do our best to kill this propaganda that is put across by that side.

Yesterday I listened with amazement to the speech of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). We are fortunate at present in that we still have two Boer War generals in the highest assembly of the country. They are the only two who have survived of those who took part in the struggle, and because of that, we shall cherish the hope that with the help of their spirit and goodwill, we shall be able to develop into a great nation. But when we listen to a speech, such as the one delivered by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, we feel perturbed. He knows that he has my respect as a general of the Boer War, but when he makes a speech and throws mud at his comrade in arms, he must not think that his reputation, despite the respect which we have for him, is thereby enhanced. There were days in this country when we differed from each other, but they do not last for ever. The time will come once more when we will find that we need one another, as was the case in 1933, when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad threw in his lot with the Prime Minister for the good and well-being of the country. In those days we again had hope. Good work was done. I contend that the time will come again when we will need one another on both sides; let us go about things in such a manner in this House that we will be justified in demanding co-operation from both sides. I feel sad when I remember the days in 1938 when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Lands on this side, and when the hon. member for Humansdorp attacked him in such a shameful and personal manner. I am going to read it to you, and I would like to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad as a man, who now sits with the hon. member for Humansdorp, whether he feels happy today. Is he today quite oblivious of the fact that from the member with whom he now collaborates, he once received a slap in the face? I read from Hansard of those days—

He goes on, and what I fail to understand is that a man with the sense of responsibilty of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad can forget and not bear in mind that possibly at some future date he may have to co-operate again with this side. Why does he attack the Prime Minister in such an unwarranted manner? I will read further what was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp—

I would like the hon. member to understand that with these attacks of his on the Prime Minister, he is exposing himself to the danger of once more having incidents like this flung back at him. And what else do we find? Mr. Sauer went further—

Exactly. I am not reading this because of the pleasure which it affords me, but I feel that it should be brought home to us how serious a matter it is when over and over again we insult one another over the floor of the House. Mr. Sauer goes on—

Have you ever heard stronger language used in this House? If I were to stand up today and ask a member of this House if his conduct Were above suspicion, what would be the reaction of that member? I could overlook it had it come from another member, but when we hear it from a member like the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who was sometimes for and at other times against the Prime Minister, who did not indulge in big talk and hide behind the Union Jack like the Hon. Leader of the Opposition ….

I did not shoot my own people.

I shall come to that.

What about Jopie Fourie?

The hon. member for Humansdorp went further. I know they are hard words to hear and for that reason hon. members on the other side are becoming fidgety, but yet I am going to read them to you—

These are very hard words and once again I want to ask the hon. member whether he feels at ease working together with a colleague who has abused him so. Tomorrow, perhaps the day after, the country will call upon us all, on whichever side we may be, to help the country out of the mire.

And why are we in the mire?

Will he not feel uneasy working together with a man whom only yesterday he so belittled? He will retain my respect as a Boer general as long as he lives. He was the hero of Moedwil in my district. I shall honour him for that. But when he uses such language, his reputation must suffer in the eyes of other people who do not know him so well.

Why then are you insulting him? You are trying to insult him in every possible way.

I have not used one word of affront. I only uttered a warning. And now I want to deal with another matter. Last week and again yesterday we listened to speeches from the Hon. Leader of the Opposition which I do not intend to deal with at great length. But I want to point out that the trend of both speeches was that after 5 years of being in the wrong, they endeavoured to justify their position. The Leader of the Opposition was trying to cover his retreat. He accused the Prime Minister of treating his speech with contempt, and that the Prime Minister adopted an abusive tone towards him. There may be something in the first part of the accusation. But as far as abusive language is concerned, nobody in this House has forgotten the way in which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has, during the years gone by, abused the Prime Minister. It is all recorded in Hansard.

Let us hear some of it.

We remember how he pointed his finger at the Prime Minister as he would have done at a messenger and said: “There sits Rhodes redivivus.” Later on he said: “There sits the Red Chaka”. Yes, hon. members can laugh about it, but we will not forget it. Yesterday the Hon. Leader of the Opposition said that if Germany had won the war, the Prime Minister would have been the Quisling of South Africa. He forgets that in reality he himself has filled that rôle for the last five years. It is only a man whose conscience troubles him who could use such language and make such a speech. He also accused the Prime Minister of inconstancy. I want to remind the Hon. Leader of the Opposition of his inconstancy during the last five years, for no one is more guilty of inconstancy than he himself. In September, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland, when he placed Europe and all the world before an accomplished fact that he had made a start with a prepared plan for world domination, this Sovereign Parliament also considered South Africa’s position in relation to that plan. In their wisdom the Opposition decided to vote for a policy of neutrality. I for my part can find no fault with that, but they did not remain constant. They have the right to their own opinion just as we have. But what happened? In 1940 when Germany invaded and overwhelmed Norway, Denmark, Holland and Belguim, all of which were neutral countries, then they shrugged their shoulders and said that in order to get to England, the Germans had to go through Holland. There they showed all sympathy with the declared enemy of the country and thus deviated from their professed attitude of neutrality.

Who said so?

That was the first step. In 1940 when France fell and the British troops were trapped against the sea in an impossible position, they spoke disparagingly of the English who left Dunkirk as rats would leave a sinking ship, and they were rejoicing.

Did they not “Dunkirk”?

That is not the point. The point is that instead of remaining neutral, they ranged themselves on the side of the declared enemy of the country. That was the beginning of their treachery. They went further. In 1941 as a result of their speeches in this House and outside, they so incited public opinion amongst their own supporters that we found ourselves confronted with mass treachery. Who does not remember the days when the Minister of Justice lost 300 of his men in one morning? That was the result of speeches made here. We cannot forget how the Hon. Leader of the Opposition stood up and pointed his finger at the Prime Minister and said: “If you touch the Ossewabrandwag, you are touching me.” “A big man talking like that!”, his followers in the rural areas said, and then in their hundreds they joined the corps of wire cutters, bomb throwers and people who blew up railway lines. That was the result of the speeches and no one was more responsible therefor than the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Today it does not help the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to stand up here and pretend that he has nothing to do with the followers of Dr. Van Rensburg and Adv. Pirow. They are birds of one feather. They undermined the war effort day and night. They were in league with the enemy.

Did I not issue a warning at Paarl against the Ossewabrandwag?

It came too late. Only after he had pointed his finger at the Prime Minister and told him that if he touched the Ossewabrandwag he touched the Opposition, did he go to Paarl. That is the point I wish to emphasise. But in 1942, the Opposition attained the peak of its antagonistic attitude; when disaster overtook us at Tobruk, where our troops were trapped, they celebrated the event with drinking bouts.

Where?

The people will not forget it.

Where did this happen?

The nation will not forget it, and the soldiers will also not forget it, and you know all about it.

Where did they take place?

I have endeavoured here to represent the Opposition in their true perspective. These are facts. Today they come and complain that meat is being exported. There were times when huge convoys called in here and when they sold their meat at top prices. They became rich while their compatriots were engaged in a deadly struggle. Today they are complaining that they cannot get enough meat.

Your country does not mean much to you.

Today they appear as the champions of the soldiers, but the soldiers will not forget that they celebrated and held drinking parties to celebrate their defeat at Tobruk, of which I know personally.

That is a lie.

Where did it happen?

The soldiers will not forget it. Today the Hon. Leader of the Opposition stands up and tries to scare the country with the bogey of Communism, and he says that the Russians are barbarians. We remember the days when the Russians and the Germans were allies. Then we did not hear these jeremiads from the Leader of the Opposition. Then everything in the garden was rosy. Everything was right. Today we hear that the Russian ideology is a danger to Western civilisation because, in his view, Germany in the past was the bulwark between the two, but is now faced with destruction. In the days of 1939 when Poland was the actual bulwark between the two and when Poland was attacked and invaded by Germany, everything was in order; they were satisfied. There you see the Opposition in its true political nakedness which they cannot hide. We will remember these things. We will not let the nation forget them. We will impress it upon the people. We will make known the attitude of the Opposition till their ears ring. We will advertise it from Mossel Bay to Messina and from Ookiep to Ohrigstad.

We have just listened to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) who seeks to make the country believe that they on that side of the House have really got something constructive with which they can protect South Africa in the future and which will save South Africa. And what have we heard from the hon. member? We have heard a spate of imputations that we on this side of the House are the defenders and the champions of the Ossewabrandwag. We all know that at one stage most of the members on this side of the House, most members of the Party, were members of the Ossewabrandwag.

That is a welcome admission.

It is not an admission. It was never a secret. But when the Leader of the Opposition saw the danger he uttered a warning at Paarl against the Ossewabrandwag, and what did we then get from the Government side? Then they were the protectors of the Ossewabrandwag. Then we on this side of the House were wrong. We know how that side of the House, not only the members but also Ministers, were linked up with the defence of the Ossewabrandwag. We know very well how hon. members opposite and even members of the Government were in close contact with the Ossewabrandwag and how they preached that the Ossewabrandwag and other groups which were operating in the interests of certain people, were being done an injustice to in South Africa. They were the defenders, and among the defenders there were even Ministers. But we have reached that stage in South Africa when we really ought to be ashamed to continue dragging up matters of the past in Parliament, and to keep on fighting over matters that have been finished with, over differences that had existed between the Parties in the country. Notwithstanding what has fallen from the hon. member that we in this connection are carrying on against Russia I do not need to tell the House that there is not a single decent person in South Africa who while professing in his talk to be a supporter of the Government is not perturbed in his thoughts over the future of South Africa. The hon. member who has just sat down if he reflected for ten minutes which I doubt whether he has ever done, will be deeply worried in his heart over the future of South Africa. Why? On account of the turn that the world war has taken, and for no other reason. He will be worried over the turn that the war has taken.

You are worried.

I am, and I am not ashamed to say so; I am very anxious about my country, my fatherland. Hon. members opposite protest with their tongues that they are not uneasy. I have not yet spoken privately to one membet of the Government Party who is not deeply concerned over the future of our land under the present circumstances.

Not for the same reasons that you are worried.

For the same reasons. They are perturbed over the future of South Africa because they know that Bolshevism which Mr. Churchill described as a barbaric expression of human feeling is today gaining the ascendancy. They are worried because President Roosevelt and other leaders in the world, have expressed themselves previously against the methods and the course that the communistic dictatorship is following in the world. On the other side of the House they have professed to be fighting against a dictatorship. That is intelligible. We on this side of the House distrust any dictatorship, very certainly for South Afrca. We on this side of the House have always expressed ourselves against any dictatorship in South Africa.

In the Party you accepted it.

We have always raised our voices against a dictatorship. What do we find today? Not in their hearts but with their tongues they speak in defence of this dictatorship which is of the most dangerous character for South Africa. We allow a dictatorship in Europe. I can imagine a communistic dictator in Europe, something which would not affect us. We want to be free of the British Commonwealth of Nations. I can imagine a dictatorship in England who would be absolutely acceptable to England, a communist dictatorship. But I cannot imagine a communistic dictatorship in South Africa which would be acceptable to the white population and a great proportion of the coloured population, as well as to a large section of the native population of South Africa. I know that hon. members opposite are in agreement with me that a communistic dictatorship would be a danger to South Africa,—a dictatorship under which a few people decide who is to be shot dead and who not. We on this side of the House do not want any Nazi dictator in South Africa. We assert that that means the authority of a small group of men, and pre-eminently of one man, and Consequently we are opposed to that. Hon. members opposite have also said that. But today we hear hardly a single word from the other side to say that they are against the dictatorship in our country of a small group of men who would have to decide what should happen in our country. In the whole of my career, and even before my public career, I have always fought for the according of the privileges of society to every section of the population in South Africa, that we should give the fullest opportunity to every section of the community, in accordance with their abilities and intellectual attainments, to participate in the Government of South Africa. In that respect the white population of South Africa has always been a dictator. In that connection we have always exercised a dictatorial authority in South Africa, the dictatorship of the European population, and a part of the coloured population over the native people. We have not deviated from that attitude, and hon. members opposite have also not honestly moved from that standpoint. Here in South Africa we cannot extend the franchise to every individual in the country because that would mean that the eight million natives would decide who should be elected to Parliament. No, the utterances that we have heard from the opposite benches, such as those from the hon. member for Rustenburg, and even the statements we have had from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister have only been designed to distract attention from the real menace. They all repeat the same sort of thing. They talk about the Ossewabrandwag and that sort of thing. The future of our people and our future is too serious a matter for us to behave in that way. The position is that South Africa is confronted with the possibility of a bloody revolution the result of which would be that South Africa will only be able with difficulty to carry on its existence against the threatening forces.

Is that an honest proposition?

Yes. What I am agitated about is this, that we in this House and in the country are always discussing things that happened in the past, and we resort to personalties when there is one imminent and menacing problem over which this House and the whole country should be uneasy, and that every section of the community and of this House should ask: What can I do to safeguard the future of civilisation in South Africa? I do not want to maintain that a native administration in South Africa (though that may never come about) would necessarily be exactly a savage one like a communistic revolution. Our forefathers provided them with a measure of civilisation. I do not assert that if they got the power into their hands that it would necessarily be exercised with complete savagery and barbarism. But under the guidance of Communism and the example we have had of it in the past 25 years we know that the barbarism of the native will be far surpassed by their teachers who will tell them what they should do. It will not be the barbarism of the native that will be the great danger, but what their masters tell them—that there are eight million natives as against two million Europeans, and that there is a group of white people who stand for Communism and the rest can be easily liquidated in South Africa. We must ask ourselves what steps we can take in South Africa to protect South Africa against that eventuality and we should not hurl reproaches at each other’s heads here, and drag up all sorts of little points about what occurred in the past, or regarding what this man or that said at some time. I say that it is high time we asked ourselves where the fault lies, and what we ought to give to South Africa that would be stronger than the dictatorship that threatens South Africa. There is only one thing that we can give to South Africa, and that is a feeling of security for every individual in the country, not only to the European population, or to the coloured community, or to the native people, but to the whole of the population; we can give the assurance to South Africa that the State and the Government of the country, whatever Government it might be, will accord the opportunity to every individual to develop a feeling of security. It comes down to this that we should do everything in our power to provide work for all. Many members simply do not understand what future awaits South Africa if we do not now exert ourselves to the utmost, and unless we are prepared to make the greatest sacrifices in the first place to provide employment for all, and coupled with that employment to provide supportable conditions. Is it possible for South Africa to give that to its people; what are the elements and the powers that are opposing that? If anyone can tell me that Communism or Bolshevism or any other “ism” can give that to South Africa, without the murder and revolution which precedes it, and without the famine and distress that must endure for years and generations before that is obtained, then I understand something else as Communism and Bolshevism. But anyone who knows what are the influences at work in the world and what the forces are that are sheltering behind that dictatorship, will not argue for a moment that those dictatorships can give South Africa anything like that in a better way than we can do it under a democratic system.

What about your army of 100,000 men?

I shall give my attention in a moment to the Minister of Lands, and I shall deal with the little that is left of him, and that is very little. If we accept the doctrine that every person is entitled to employment we can do this. But if we do not do this we cannot expect that the people will have sufficient confidence in us and in the present system as to suffer democracy any longer. One of the meanest and most malicious of the newspapers has stated that I stated on one occasion that democracy was dead. It is one of those papers to which the Hon. Leader of the Opposition referred when he told us the story of Wilhelmus. They know what lies are diffused through their leading articles. We do not take the trouble to contradict them. We despise them too much, and we are only sorry for that section of the population who read only those newspapers. I have stated that democracy is dead if we have regard to the emergency regulations and the conduct of the Government in power. The Government are occupied with the war, and I do not want to make any trouble about that now. I merely say that the time has arrived when we as a House must stand together and work out how we are going to save South Africa in the future against the threatened revolution.

I say that we can do that. The question of whether we are going to remain in the British Empire, and what our relationship to the British Empire will be, has in my opinion been eliminated. That will not fill any rôle in South Africa, and it cannot fill any rôle here. There are greater and stronger forces. Let us work out how we can save South Africa on its own. Let me put the matter in this way. If a revolution occurs through communistic elements who create disturbances in South Africa, and the Government of the day, including the Minister of Lands, should feel that they have to suppress the revolution would they get any support from England? No. In England the whole Liberal, Labour-Socialist and communistic Press would direct propaganda against us because we were suppressing the disturbances. We should have a repetition of the attitude towards Greece when the Greeks tried to create order there. Heaven knows how grievously we have suffered under the British Empire, but the British Empire would not help us in such a case. In all Europe there would be no State that would offer us assistance. But without a war and without fighting we can avert that danger from South Africa if we all stand together as one man to save South Africa. But then we should give certain things to the whole population though it is always said by the other side that democracy cannot give the people anything. Seven years ago I said something here in a debate, and the Prime Minister later talked to me about it. What I said was: Let us ascertain what the totalitarian states are doing, and let us investigate whether democracy also cannot do those things that they are doing for their people and that is good for their people, and let us avoid those other dreadful things, the murder and the other ugly things that we do not like in that system. We can rectify matters now. If we are willing to make the sacrifices we can do so now. We must see to it that a state of capitalism is not allowed to continue whereunder ten per cent. wealthy people in the country have all the security and the rest no security at all. We shall have to enlist those people who have more than enough security together with all their money to protect South Africa against the dangers ahead. I have touched on a few points which perhaps have been somewhat unpleasant to certain hon. members, but let us leave those matters there and come together to see how we can fashion a new South Africa. Tomorrow I shall say something further in connection with social security in our country. What I say here now is this. There are things which we do not realise, and it is that we cannot wait until the war is over with urgent matters. If we want to take action now is the time. It may sound dreadful to say so but we may reach the stage when the man who earns £1,000 will be prepared to surrender £500, and the man who earns £3,000 to give £2,000. It may also sound terrible that the man who earns £25,000 should have to give up £22 000. But that is what may well happen. When a patient is at death’s door, and his family connections are standing around him, they are prepared to give up riot only their possessions but even more if they can save him. We in South Africa possess a great deal. We must be prepared to surrender what we have over and above what is necessary for our security, and then we shall be able to safeguard South Africa in the future. My feeling then is this, that we should now desist from looking back at the past in order to exploit this or that. We should ask what we are going to do in order to save South Africa. The Minister of Lands made an interjection a moment ago. The whole policy of the Government shows that they are concerned over a certain section of the people and that they want to give that section everything. They profess that they have to do everything for that section. I say again that the returned soldiers are the last to be worried exclusively about themselves. The returned soldiers are concerned about the whole population of South Africa. Those people are part and parcel of South Africa. Are they going to be satisfied with the Minister of Lands taking away thousands of people from their farms? No they will not. I Say that we have only a short time. It is now twelve o’clock. We have still just a little time to decide whether we shall give to South Africa what the dictatorship professes it can give them. In passing I want to say that I do not believe that a dictatorshin can give all these things to the people. I firmly believe that democracy can give all those things and more better than a dictatorshin: that democracy can furnish greater services, and that without that unchristian like and devilish and murderous administration and hard conduct towards a section of the people. Accordingly I think it is time for us in the history of South Africa as Europeans to brush aside all our differences of the past and to stand together to see what we can do to save South Africa.

During this debate we have heard many interesting and instructive speeches on international affairs. Some have been instructive and some have been rather poor. We have had speeches on South African affairs. I feel in that regard the debate sank this morning to a very low level, and it is my intention to add a little jam, and thus sweeten the debate. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands are here, but I am sorry that the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation is not present, as it was mv desire to speak, to the Big Three on the question of home-ownership, particularly as regards home-ownership for ex-servicemen.

We are fully aware of the shortage of houses in the Union, and we are well aware as to why there is a shortage—owing to the lack of material and the poor supply in the labour market of the necessary artisans. I would like to congratulate the Government on what it has done during the five war years, particularly in so far as sub-economic houses are concerned. The hon. the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation informed this House that since 1930 to date 24,615 houses have been built; of that number 8,553 were built during the nine pre-war years, whereas 16,092 were built during the five war years. That does show to this House that the Government have been giving close consideration to the housing question in spite of the fact that their attention has been engaged on our war effort. I was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) state when encouraging the Government to build houses, that the trade union organisation connected with the building trade were of the opinion it was a physical impossibility for the requisite number of houses as planned by the Government to be built owing to the shortage of building material and artisans, and that it was stated by that organisation that even if the number of artisans were doubled and all those artisans who were in the army were employed in building houses, we could not build the number of houses the Government were planning. To me this statement seems rather absurd, and it would appear that the hon. member thought we should aim at a lesser number. However, finally he got over all the difficulties connected with the lack of material and artisans by saying that if the Government made capital available at 2½ per cent, the question of material would be no obstacle whatsoever. As I have stated, I want to speak on home-ownership, particularly in so far as ex-servicemen or soldiers serving at the present time are concerned. I think that hon. members will agree with me that it is essential we should encourage home-ownership. This results in thrift, pride and that spirit of independence which is so good for us all, and which goes to make good citizens of us. One of the great obstacles, however, is the cost of land. We have in this country controlled buildings and materials and taxation has been levied in respect of property sales, but up to date we have not controlled land speculation. Land values in and around our cities have gone up by leaps and bounds and speculators have made huge fortunes during the last five or six years. To illustrate this I need only quote two cases. Mr. X. bought an estate near this city for £2.500. The council cut a road through it, and he started selling plots for £100 a plot, gradually increasing the price as buildings went up until he sold the last plot at £825. I would remind the House that the land cost him £2.500 and he received for it about £30,000, and that figure in a short time. In the second case, Y. secured a large estate not many years ago, and since then he has made a profit of over 300 per cent. on the money he invested. If a soldier is desirous of building a home, he does not only have to consider the cost of building, which in itself has gone up considerably, but the cost of the land—and this is the obstacle. How many men, even with the assistance of a Building Society, will be able to build their own houses after the war? I wish to put the following suggestion before the Government for their consideration. I feel that the time has arrived for the State to purchase land in and around urban areas, and that this land should then be divided up into plots, developed as regards roads etc. and then leased to the ex-soldier who desires to build his own home. I suggested that the rental could be based on a minimum of £2 per cent. per annum on the value of the land, plus the cost of development. It may be said that the average soldier would not agree to the land being leased to him. In other words, he would want to buy a house and feel it were his own for ever and aye, but I suggest that the lease should be for a period of 99 years, and I think few soldiers today would worry about what is going to happen in 99 years time. Nor, as a matter of fact, if the soldier is 30 years old today, would his son worry about what is going to happen in 99 years time. Few families reside in one abode all their lives. Further, the best of buildings depreciate, and areas change their character. The property inherited by the grandson would be of great value in years to come for the less fortunate person. If necessary, on the other hand, the lease could be extended. From a business point of view I feel the State would be adequately protected. They would have the ground rent with interest accruing thereon plus the reversionary value to the State on expiry of the lease, which would come to an amazing total and would provide a valuable heritage for a future generation. There is nothing new in a leasehold tenure scheme. In England, Scotland and Wales it is a common habit of the people, and I am given to understand that in Sweden it has met with great success. I feel further that the Government need not be worried about the financial side of affairs, because I am sure that the building societies and insurance companies would welcome such a gilt-edged investment. I will conclude by expressing the hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will set aside a sum of money to provide for the purchase of land for ex-servicemen. It could be extended to the general public, but I am speaking on behalf of the ex-servicemen, and I think that such a scheme would prevent speculation in land; it would enable the serving man to purchase a house, and I think it would provide in the future for the homes that will be necessary for the less privileged classes.

During the last few days we have listened to speeches which have ranged the length and breadth of the world, but I doubt whether these speeches will contribute much to the actual course of the war. But what has particularly drawn my attention has been the bitter speeches and strong remarks directed against certain nationalities in this House. There are on this side of the House English-speaking members and there are people here with Jewish blood and full-blooded Jews, but I want to ask whether there are not people on the other side of the House who have not the same blood in their veins? Is it right, then, to have these coarse remarks made over the floor of the House if these people themselves are not entitled to make them? I believe that no one on earth has had the option of saying what he would be by birth, and if you have been born of a certain nationality nothing in the world can alter it. But what I want to believe is that whatever nationality you may be if you can show that you are an asset to the country and the people you will be a true Afrikaner in South Africa. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) made a very bitter speech. I only want to remind him of 1934, when he came up to Cape Town. I travelled with him myself, and on every platform that he went he owned up as far as the past was concerned. Consequently I was surprised yesterday to hear such bitter language from him, because in 1934 on one platform after the other he confessed as to what he had done in the past and over the fact that he had rebelled, and he said that as far as the future was concerned he now knew who his friends were. I am afraid that he has again landed in a position in which he does not know where he is. I can only describe it as the political desert in which so many of our Afrikaners have already lost their way. It is in the political desert that a great many of our people are today wandering around with the seductive politics that are being preached in this country. There has been talk here of a republic and democracy. When on the 4th September, 1939, it was decided in this House to declare war, it was a democratic Government that declared war and made that decision. If we had been a republic and the majority had decided in favour of war, what would the minority then have done? The same as what they have done in this instance? The Opposition had a duty towards the country, and that was to support the war policy and to see the war through, and then to say after the war; Now we are going to solve those differences over which we have fought all these years. When the majority of the country declare war you cannot, as a minority, thwart that policy. I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is not here, because I want to talk about the meat scheme. I want to say at the outset that I have been charged as being one of the people who fought the meat scheme. That is not true. I want to claim today that I have been, in fact, one of the staunchest supporters of the present meat scheme. I think that I have marketed more stock since the meat scheme came into operation than any other hon. member here; I think I have marketed twice as much stock as any person in this House. Accordingly I think that I am entitled to speak on this matter, and also that I have a right to criticise where, in my opinion things have gone wrong. I am convinced that the Minister of Agriculture is all out to make this scheme a success. That is his intention 100 per cent. But I fear that with the officials he has who have to give him guidance he has not the slightest hope to give a successful run to the scheme.

Shame!

I want to go back to 1940-’41. At that time private contracts were invited for the delivery of meat to the military camps, and I can well remember how the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) was at that time chairman of such a board in Pretoria. I got two sub-contracts. Time and again we met the board in order to show that it was impossible to deliver the standard of meat that was required by the military camps, or rather what the graders demanded for the military camps. We pointed out that there was only 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of that quality meat in the country, and that we were nevertheless obliged to deliver it notwithstanding the fact that we could not get it. It is the same graders, the same officials who at that time graded the private contractors out of their contracts who are now occupied in grading our products out of our markets. That is why we have the conditions that are prevailing today. Meat is available today in big quantities. There is enough for everyone in the country; but it is not prime quality but the medium standard of meat that is available, in consequence of the fact that a large part of the country is suffering from drought. On account of our having the drought a large proportion of the stock are today in only a moderate condition. In previous years before there was control we were used to getting the same price for medium grade meat automatically in times of drought, as we previously got for prime, and I can in fact state that we actually got more for medium meat in time of scarcity than we got for prime in times of plenty. What is the position today? Today the position is that you get very reasonable prices for prime quality animals, which fall in the prime section. But on account of the condition of the veld in South Africa, apart from using fodder, you cannot make more than 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of your stock prime. For that 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. you will get a reasonable price. But what about the 70 per cent. or 75 per cent. which comprise the majority of the supplies in the country and which are today graded in the lower grade at an inferior price. I recently saw the announcement of the increase of the price for lambs. I am thankful to the Minister for that, but that does not save our meat position. If you by force encourage the marketing of lambs you will, in the first place, presently reduce the supplies of meat. You are not going to improve the position, because the lambs will not grow to sheep. That measure will not result in the 75 per cent. moderate stock being brought into the market. I want to say today most emphatically that we have enough meat in the country for everyone, especially after the Minister reduced the quota first to 70 per cent. and then to 65 per cent. There is enough meat for everyone. I may say here incidentally that for the past fourteen days I have not had the privilege in Cape Town of securing a lb. of meat for my own home. It is perhaps a good thing for me to go for a little while without meat, but I do not know how much good it is going to do in homes where food has to be provided for women and children. I can make provision for myself, but I am afraid that the Minister will be held responsible to make provision for meat for families who absolutely need it. I want to turn to the various grades. Last year before the meat scheme was announced I made an appeal to the Minister to provide for a simple grading system with a few grades. The fewer grades you have the more meat you will have. As far as beef is concerned you should only have three grades, prime, medium and compound. As far as mutton is concerned we have only one too many, the super grade which was recently added, and which only serves to assist those who can assist themselves, people who in the past fell into the prime line with their meat. As regards grading, you have the position that for meat that falls within the prime section you get 9d. and 10d. and 9⅜d. at Kimberley—there is a difference in the controlled areas. Then for Grade 1 you get 8⅜d. and then you fall immediately to Grade 2 with 6⅜d., which is hopelessly out of proportion, because what about the meat which falls just outside the first grade? That drops a complete grade and the price fixed for it is so low that it is uneconomic for the farmers to market this product. That is the big point, and that is the reason that today it is not meatless days we have, but meatless weeks. There is an English proverb which says “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” but the proof of the meat scheme is no eating. That is wrong. The Minister must take a note of the fact that he has a number of officials in his Department who will for all eternity not make a success of the scheme, so long as they are there.

Who is responsible, the officials or the Minister?

The Minister must be responsible, and he does accept that position. On that account I feel sorry for him, but I know the officials, and ever since 1940 I have given warning of what will happen, and it has happened 100 per cent. as I have expected. The meat has been graded off the controlled markets; the people are not marketing. In regard to the reduction in the quota for butchers from 70 per cent. to 65 per cent., the Minister should take into consideration the fact that this will have practically no effect on the platteland, because where a small butcher has 1rs quota reduced to 70 per cent. or 65 per cent. and the consumers cannot get their meat at the butcher shop they go to Oom Piet or Oom Paul just outside the village and buy their own meat. Consequently the stock are still being slaughtered and the consumption on the platteland remains 100 per cent. That is why there is an abundance outside while in the controlled areas one has to run from pillar to post to get a bit of meat. It is not right that the people should go without the principal item of diet, namely meat, while there is enough meat, and enough meat would be available provided the marketing of medium cattle and medium sheep was made economical. I was in the Transvaal last week and I was surprised to see the butcher’s meat that you still encounter today. But I want to say that all the best stuff has returned from the auctions to the farms, because you cannot blame a person who has had a lifelong experience in the meat trade, and who can fatten his animals as much as possible, if he takes back his stuff. Nobody knows what the grade is going to be, because the meat is only graded after the animal has been slaughtered and is hanging on the hook. The the grader comes in and the first thing perhaps he says is: “The animal is rather old.” Down comes the grade. Then he has a glance at the shape of the animal. “That is not obsolutely right”, and down comes the grade again. The third thing he looks for is whether the fat is evenly distributed over the carcase of the animal, and down comes the grade. That is why we have no meat. Nothing else. If the Minister is prepared to guarantee a commensurate price, I myself can deliver enough meat for Cape Town. It is there. The people outside have already lost tens of thousands of sheep which could have been consumed. The people are roaming around with hundreds of thousands of sheep, a good proportion of which could be marketed, but it is not being marketed because it isn’t prime, and because it does not pay the people to market medium sheep at the ruling prices. They prefer to take the chance of rain falling sooner or later, and of then being able to build it into prime. But generally, you only get 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. prime even if it does rain. That is the cause of the difficulties.

Must everything be prime?

I stated last year that what is necessary is to bring the grades closer to each other, to reduce the margin in the price, so that the people who have medium animals are encouraged to market them. You must offer them a reasonable price.

That will mean that the meat will be dearer for the consumers.

Indirectly, but now the consumer is not getting any. That is just the difficulty. My argument is that if I must choose between prime and medium then I would choose medium, because the meat is better and healthier for the system. I would rather pay 1s. 3d. for medium than for prime. That is my argument. The consumer would rather have medium, he is not so anxious to have very fat meat. When he gets medium he gets the same quantity or really more, because he gets a larger piece for his money. I have had my own butcher shop, and I was my own blockman for two years. The fatter an animal is the smaller the piece you cut off to make up weight. When you buy medium meat you get a nice piece of meat, and the consumers will give it preference. They do not want meat from which a great quantity of fat is lost in cooking, because then you have only half of the meat left over. There is another point, and that is the discrimination that there is against Persian sheep and fat-tail sheep in connection with the grading system. The farmers who are farming with Persian and fat-tail sheep have been building up the sheep for generations and hundreds or thousands of farmers can point with pride to their flocks of Persian or fat-tail sheep. What is happening now under the grading system? Because the fat is not evenly spread over the animal it falls into a lower grade. You cannot alter its shape now, you cannot transfer its fat from one part to another of its body, with the result that the Persian and fat-tail sheep are given a low grade.

More than half is fat.

The Minister has received wrong information. It must be information in connection with hand-fed sheep. It is only with hand-fed sheep that you get Persian sheep so fat that they are about 50 per cent. fat. But you do not get them that way from the veld. It may occur by way of exception, perhaps three or four per cent., and in addition the meat of a Persian sheep is very tasty. The consumer who comes to a butcher shop will always choose the Persian mutton. Consequently I feel that the grading under our existing system is the cause of the shortage of meat. If we correct the grading and set to work in a practical way, as it should be done, no one in our country will need to go to sleep without him having had a piece of meat to eat during the day. In regard to the lambs, if you are going to give excessive encouragement to the marketing of lambs, you will later have fewer full-grown sheep, and the consequence will be that by proceeding along those lines you will be reducing the production of meat.

A farmer will of course not slaughter the ewe lamb.

The Persian sheep farmer gets three lambs in two years, and when his veld is full of sheep he does not only market the hamel lambs but he will market them as they come, because he has enough sheep on his farm. I may say in regard to the merino farmer that he usually has also a small flock of Persian sheep because you can market these sheep at any time. You will find, if you go into the position, that Persian sheep are slaughtered up to 90 per cent. outside the controlled areas, because in the controlled areas the meat is graded lower. On the whole, the Persian lamb is light in weight and if you cannot fix a reasonable price for it, it is absolutely uneconomical to market it. A second result of encouraging the marketing of lambs is that the merino farmers will be encouraged to place Afrikaner rams amongst their sheep to breed lambs. What is then going to happen to our wool production? As soon as you cross merino sheep, whether with Persians or Afrikaner sheep, you are making a mess of your sheep farming. I want the Minister to take notice of this, because the danger exists that people who have built up their flocks will now begin farming with bastard sheep, and they are going to bastardise the entire flocks that have taken generations to build up.

Should we withdraw the increase that has been given in respect of lambs?

Yes, provided the Minister is prepared to push up the lower grades that can feed the whole country, up to the point where they ought to be. Then I personally feel that the Minister can quite well withdraw the increase for lambs, because then he will attract to the market the 75 per cent. of the stock which are at present being withheld from the market. The consumer will also be very glad when that day arrives. I take my own position. In Cape Town I cannot get a piece of meat. My wife will not go and stand in a queue to get a piece of meat. We are not used to that sort of thing. Must we then expect that another man’s wife should stand in a queue? A system should be evolved that is more practical than the present one. Now the rationing of meat is being spoken of. The department is busy trying to apply a rationing scheme. How will rationing help if there is no meat? Things will then perhaps go as they did at that time with the Nationalist Party and the gold standard. They got a subsidy on wool, but the price was so low that the subsidy was nothing. I hope that the Minister will give attention to these few observations. It is in the interests of the producer throughout the Union and in the interests of the consumers of meat throughout the country, that this matter should be tackled and rectified without further delay. I have a few letters here which are rather interesting. One comes from the chairman of a large meat corporation up at Kenhardt. A few months ago they were 100 per cent. satisfied with the application of the meat scheme. Now he writes that the responsibility is too great and that I must press for a considerable increase so that the farmers can send the medium stock to market before the animals die or they have to trek round with them; and also that they can provide for the consumers. I have another letter here from a prominent farmer. He has 1,000 cross-bred hamels to market but he reckons that only 250 of them will be placed in the higher grade and that the remaining 750 will be classified in the lower grade. He says that it will not pay to pick out the 250 for marketing, because he will still have the 750 He is just waiting now and taking a chance that rain will fall so that he then perhaps will be able to get a larger number in the higher grade and rather shear them another couple of times. These are all factors that obstruct the despatch of slaughter stock to the controlled markets. There are, of course, other factors. There are thousands of prisoners-of-war in the country who at present are enabled to consume a certain quantity of meat, in conformity with international requirements. All that must be taken into consideration. But with the reduction of the quota, which to my mind will only have some slight effect in the controlled areas, I believe that all the factors can be eliminated by the reduced quota, and that the despatch of the necessary stock can be assured if the Minister reviews the position and applies a practical standard, in the interests of the producer as well as the consumer.

I want to be brief and practical. I would like to begin with a word of appreciation. During the Parliamentary recess I was one of the members in this House who worried the hon. Minister of Agriculture a good deal. As chairman of an important food committee in Durban I piled our Durban troubles one on top of the other upon the Minister for his consideration. I want now to say to this House how much his personal attention, his courtesy and, if I may use the word, his courage, impressed that committee, and I am sure, the people of Durban. The Minister undoubtedly is carrying far too heavy a burden for any man. I trust that he himself will be prepared to take the initiative in recommending that he will soon have another colleague as Minister of Food in this country. It is on that aspect I wish to speak briefly this afternoon. In 1943 President Roosevelt convened a world conference on food which was attended by representatives of 46 nations—that is of about 80 per cent. of the world’s population. That conference came to certain conclusions. I want to refer to three of them in particular as they are pertinent to this discussion. First, in every country numbers of the people have inadequate food; secondly, in many countries the great majority are in that condition; that, I think, is applicable to South Africa. Thirdly, the primary duty of every country in making preparations for a world food plan is to see that its own nationals are adequately fed. That applies very appropriately to our own country. Sir John Orr, who was one of the representatives at that conference dealt with the general scarcity in the world, of essential food; and, referring to what are two of the best-fed countries in the world said of one country, England, that at least an increase of 70 per cent. in essential foodstuffs is necessary to meet the nutritional requirements of the people; while in the United States, in respect of some foods, a 15 per cent. increase was necessary; and up to 60 per cent. in other essential foods. In our own country it is generally recognised that to feed our population we shall have to call upon our farming community and our industrialists practically to double the quantities of essential foods. In that connection I should like to refer to the case of butter. The present production of butter is approximately 60,000,000 lbs. a year. If we excluded the vast majority of the rural natives, that is to say if we were to provide butter for say 5,000,000 of our 11,000,000 people, and were to provide that butter on the army ration scale of two ounces a day we should require in this country not 60,000,000 lbs. of butter a year, but 150,000,000 lbs., that is, 2½ times the present output. Obviously our dairy farmers could not possibly measure up to that requirement under present conditions. Therefore, the manufacture of margarine becomes, in effect, a great nutritional and social necessity. To meet this challenge of supplying adequate food for the population, we should be planning now in 1945, the food requirements for 1946 and 1947. We are not doing that adequately. The nation was warned in 1944 by a very serious food shortage, almost a food famine. The prospects during the coming year are not much better; therefore, now is the time to set up a powerful central food organisation to meet the emergency that is on the horizon; to meet, if I may say so, the social unrest that is sure to come in any food emergency. To meet such an emergency our present organisations are obviously inadequate. What is our general organisation? We have numerous control boards, which in spite of the fact that they are practically monopolies, controlling supply and price are yet performing a useful function. They have a body of experts. They have accumulated valuable experience. They are important organisations in our national economy. What in my view, however, seems to be lacking in regard to them is some overriding authority to co-ordinate them; some organisation that will have enough power to impose both on the control boards and other organisations concerned with food, compliance to one national plan. Our present food control organisation is not adequate enough, nor is it organised on the right lines to be able to exert that co-ordinated power. I want to refer to the city of which I happen to be one of the representatives. The population is 300,000, 240,000 of whom are living today at or near the bread line; many are submerged very considerably below the bread line. In that city last year the question of food organisation received very serious consideration. The Chamber of Commerce unanimously favoured the setting up of a Food Ministry. The Chamber of Industries did the same thing; the City Council also. I have here today a copy of the plan of food rationing drawn up by the City Council, drawn up on the supposition and in the hope that a food ministry would be established. We have an organisation there, on which the trade unions are represented, drawn from 75 bodies engaged in social welfare, and representative of all races. That body was unanimous in recommending a food ministry to the Government. That is also true of the Government committees. The Nutrition Council, the principal expert body in this country on nutrition, has recommended on those lines. As I have stated in a previous debate, the Social and Economic Planning Council, after a very careful survey of the food needs of our people came to the conclusion that a food ministry would be essential. Now the Durban people are very clear in their minds as to the form this food ministry should take. First, we visualise a special ministry with a secretary for food, with a food department and a national food council. These together would constitute the supreme authority to control all foods, whether those foods are in short supply or not. The method of operation of the ministry would be that it would be charged first with planning our food requirements, then calling upon the Agricultural Department, the agricultural union and the control board to take steps to see that these requirements are met within the capacity of the country. Secondly, it would plan the nutritional requirements, calling on the Health Department and the Nutrition Council for expert advicet in that connection. Thirdly, it would be responsible—and this is an important aspect of the Ministry of Food—for the organisation of distribution. As we have visualised distribution, we would use the existing traders; and while it may be said that these today have not met the distribution requirements of the people satisfactorily, that I think can be said to be largely due to lack of co-ordination. Control is divided. For example, we have a division of Economics and Markets, the price control, and social welfare departments—all dealing with distribution. What we really need is the regional control of distribution throughout the country. That is to say permanent officials of the Department would be working at strategic centres in co-operation with public bodies. Thus the link with Pretoria will be maintained. At the same time contact will be kept with the public. Now the principles and the policy of a Ministry of Food are important. It would be charged right away with preparing a short term and a long term plan for the Union; not sectional planning as we are having it today but planning that will be carried out as a South African food plan. Consequently, it will be responsible for distributing equitably the gluts and shortages of all kinds of food, bringing in for that purpose a system of rationing of the traders; and if necessary a system of rationing per capita. Thirdly, it will be responsible for controlling exports and imports under a system of licensing; and still more important than these three functions would be its function in regulating the price structure, so that the producer and the distributor would get adequate margins as a result of this control. There is a final and very important principle; this was emphasised well this morning by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). We must see that this fundamental principle is carried out. It is this, that for today’s food needs, and as our contribution towards fulfilling the requirements of the world plan. South Africa must come first. I mean by that there should be no export of essential foods unless at least the minimum requirements of all sections of our population are adequately met. The advantages of such a system are obvious. Producers themselves would get security in the operations, in their markets and in their prices. Speculation would be eliminated from the distribution of food, and the consumers’ needs could be met at least at a minimum standard. In Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain similar schemes of organising from the top, using regional organisations throughout the country, are in operation with great benefit to the consumers, and with great benefit also to the producers. Against this ordered background of production and distribution, which I have so hurriedly outlined, we have today inequitable distribution, and an almost complete absence of planning. I want to illustrate that briefly by referring to milk supply and its maldistribution. I want to refer specially to the position of nonEuropeans. The Indians in Durban, for example, are suffering very great hardship because of inequitable distribution of milk. It is well known that poverty and the absence of proper housing force large sections of the population to consume large quantities of condensed milk. The result is that 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of the condensed milk manufactured is consumed by non-Europeans. During the past two years the quantity of condensed milk available has fallen by half; and the reason was referred to a few days ago by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson), who referred to the unreasonable disparity in milk prices. Fresh milk is sold at 1s. 7d. and 1s. 8d. a gallon, and milk for condenseries at 10¾d. (summer) and 13¼d. (winter). This has led, as the hon. member pointed out, to the diversion of large quantities of milk to the fresh milk trade. The extent of that diversion is well illustrated by the Durban figures. The Durban pre-war consumption of fresh milk daily was about 8,000 gallons. At the present moment, as far as I can gather, it has jumped to 14,000 gallons, and much of that 14,000 gallons is being used for luxury consumption, that is for ice-cream and milk shakes. If we express this consumption of milk in terms of tins of condensed milk used per month, the figures would work out something like this. The present fresh milk users in 1939 would have consumed then nine tins of milk a month. Today in 1944 there is available to them double that, 18 tins a month. Condensed milk users, mainly nonEuropeans, would in 1939 have had about three tins of milk. Today that has fallen to two tins a month. Consider that with the measuring rod of the army issue of eight tins per man a month. I give these figures, because they prove, in respect of one commodity (and it would work out similarly in the case of many other essential commodities) the widespread hardship imposed by our inequitable food distribution, on the poor, particularly on the children and the mothers of the poor. It proves also the urgent need for co-ordination in our food planning. Only a ministry of food could possibly bring about in the present conditions in the country satisfactory co-ordination of our distribution of food. I want to appeal this afternoon to the Minister not to attempt to solve this problem of food shortages merely by importation of food. If he continues to do so, as in the case of condensed milk, in regard to which the price has gone up 60 per cent. or more, he will impose additional hardships on the poor. The long-term solution lies in the beginning now of planning under a food ministry. I trust that the Minister himself will feel the urge, an urge derived from the public suffering today on a large scale, to recommend to the Prime Minister’s consideration the establishment of a ministry of food in this country.

Before I address the House, which I intend to do in English today, I want to read a letter which I have just received in connection with the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau—

On the 24th October, 1944, I was sent to hospital for three days for examination, and on the 27th October I was discharged and examined by the bureau, with the result that on the 1st November, 1944, I was warned that I was suffering from tuberculosis and silicosis, and consequently was in the secondary stage. Now when was I in the first stage? Or was I in the primary stage at the time I was warned, and not in the ante-primary stage? I was thus first warned after having been working for 24 years, and 4 years and 6 months after that I was in the last stage, or say 3 years and 3 months after I had ceased work on the mine: This week, 3 months and 20 days after I was placed in the last stage I was compelled to visit the Springkell Sanatorium to be taken in there. My health has gone and I could not bear my suffering any further without assistance.

This is the bureau that I attacked the other day—

So bitter does one become. He continues—

Mr. Speaker, nature is very kind to its children.

That is a new philosophy.

Nature frequently tries to make up for faculties they may lack. It certainly tried in this case to make up for the Minister of Mines’ lack of knowledge of mining and the suffering the miners have to go through, with a vocabulary second to none. He has tried to score debating points over me when I have been trying to put the case of these unfortunate people who are suffering hell. I suggest that the hon. Minister of Mines and his Department should play fair to the miner, and he would not then need to come out with a tirade against the member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). I want to say in reply to the Minister’s tirade against the hon. member for Mayfair, who happens to be myself, that he personally appointed the members of the commision of enquiry in regard to miners’ phthisis, and if they did not come up to his personal expectation, his poor personal judgment was at fault. We saw that from the beginning and protested against the commission’s personnel, but to no avail. The suggestions of the reports, both majority and minority, have been of a far-reaching character according to the Minister, evidently of too far-reaching a character for the Minister’s one-sided Chamber of Mines policy. He had hoped that he would have got a report that would agree with his Own ideas and proposals. His hopes were in vain. His commissioners disappointed him. Now he tells the House that his own proposals are taking shape in the form of a Bill. This House must therefore assume that whatever comes before it, be it good or bad, will be a Stallard Bill. Is it on account of that that the Minister expects a difference of opinion if and when the Bill comes before the House? He evidently knows that no justice for the victims of the dreaded disease is aimed at in his personal Bill, and because of that he expects a difference of opinion in this House and to have a lot of debating on the matter. The hon. Minister claims to have done a lot of good for sufferers of miners’ phthisis, and that they are infinitely better off in the mass than they ever were. But let us examine this pernicious and degrading ex gratia grant scheme of his. First of all, a sufferer or his dependants have to plead pauperism. Then a nosy-parker is sent out to his or her home to see how it is furnished and whether they own a motor car, refrigerator, a floor polisher, a vacuum cleaner or a wireless set. If they have any of these articles, no grant is made until they have sold out. The sufferer and/or his dependants must first sink to the lowest level of poverty before they can obtain this damnable and pernicious ex gratia grant. And then the Minister claims that the victims are better off than they were some years ago. The Minister claims that his very alert officers discovered that drill sharpeners contracted silicosis on their job, after the unfortunate men have been dying of the disease for Quite a generation. Is that alertness or competency? I do not think it is. The very moment they made that momentous discovery the Chamber of Mines on representation by the Minister agreed that the drill sharpeners were entitled to compensation. Would these kind hearted gentlemen have agreed if their industry was not the direct cause of the injury to the men’s lungs? No, Sir, never. The Minister warns me that nothing that may be said in this House will increase his department’s snail’s pace in introducing this Phthisis Bill. Allow me also to warn the Minister that no matter how much scorn and abuse his very brilliant debating abilities can ever hope to heap on the member for Mayfair, myself, will ever deter me from fighting for the rights of the miners of South Africa of make me deviate from the object I have in view, and that is to see that the widows and orphans created by the mining industry get justice. According to the Minister the gentlemanly gentlemen at the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau can make no mistakes. Let us examine the true position, and may I be allowed to read an affidavit to prove their incompetence in spite of all the scientific instruments at their disposal. This happened, not under the Minister’s predecessor but in July 1941—

I hope the Minister will be satisfied with this proof that there is incompetence in the Medical Bureau, and that there is incompetence in spite of all the scientific instruments at their disposal. Why should I be ashamed of calling them incompetent when I have proved that they are. What did the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Van Onselen) say about the same matter? He agrees with me. The hon. member for West Rand (Mr. Bodenstein) agrees with me. Yet, the Minister devoted a full half an hour to trounce the hon. member for Mayfair, and never replied to any of the other members. I think he still owes them a reply. But he evidently so thoroughly enjoyed his performance on me that he can clean forgot to reply to any other points raised in the debate concerning gold mining matters. I must come back to the Medical Bureau, I have proved that they make mistakes, but I do not want to burden the House with all the evidence I have here. I now want to prove the unsympathetic attitude adopted by that institution towards the silicotic victim and his dependants, which also goes for the Appeal Board which I and most miners consider part and parcel of the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau. I have numerous documents here. I have quoted four cases of unsympathetic treatment. In his reply to a question put by me, the Minister furnished me with another 137 cases over the last five years, where silicotics were certified as having died of causes other than silicosis, or to whch silicosis was not a contributing factor, incidentally saving the mine owners between £60,000 and £120,000 in compensation. I am only sorry that the Minister does not understand what is written in this letter. I shall hand it over to him and he can have it translated for his information if he so desires. There were four cases a week ago, now 137 more cases, plus this one. Does the Minister require any further proof of unsympathetic treatment? Does he want me to bring a volume of evidence from the Reef? I shall do so if he insists. In reply to a question of mine the Minister said that the bureau knows of no cases where the relative or a person acting on behalf of the relative had given his consent to the removal of the lungs only. I want to read a letter to this House to prove that not only the Medical Bureau or the Appeal Board, but the Minister himself know that such cases have occurred. I am only going to read the reply from the Minister himself to a lady who objected to the removal of the heart of her late husband—

I do not want to read the whole letter. I do not want to embarrass the hon. Minister too much. I am beginning to feel sorry for him myself. I think I have proved all these cases to the satisfaction of the House. At any rate, I have proved it to those who have listened intelligently. Now, I ask this House to judge as to whose interests the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau is serving. Certainly not the interests of the victims and/or their dependants. The existing legislation, according to the Minister, provides for compensation in miners’ phthisis deaths only. That is so, but it is becoming increasingly popular to certify death as being due to some other cause and to save money for the mine-owners. I and many others consider my actions and accusations less dastardly and less reckless than the dastardliness and recklessness of robbing widows, orphans and unfortunate phthisis suffers of their rights and their livelihoods. I am a responsible man but my responsibility is to the unfortunates and not to the mining interests. If fighting for the underdog is called irresponsibility, dastardliness, recklessness and all the other uncomplimentary adjectives of which the hon. Minister seems to have an inexhaustible stock, then I am proud to be all those ugly-sounding things mentioned by the Minister, and more if he can think of any more. The Minister insinuated in this House that miners’ dependants are proud to find that their bread winner died of miners’ phthisis. That, Sir, is not the case, but they are less proud of the mighty gold mining industry which does everything to dodge its responsibility to them. The evidence, Sir, points to the fact that the Bureau is serving one master while it is being paid by another and that they are discharging their duties faithfully and very well to the master they are serving. I may conclude by telling the House that these gentlemanly gentlemen are so popular with the miners’ phthisis victims, that they would like to blow them sky-high with their institution and all. So much for the Bureau. I come now to the two coal mining disasters at Northfield and Hlobane, in respect of which I was also trounced by the Minister a few days ago. The Minister accuses me here of also disregarding facts and of recklessness. But let us examine the whole position in this connection. He infers that the disasters have never been mentioned here before. Quite true, but they have never been mentioned here before simply because the miners never had a mouthpiece in this House who would fearlessly put their case. In the Northfield case the dead miners were blamed for the cause of the disaster. The same is now happening at the Hlobane disaster. Is it because dead men tell no tales? That the blame is put on them? I refuse to believe this lamp story at Hlobane. The Minister did not tell the House that fire damp explosions can only occur where there is a large accumulation of gas and that gas cannot accumulate where there is adequate ventilation carried right up to the working face, according to regulation. This House was not informed that at Northfield no trace of used bratticing was found at the seat of the explosion. The House was not informed that after passing through a dyke as at Hlobane, special precautions should be taken as gas can be expected. I have the regulations here which describe what should be done. May I quote Regulation No. 71 (2)—

Sub-section (1) reads—

No mention was made that the stoppings in air-crossings were a considerable distance behind in the Hlobane disaster. The information was not tendered to the House that the Natal Inspectorate gave permission to the Hlobane colliery to carry on mining without proper supervision, also against the regulations. Can the Minister stand up here and say without blushing—I am quite serious about it—that Regulations 63, 64, 65 and 66 were carried out to the letter at Hlobane, especially Regulation No. 63 (3) (b)? May I be allowed to quote sub-section (b)—

That was not carried out, and quite a few other regulations were not carried out Will the Minister tell this House that his inspect torate did not give exemption to the Hlobane Colliery in respect of certain of these very necessary regulations which were framed to protect life and limb? Let me now again read to the House Regulation No. 71 (1) with regard to: safety lamps—

They approved of the lamps that were used on this mine, and these lamps are supposed to be fool-proof. They are supposed to be locked on the surface in the morning or whenever the miner goes on shift and not to be unlocked until the miner comes on the surface again. In fact he does not carry a key for the unlocking of the lamp. If the Inspectorate passed a lamp that can be opened underground, surely they did not take the proper precautions. Here again I have proved the incompetence which I allege in regard to the Inspectorate of Mines in Natal. I would further like to read Regulation No. 162 (g)—

Sub-regulation (h) reads—

That regulation was not observed, and if it was observed, no book was found at the Hlobane Colliery. There was no such record at all. After the dyke was passed, they were required to take the following precautions, which are set out in Regulation 163 (2)—

That was not done and so ends the lamp story. The responsibility for the carrying out of mining regulations rests with the Inspectorate, and they must see that they are carried out by owners and managers. They failed in that duty and I claim to have proved their incompetence and that they are to a large extent responsible for the death of the victims of these two recent coal mining disasters in Natal.

I rise to explain the position with regard to the remarks which were made yesterday by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with the University Council. I think he made a very unfair reflection because he must be fully aware of the fact that many members in this House are not acquainted with the method by which members of the University Council are elected. There are 21 members, of whom three are elected by the Senate and these are elected by professors, so the question of their being a clique is ruled out. Two are sent to the University Council by the Town Council, so again the question of a clique cannot enter into it. Three members are elected by Life Governors. There again the question of a clique is ruled out. Five are sent by the Minister of Education. Again the question of a clique is ruled out. One is sent by the Diocesan College, so there again the question of a clique does not enter into it. Six members are sent by the members of Convocation of the University of Cape Town and these six are Mr. McDonald, Dr. Baxter, Mr. Stephen, Maj. Pienaar, Major van Zyl, the Administrator, and Prof. Crawford. These six people lose their seat on the University Council by the effluxion of time, and they are all eligible for re-election. As you know, Sir, there is not so much interest displayed by the public, outside the academic world, in the election of members to the University Council. It is a great pity that this is so. Those of us who watch these things anxiously often hear that someone has expressed a desire to come on the University Council. We waited a considerable time and nothing happened. Those of us who know what valuable work was done by some of these gentlemen in the past—some of them have served on the Council for 30 or 40 years—were anxious to retain their services, if possible. The hon. member for Gordonia in passing said that his chief objection to some of these people was that they were too old. I would like to remind the hon. member that there are many great people in this House who are older than some of these men and who are discharging more onerous duties with conspicuous success.

But surely you get intelligent people even though they are old; it is not a general rule.

We have the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. We have the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who are men who compare very favourably with these men on the University Council and no one will dare to say that they are too old.

They are exceptions; they prove the rule.

We have these exceptions too on our University Council. These people were duly nominated. Before the nominations closed, a nomination form arrived from Umtata, and they nominated six people. When we found this, we made enquiries and five of them said: “What have I be nominated for?” They had no knowledge of the fact that they had been nominated. Well, it was a very curious nomination. One of these people was Dr. Elliott. Five of these people are in Cape Town and they withdrew their names immediately, so we were left with Dr. Elliott, and the other six nominees. We welcome competition for a seat on the University Council. It revives interest in the University Council, but the hon. member for Gordonia gave this House the wrong impression and I respectfully suggest that he did so wilfully.

On a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that a member gave the House the wrong impression and that he did so wilfully?

“Met opset.”

The hon. member must withdraw that. It has constantly been ruled in this House that it is unparliamentary to say that a member has deliberately misled the House.

I withdraw. I have some respect for the intelligence of the hon. member for Gordonia. I submit that that is misrepresenting the facts. The public outside, and the members in this House, were given to understand, and, in fact were told in no uncertain terms by the hon. mem ber for Gordonia that we at the University are deliberately working against one of our old students who is serving his country in Italy and who is not here to sponsor his case. Those were his words, and I do not think those words were becoming or fair when he knows perfectly well that we respect Dr. Elliott and that we respect his qualifications. But I would tell the hon. member for Gordonia that I am quite satisfied in my own mind that Dr. Elliott knew nothing about his nomination as candidate for the University Council. Then the hon. member for Gordonia went on to explain to us how it was that the head of the Dutch Reformed Church of Cape Town, Dr. Van der Merwe was elected. He will be interested to know that Dr. Van der Merwe’s election to the University Council is due to Professor Crawford’s efforts. I was approached by Professor Crawford and told that Mr. P. T. Lewis had resigned, and I was asked what my opinion was of Dr. Van der Merwe. My reply was that he was a very suitable man to be on the University Council, and I must say that I further expressed the opinion that the chief minister of the Dutch Reformed Church should always occupy a seat on the University Council, because it was in the consistory of that Church in 1829 that the Council was formed. I immediately telephoned some whom I thought would be interested, and I put Dr. Van der Merwe’s claims to them. I am pleased that Dr. Van der Merwe is on the Council today. I take exception to the hon. member’s statement that Dr. Van der Merwe was brought in at the backdoor. He stood for member for Convocation some years ago, and like myself was unsuccessful, and when a vacancy occurred under the heading of Life Governors, Professor Crawford was responsible for his unopposed election, and while he and I have something to do with the University Council, we shall do all in our power to see that Dr. Van der Merwe, or whoever is head of the Dutch Reformed Church, occupies his rightful place in the Council.

I am sorry that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not present today.

Look again.

I am sorry, but it is not always so arranged that everyone is of the same stature, and I did not observe the Prime Minister. There is unfortunately no fig tree nearby. I want to put this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition on the previous occasion that he took part in the debate in this House asked the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in a cool and calm way to inform the House what the position in Europe is at present, whether he has any knowledge of what has happened, and whether he will be prepared to give the House and the people of South Africa information regarding what is more or less the true position of affairs, why has he not given any reply to that request? On the contrary, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has adopted the standpoint which has certainly disappointed me. We expected in these serious days some seriousness would be shown. But we did not find that. On this second occasion I again noticed that the Prime Minister has taken up this attitude, an attitude of disparagement towards members on this side of the House and towards the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), in particular. May I tell the Prime Minister that in 1912 when the Nationalist Party came into existence, we were told about the mushroom party from the dust clouds that swept past. But in 1924 the Nationalist Party became a hurricane, and at that time it overthrew the Prime Minister. I want to warn the Prime Minister by saying this: Seeing that you speak with contempt of this side of the House and that you have so frequently intimated that we carry no weight, although we represent 340,000 voters in the country, I want to warn you that again a day will come in South Africa when the Nationalist Party will become a hurricane and you will have to be careful that you are not again blown over. I do not want to be personal, but I want to say this. I hold nothing against the Prime Minister as an individual, but I have to deal with the Prime Minister’s spirit in politics and with the career that he has had. He has said that history will write about him. We frankly admit that. History will write about him and about many others also. We found in the first instance when the Prime Minister was in Cape Town, that he made the acquaintance of Rhodes and that he was an admirer of Rhodes. The Rhodes idea was the imperial idea. South Africa must be painted red. Later he came to know the Kruger idea.

That argument has already been employed, and I do not think that the hon. member should repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, if I may not refer to that, I want to pass on and ask the Prime Minister to recall that here in South Africa we have had difficulties, and what his conduct was during those difficulties and what rôle he played. I do not think you will prevent me from talking about that. What was the rôle that he filled at that time towards those who registered a protest against the policy of the Government of the day to attack German South West? We could not see that it was in the interests of South Africa to do that, and there was a protest. How did the Prime Minister deal with that? President Kruger at that time drew a ring round the raider Jameson and his band. He took them prisoner and handed them over to the Imeprial Government and said: Punish your own people yourself. But we found it otherwise in South Africa. The very man who rode in with a white flag sent by Cronje to demand Jameson’s surrender, also protested at that time, and what was his fate? He was shot dead. But the same Jameson, the raider who invaded our country, was elevated to Sir Starr Jameson and he became Prime Minister of the Cape. That is what took place here in South Africa. The Prime Minister took the Press under his protection, but I want to know whether he still remembers what that Press said before the second war of freedom. How did they describe the farmers? That self-same Press described the Boers as barbarians, as illiterate and inhuman people. They were depicted as people with long hairy arms like orangoutangs, creatures with long hair that live in caves. I myself captured Englishmen who said to me: “Surely you are not a Boer.” When I asked them why they put the question to me they told me that they were constantly hearing that they had been represented to resemble wild animals just like baboons. It is that Press that disparaged the Boers, and just for one reason. The British public had to be incited against the Boers and consequently they were described as barbarians and inhuman creatures. That same Press that now takes the Prime Minister under its protection is the Press that blackened the Boers for so many years and which is now intent on disparaging the Afrikaners. But we are thankful that there are Englishmen who think otherwise about the Boers. Here in South Africa we also know that there are English friends that think otherwise of us. We know this. We know of a man such as W. Stead. We know of a woman like Emily Hobhouse, who took pity on our womenfolk. We are fortunate that we can know this. We also know that here in South Africa there are English-speaking friends who do not agree with everything that appears in that Press every day. Consequently I say that that Press is the cause of there still being so great a cleavage between the English-speaking Afrikaners and the Afrikaans-speaking people. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has stated that there is no connection between the communists of Russia and the communists of South Africa. Then I want to ask him why before the outbreak of war—I am not so certain whether the war had not actually commenced—Andrews and Miss Cornelissen and some coloured people went to Russia. What did they go to do there if it was not to foregather with the communists—because they were known as communists—and to receive instructions there as to how they should organise. There are other countries which they could have visited; why did they pick on Russia to go there? No, we do not accept that there is no connection between the communists of South Africa and those of Russia. Here an attack has also been made on the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition. His words have been twisted. He has stated here that conditions in Europe were such after Dunkirk and the collapse of France that the position was favourable for a German victory. That was the time when Dr. Van Rensburg came to light with his proposal of Nazism, and Pirow with his army, but nevertheless the Leader of the Opposition summoned a congress and at that congress he accepted a motion that the Nationalist Party stood for democracy. It was unfair to allude to him and to say that he stood for Nazism. It was unworthy of him to have done that. It was unworthy of him to have exclaimed that he had placed the Ossewabrandwag under his protection, and that he had stated that the Ossewabrandwag was going to be taken under his protection. He promised that protection at the time the Cradock Agreement was still being respected. We also find here that the Prime Minister had a great deal to say about the unanimity in his party and about the powerful support that he had behind him in carrying out his policy. I would like to road out to him what one of his big supporters, the Acting Leader of the Labour Party, said the other day in this House—

In connection with the maladministration of the Government he said further—

This statement is a red light for the Prime Minister. There have also been other statements which I shall leave for the present. But I want to come to another point, and that is the step that the Minister of Lands took to dispossess the lessees of their lands. I cannot omit to register my strongest protest against that. I want to ask the Minister of Lands what he is going to do with those people who have been punt off the land. If all the soldiers are assisted, or if all those lands are tenanted by soldiers, and if no objection is raised about them being placed on those lands, is he then going to make provision that those other people will also get land? The hon. the Minister of Lands knows that I came to him with four cases during the last Session. These were cases where people had to leave their land. They had simply to leave and sell their cattle. There was no alternative for them. That was in August; it was dry and there was nothing for the cattle to feed on. That had only one sequel. Those people were actually brought to beggary. These people who are now being displaced are being reduced to the same position. At the end of May they must leave the land. That is immediately before the winter. These people cannot take their fodder with them. How can they possibly transport it, and where are the animals going to have pasture? I say that a greater bit of injustice could never have been inflicted on one section of the population of South Africa as what the Minister is now doing. I am convinced that the day will yet dawn—those people who are put off the land are not all supporters of my party and many are supporters of the Minister’s party—that those people will certainly call the Minister of Lands to account.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw): can at least in one respect be an example to members of this House, particularly to new members. The hon. member has shown during the course of years, that when he becomes wedded to a cause he puts his heart and soul into it. He does not allow himself to get into a rut. He goes overseas for fresh ideas to enable him to further the cause he has taken unto his bosom. He makes it his particular business to search the highways and byways for converts to that cause. He is the essence of thoroughness and he will not allow anything to stand in his way to further his cause; for him the end justifies the means, and that of course, for some politicians, is the way to get on. Hence his success with his anti-semitic propaganda. The hon. member quoted a letter which had, it appears, been put into his pigeon hole. I do not know whether the hon. member wanted the House to imagine that this was the only anti-semitic letter that had ever been written. He knows that hundreds and hundreds have been written, and unfortunately will continue to be written, and that the majority, curiously enough, find their way to the hon. member. One asks oneself why? I think the answer is fairly obvious. Every writer of an anti-semitic letter knows his man when he sees to it that it gets into the hands of the hon. member for Beaufort West. He knows that the fullest and foullest use will be made of the vile attacks which will be in the letter the hon. member receives. But what does this letter establish? Surely we do not require the letter to establish the fact that antisemitism exists or that it is actually on the increase? Surely we do not require any letter for that. When the hon. member says expressly or by implication that antisemitism exists, he merely presents the situation factually. No one will deny that. When the hon. member says however that anti-semitism exists, he does not go further and tell the country whether because it exists, because it is on the increase he is either pleased or disturbed. I do not require the hon. member to tell me what his recation is. But if he wants the country to believe he is not pleased, the country will want to know from him what he has done in Order to meet this very serious threat to the foundations of South African life. What he has done is to further the doctrine which is fundamental to antisemitism, that for the misdeeds of the individual, for the wrongs and the crimes of the individual, you condemn a whole community. That is the doctrine which the hon. member has propagated not only in this House but on the platform whenever the opportunity has come his way, The hon. member therefore cannot pretend to be other than very pleased. The hon. member very rightly drew attention to commercial malpractices in south Africa. If he had confined himself to the general problem of malpractices, irrespective as to who was responsible, I have not the slightest doubt that he would have earned the respect not only of this House but of the country at large. If he had urged upon the Government to take more drastic steps than it is taking today to meet this problem, he would have had the support of the House. I would have been with him if that had been his plea, and his demand. But he was not worried about any black marketeer or any profiteer or anybody guilty of malpractices unless he was a Jew, and that shows the approach of the hon. member to this problem. He uses it not to put an end in so far as it can be put an end to—this great problem—but he uses it as part and parcel of the propaganda for the cause which he has so much at heart, sheer unadulterated racialism. In that he has adopted what is the first principle of antisemitism, namely that you condemn the Jewish people, and then look round for the reasons. It does not matter if the reasons are inconsistent, if what you urge today you contradict tomorrow. The first point is you must condemn them, and then look around to justify your condemnation. That is what the hon. member does, and when he makes use of the black marketeering that is going on in South Africa to condemn not everyone who is engaged in those malpractices but one section of the community, he reveals his outlook. Who would be foolish enough to deny that there are Jews like anybody else, are indulging in these practices. But why should we discriminate as between one and the other? All are equally blameworthy, and all ought to be condemned. Every right-minded person will condemn them all, whether they be Jews or not.

What about the farmers?

Yes, and whether they are farmers, traders or even members of Parliament. I am not going to dwell unduly on this. Andbody who has studied the methods of Goebbels will know that the hon. member’s speech is typically Goebellian. In fact, so often has he repeated the utterances of Dr. Goebbels that some even say that he has come to look like him. You, Mr. Speaker, place on a fact or on facts almost any interpretation you wish. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you know the story of the circus that was visiting Berlin. One night a lion broke loose and I need hardly tell you that the lives of everybody in the circus tent were in danger. Presently a little man rushed down and killed the lion, thus saving the occupants of the tent from danger. On enquiry it was found that this little man bore the unfortunate name of Cohen, which created a problem for the Berlin Press. The incident was important enough to receive publicity, but it would have been inexpedient to have given Cohen eulogistic publicity. The difficulty however was resolved by the paper producing a report with the headline “Jew kills innocent lion”.

Were you in the tent?

I was not brought up in Berlin, nor was I there at the time. Mr. Speaker, on this question of black marketeering I should like to point out to the Minister of Justice that under our law not only the man who sells goods over the regulation price commits an offence but the person who purchases them commits an offence; and I am not aware—I do not state that this is so categorically—but I am not aware that any of the big firms, or the little firms for that matter, who have been guilty of accepting goods at a price in execess of that permitted by law have ever found themselves charged in a court of law. I understand that the law was amended in this way so as to impose, as far as was possible, a check upon profiteering. One of these checks was to get at the man who encouraged a man to sell to him at unjust prices. I hope the Minister will give this aspect of the matter his attention. The hon. member for Beaufort West has suggested from time to time that a Jewish problem—I am sure he does not know what that means—arises in a country either because of the conduct of the Jews in that country, or because the percentage of Jews has been raised to a certain level. But I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is propaganda entirely without foundation, and history proves that. I want to give just one instance. You will know that when Italy joined the Axis—that was before it became the Rome-Berlin-Beaufort West Axis, and was merely the Rome-Berlin Axis—when Italy joined the Axis anti-Semitism became the order of the day. Was it due to either of these two suggested causes? I want to read to you a quotation by Mussolini on this very question shortly before Italy joined the Axis, and at a time when the Jewish population of Italy was approximately 54,000 out of a total population of 41¼ millions. This is what Mussolini said at that time—

Later he said—

And then Italy joined its Nazi partner and anti-Semitism overnight became as prevalent and almost as vigorous as it was in Germany, and not because of either of the two reasons suggested. That is an illustration of the indisputable fact that anti-Semitism in the majority of countries is an imported article. It was imported into Italy. It has been imported into this country—organised anti-Semitism, at any rate. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) made a statement—he made it with emphasis; he has said it directly and by implication time and again—that the majority of those guilty of evading the laws in relation to profiteering and kindred offences have been Jews. He repeated that statement today. I am not prepared to meet that statement with a bare denial. I have had enquiries made into the record of convictions in Cape Town in the Magistrate’s Court for price control contraventions covering the period 1st June, 1942 to 30th June, 1944. The hon. member is at liberty to go and inspect the record, and he will find that out of the total of 349 convictions the number of cnvictions against Jews is 50. That does not sound very much as if the majority were Jews. The hon. member referred also to a statement which he made at a meeting—he said it was in Johannesburg but actually it was in Pietermaritzburg—when he said that there had been a housing shortage due to the fact that cement had been stolen by Jews, and to give added weight to his statement, to give it an air of veracity, he said that that had been established before the Public Accounts Committee of this House. Who could then challenge a statement, made and accepted by the Public Accounts Committee in this House? The hon. member was promptly taken up on it because that was actually not only stupid but grossly untrue. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) wrote a letter to the “Natal Witness”, the paper in which the report of this statement appeared, in which he said that his attention had been drawn to the statement of the hon. member for Beaufort West in which he was reported as having said as follows—

I say nothing about the abuse of information tendered to the Select Committee. But that statement was absolutely without the slightest foundation. Nothing had ever been said before the Select Committee in respect of stolen cement or who had stolen it.

Can you read the report to us?

I am coming to that I am not ashamed of the facts. As I have said, this was taken up by the hon. member for Troyeville and this letter, part of which I have quoted, appeared in the “Natal Witness”. There also appeared in a Johannesburg paper an editorial on the statement of the hon. member tearing him as he deserved to shreds. To that the hon. member replied. He replied in the same paper and said, in effect, that it was not cement that had been stolen, but corrugated iron. But he went on to say: “What, after all, was the difference? Did it really matter whether the Defence material which the Jews were charged with stealing was corrugated iron (or cement) ; what did it matter, so long as you had made a charge against the Jews that they were all thieves. The facts didn’t matter.

That is not what I said. You are misrepresenting it. It makes no difference whether you steal cement, or corrugated iron.

The facts are on record. My sympathy is with the hon. member who has tripped himself up with his reckless statement, but the facts are there and he cannot deny them. Having altered the charge and having now made it the theft of corrugated iron which, bear in mind, was responsible for the fact that there were insufficient houses in the country to meet the demand—that is the extent to which corrugated iron was being stolen by Jews—he proceeded to give the facte in his own way. But what were the facts? He was referring to a case which had been heard in Cape Town, I think, during the last Session, 8 or 9 people had been arrested on a charge of alleged theft of corrugated iron. Of these six were committed for trial. One only of them was a Jew. He was given a suspended sentence because the court held that he had played a minor part in the transaction. Of the others three were convicted and they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, That is the story upon which the hon. member saw fit at a public meeting to make the statement, in the first place, that the housing shortage in South Africa—the statement is almost too preposterous to be dealt with—was due to the theft of cement by Jews, and when he was caught out, he said it was corrugated iron and that it was the theft of that corrugated iron by Jews which was responsible for the fact that we have not enough houses to go round. That is the hon. member’s story; I hope he will stick to it. I hope when in future he criticises the Minister for the housing shortage that he will state as his explanation the fact that a Jew who was found by the Court to have played a minor part in the transaction had been a party to the theft of some corrugated iron.

I repeat what I said.

I want to conclude with just this observation. We heard the hon. member this afternoon and we also heard a colleague of his, the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). Just as much as it was nauseating to hear the hon. member for Beaufort West so it was refreshing to hear what the hon. member for Stellenbosch said today. I think what the hon. member for Beaufort West said must have hurt the hon. member for Stellenbosch very much because by implication he threw overboard the infamous remarks of that gentleman. He made a plea which must have impressed this House with its sincerity when he asked that all sections of the community should get together in the interests of South Africa. There was implicit in that plea an understanding of the extent to which this sort of insidious propaganda is eating into the very soul of South Africa, and destroying it. The hon. member for Stellenbosch at least wants to see a happy and united South Africa. He made a plea in this House (which will be re-echoed throughout the country) for all sections to get together, to sink petty differences, to avoid division and discord and to make this country what it can be.

We have really had the whole history of South Africa during this debate. We began with Chaka; we had the Boer War; we had the rebellion, and history has been dug up all along the line. What has all that to do with the Part Appropriation Bill? I am a new member, and I must say that in my opinion very few members have said anything that the Minister can really regard as matters that have anything to do with the Part Appropriation Bill. I think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is certainly very sorry that he made the speech which he delivered here yesterday. He can certainly not venture to make such a speech again, because with that speech he torpedoed not only himself but his whole party. He will not venture on that again. I do not want, however, to go into these matters. I want to exchange a few words with the Minister of Agriculture in connection with agricultural affairs. He is unfortunately not here, but I want to offer a few hints in conneetion with agricultural matters which, in my opinion, will be of practical value to the country. I want to talk about the reconstruction of agriculture, and I would like to give a few hints as to how we can assist the farming community with the reconstruction of agriculture. We know that there are many things wrong with our agriculture. We have experts in our Agricultural Department in every sphere who know what the best farming methods are, but on the other hand we have our farmers who are ignorant regarding those methods, because the knowledge of those experts cannot be communicated to them. The knowledge of the Agricultural Department never reaches them, and accordingly they continue to follow erroneous farming methods and customs. The first suggestion I want to offer to the Minister of Agriculture is that more use should be made of extension officers. At the moment we have only about 30 of them in the country. Those men begin on the slender salary of £250 a year. We have only 30 of these men who have to serve as the link between the farming industry and the Department of Agriculture. In the Agricultural Department we have the experts who do research work and who find out what methods should be applied in our agricultural system. There is only one way to convey that information to the farming community, and that is that we should have extension officers who fulfil a very important task. They should convey all that information and serve as a link between the farmer and the Department. These people who do this important work have a commencing salary of £250 a year. Now I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture how many young men he can get to take up that profession. These are men who have to spend four years in the university; they must take the degree B.Sc. (Agriculture) and then in the meantime they have also to do research work, and when they have finished with that they start on a salary of £250 a year. We need some 150 of these extension officers in the country. Where are we going to get those men if we begin with this slender salary? We know in the Agricultural Department what is wrong with the farming system. We know that there are people who try to grow wheat on land where they should not farm with wheat. We know that there are people who employ wrong methods of ploughing. They do not go in for contour ploughing with the result that they start erosion. The Agricultural Department knows all about that, and it is far ahead of the farmers in respect of knowledge. Our Agricultural Department stands on a very high level; our experts stand on a very high level, but the knowledge that they have acquired is not passed on to the farmer in a practical way, and the principal link in conveying that knowledge to the farmers is the extension officers. We want to have reconstruction in agriculture, and how are we going to achieve it unless there is at our disposal the man who comes into contact throughout the day with and who should tell the farmer how he should farm, namely, the extension officer? The only thing is to train many more of these people. In most of the smaller districts the magistrate does much of the work that the extension officers ought to be doing. The magistrate does hot know what he is doing. He is consulted if the farmer has to buy a bull or a cow; he is consulted if the farmer has to get money to do this or that. He does not know where he is, and the farmer does not know where he is. The man who ought to support the farmers’ organisation, who ought to give the lectures and who ought to be doing everything to develop agriculture and to augment the farmers’ stock of knowledge, is the extension officer. That is one point that I wanted to mention. I do not want to waste time by talking about other matters, but I only want to tell the Minister that he should give attention to this and he must ascertain whether a plan cannot be made to make the salary more attractive for these men.

This is one of the matters that is being investigated by the commission.

Yes. They must also be given the opportunity after they have qualified, to work for a senior official for a little while. Then they can be left to their own devices in a small area and not in such a big area as they have to serve today. My area, for instance, is so large that the extension officer cannot even look after the bull inspection. We ought to have at least 150 extension officers trained in our country.

I would like to make a few remarks, but first of all I would like to clear up one point with regard to the constitution of the Maize Control Board, on which I was told by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) that I did not know what I was talking about. The hon. member stated that he was appointed to the Board by the Grain Trade Association. For the benefit of the House I would like to read the actual clause governing the notice to nominate members—

The next section reads—

That, I think, makes it quite clear that the final appointment is in the hands of the Minister, and that is exactly what I suggested. I have a very good reason for being aware of this position because some years ago I happened to be rejected by the then Minister of Agriculture on the ground that I was an unsuitable person. The Minister concerned was the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He was Minister of Agriculture at that time. I was unanimously nominated by the Woolgrowers’ Association of Natal and East Griqualand, and the Minister just said that he did not like the look of me. He indicated that I had no confidence in him because I had criticised his attitude on the gold standard question, so he would not have me on the Wool Council because he said that I did not have confidence in him or his policy. That gave me a very good reason for being aware of the position.

Is that the re-organised board?

Yes. Then I would like to take this question a little further. We have the position that the Grain Trade Association of South Africa has nominated the hon. member for Orange Grove to this important board. The hon. member has left the House and the country in no doubt whatever that he is absolutely opposed to the principle of these control boards; and if a member is appointed to a board of that kind, is it reasonable to expect that he is going to try to make a success of that control scheme, or is he going to do his best to condemn it in the eyes of the country and to help it to make all the mistakes it possibly can, if, as I have said, he has made it perfectly clear that he is opposed to the principle of control boards? We have been hearing a lot of talk about sabotage by Government officials who are not allowed to come to this House and defend themselves, and I maintain that if we appoint people to this board who have done their best to prove that control cannot possibly succeed, it is likely that those people are not going to do their best to make a success of the board. One of the reasons why the farmers were compelled in self-defence to do something to prevent the so-called brainy people from exploiting them, was the very reason that they were making fortunes by speculating in the country’s food, and Parliament in its wisdom decided that these control boards were necessary in order to prevent the people of South Africa from being exploited by these brainy people. I have nothing against the commercial community of South Africa. I think the commercial community generally has done a very good job of work, and I have always advocated that we have got to get business brains to make a success of these control measures. But I think the commercial community itself is against the principle of exploitation, of gambling in the country’s food and of trying to evade all the control measures which, after all, the Government does not bring in just for the sake of bringing in control measures; they have definite reasons for bringing in those control measures. I can quite understand that many people in trying to ridicule and in trying to oppose the Government, to do harm to the Government, would instance any little mistake which is made. But control is necessary. The people know that it is in their interests and the majority of people are trying to get a fair distribution of the available supplies. Then I also want to touch on another question which has been discussed, and that is the question of margarine, and I want to say outright that for the last 18 months or two years I have been publicly advocating that the Dairy Control Board should agree to the manufacture of margarine. I have advocated it at several meetings and I have been criticised on account of it. I feel that during this period of extreme shortage of certain foods the Dairy Control Board was too slow in realising its responsibility, and that they should have agreed earlier to the manufacture of margarine, but at the same time I cannot understand the point put forward by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). The hon. member made a very vicious attack upon the officials of the Agricultural Department. He more or less exonerated the Minister, and his whole attack was based on the bad business methods of the Agricultural Department. But the Agricultural Department, as he subsequently admitted, had nothing to do with the distribution. The whole purpose of his attack was to damage control and to damage the control that was being brought about by the officials of the Agricultural Department. I think his outburst was very unfair. It has received very wide publicity. The statement which the hon. Minister subsequently made in a reply to him, did not receive half the publicity which the hon. member's statement received; and I think it is very unfortunate that the country should be given the impression that the Dairy Control Board is doing its best to prevent the manufacture of margarine, when, in fact, the Dairy Control Board had agreed to the manufacture of margarine. They had agreed to it and I go further and state publicly on the authority of the chairman of the Finance Committee of that board, they had been assured that they would be able to get margarine within a few weeks. The hon. member for South Peninsula in some way or other was able to put a stop to that, and I would like to ask the Government whether the hon. member was authorised to enter into any contracts with overseas firms to dismantle factories and to give them a guarantee that they would be allowed to manufacture 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 lbs. of margarine; because that is undoubtedly the position in which the hon. member wished to find himself. I think when he found out that he could not go so far he turned round and made an unprovoked and uncalled-for attack on the officials of the Agricultural Department. I think his picture of the overseas firm that he had been negotiating with, being a very patriotic body, which was prepared to come to South Africa and which was prepared out of the goodness of their hearts to manufacture margarine in the interests of the people of South Africa, would not convince many people in South Africa. The position is that the Dairy Control Board, realising that the people of South Africa were in urgent need of fat and that the dairy industry could not provide it, said: “We are quite prepared to agree to the manufacture of margarine and to take steps to bring this essential commodity to the people of South Africa.” The hon. member for South Peninsula would much rather have made arrangements with the overseas firm to start a new industry. We are very anxious to start industries in South Africa, but I think it is our first duty to see that an important industry like the dairy industry is not seriously damaged in order to enable an overseas firm to start an industry in this country. The dairy industry is a key industry in South Africa. Animal husbandry, I think, is the basis of all our farming in South Africa, and if we are going to start to feed our people on the production of native labour in Central Africa and in that way damage the people who are making their living on the land in this country, I do not think that is an industrial policy that will commend itself to the people of South Africa. I agree and I think everybody in South Africa will agree that we must have food but the starting of an industry that is only going to produce margarine in eight or nine months’ time is not going to help the food position very much—the Dairy Control Board is prepared to get an industry started that can produce margarine within a few weeks—admittedly not quite so highly refined as the margarine produced overseas, but a very valuable food. Mr. Speaker, those are the main points I wish to make. The question of margarine is, I believe, not being dealt with in the best way possible. I think the Government should immediately investigate the claim made by the Dairy Control Board that margarine can be manufactured within three weeks if the necessary authority is forthcoming; if that is so, I think immediate effect should be given to it. I understand that this firm that wants to manufacture margarine is at present manufacturing cooking margarine under licence, but it is not table margarine, and they are prepared to manufacture margarine that is suitable table margarine. As I said before, I would be quite willing to give it a trial in order to meet the immediate shortage of foodstuffs. I would suggest, however, that the Minister investigates this clam made by the Dairy Control Board. It is not an idle claim made by an irresponsible body.

On this important matter of margarine it may be thought we ought to have a word to say as representing the bulk of the people who would benefit by the production in this country of some cheap form of fat. I feel very strongly, as did the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) and other members in this House, that there is a very great danger in having the manufacture of margarine tied up to the dairy industry. The fear must persist that the concession that has been made in respect of the manufacture of margarine is a purely temporary concession so long as it is controlled by the dairy industry. That is the aspect of the situation about which we are mainly concerned. We are also, of course, concerned about the delay in providing a cheap fat at this time of food shortage. In that regard I was interested in what the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) had to say. It is a very serious matter indeed if the manufacture of margarine has been unduly held up and is still going to be held up. I should like to know what the answer of the Hon. Minister is in that regard. I have an impression that the story is that the margarine that could be put on the market immediately would be unpalatable and that it has been regarded as unwise to encourage the production and sale of such a product as likely to be prejudicial to a trade in margarine such as is visualised as necessary. I do not know that that is necessarily a final answer in that matter, but I suppose it is a point that ought to be considered by the food control organisations. Now there is nothing new that one can say about the necessity for a cheap fat in this country. I really only want to add my voice to those who have urged that the production of margarine of a reasonable standard ought to be regarded as a permanent industry in this country, and that there should be no question of it being a purely temporary expedient to meet the present shortage in butter. The shortage of butter affects the convenience of only a small section of our consumers; the bulk of our population are not butter consumers. The circumstances that a small minority of consumers have suffered from a shortage of butter has been allowed to overshadow the main issue, which is the supply on a permanent basis of a cheap fat in the form of margarine to the vast bulk of our consumers. The pressure that has been brought to bear on the Government in this regard and has resulted in a purely temporary concession for the production of margarine does not take into consideration the permanent claims of the bulk of our people. On their present level of existence, and indeed on this basis of any prospect of an improvement in that level, it is not likely that they will become butter consumers for a long time to come; a merely temporary concession for the manufacture of margarine consequently does not solve the main problem. I sympathise with the anxiety of the dairy industry about the future of its markets. That, however, is a situation that can be safeguarded, as it ought to be safeguarded, without sacrificing the pressing and continuous needs of the bulk of the people for some cheap form of fat in their diet. It is, I think, the responsibility of our official agencies to give the dairy industry some form of guarantee that the production of butter will not be detrimentally affected by the widening use of margarine, that the position that the dairy industry has built up for itself over a period of years will not suffer by our increasing the means of fat production. Unless action is taken by the Government along the lines I have suggested, they are not going to re-establish faith in their intention to tackle the whole question of malnutrition in this country.

You are rather suspicious.

I am not intentionally suspicious. I am merely facing the situation in the light of the facts as we know them; and if I can receive an assurance that the manufacture of margarine will not simply be a temporary concession by arrangement with the Dairy Control Board, my fears will disappear. Now Mr. Speaker, the primary matter I want to deal with this afternoon is not margarine but maize. Since this House has been twice invited to subscribe to the idea that I shall somehow or other in my new capacity be able to facilitate the supply of maize to the native population, I may say that I appreciate the compliment, but I do not want to accept the responsibility. On the limited experience I have had of the maize trade—which has been somewhat increased of late—I can see no possibility of myself or anybody else guaranteeing the necessary supplies of maize to the native population without more information on which to guarantee a stabilised market. The issue has been raised in connection with the new regulation that has been published, not by the Maize Control Board but by the Food Control organisation, which limits the capacity of an individual to buy on permit to one bag of maize per month. The fear has been expressed that this will have serious effects on the capacity of the native consumer to obtain the necessary amount of food which he requires. But as the hon. member for Orange Grové has pointed out, this regulation makes an allowance for any person, not merely to the head of a house or even to adults, so that there seems little reason to suppose that any native family will be handicapped by this revised regulation in his ability to buy food, provided the Board makes available the maize that would be required for supplying the natives on that basis. If that is done, I can foresee no possibility of any native family being forced to go short. I assume that the food control organisation, which is responsible, will see to it that what maize there is will be distributed and rationed in such a way that the amount necessary for human consumption will be available. I sincerely hope so. Actually I feel myself that the new regulation is a mistake. I do not like it. I can see no particular advantage in it. It is not going to change the amount of maize that a family can purchase, and there is no particular reason for creating a sense of anxiety in this matter. However, the Food Controller apparently felt it was necessary to use this means of warning the country that maize stocks are falling rapidly. And the implications of that are, in the last resort, of much greater consequence than the effect of this regulation, if my interpretation of the effect of the regulation is right. The real anxiety should spring from the decline in our maize stocks for human consumption. As I understand it, and I do not pretend to be an authority on the ramifications of the maize situation, the prospect at the moment is that we shall be faced with a much smaller carryover in the new year than we have been faced with for several years past, In fact, if consumption remains at its present level till the end of this season the carry-over I understand will only be something like 300,000 bags of maize. I understand, too, that the prospects of the new season are very poor and that the Maize Control Board and farmers are alike anxious about what is going to happen; In many areas the trend of opinion is that the production is going to fall seriously, that the maize crop will be an entire failure in some areas while supplies from other areas will not be in time to save the situation. I understand that it is the custom for the native population during these months to eat green mealies and thereby to reduce the demand of other months on accumulated resources. This year, however, I believe that the new mealies will not be advanced enough to serve to provide the immediate needs of the natives. That is a point the food control organisation should be watching; the situation should be Watched very closely indeed. I have the impression, and I am talking now in terms of the poor consumers of the country, that in the last couple of years, our poorer consumers have become more rather than less dependent on maize. In spite of the fact that the price of maize has risen considerably, maize remains the cheapest and most filling food the poor can get. And the fact that its price has risen eats up their resources. Owing to the price both of maize and of other commodities having risen beyond their means, the natives have not been able to develop any dependence on other articles of diet, and they have thus become more dependent than ever on maize. Clearly then if there is any serious dip in the amount of maize available for consumption, these poor consumers are going to be in a very bad way indeed. I should like some guarantee that the food control organisation is in fact watching that situation extremely carefully, and that it has some plans for filling the gap if it should occur and assume serious proportions. This raises the question of importation. It also raises the questions both of rationing of other foods and the subsidisation of other foods, so that the people who are dependent on maize will not in fact starve if maize supplies fade out, as they might do. In this connection I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to this fact, which is becoming more and more apparent although no explanation of it has so far been forthcoming. There has been a quite phenomenal rise in the amount of maize consumed in this country in the last few years. I cannot discover, and I do not know whether he can enlighten me as to where that increased demand has come from. I have asked questions in various quarters but have got no satisfactory reply. I believe there is a possibility that the farmers are using more maize for stock; but what I am getting at is that we want to know, we need to know, what the position is, where these maize supplies are going to. Before this war, we were consuming, through trade channels, between five and six million bags of maize (my friends will correct me if I am wrong) and today we are consuming through trade channels anything between thirteen and fourteen million bags of maize. There is one aspect in that in which I am concerned and to which I have already referred. I think there is a possibility that the ordinary native consumer is eating a good deal more maize than he was before.

Why?

For the reason I have given, that other foodstuffs have progressively moved out of his range and he has been forced back on to the mealie diet. That brings me to the point I have emphasised in this House before, and that I want to emphasise again; and the eve of a new season seems to be the best time to emphasise it; and that is that the steady rise in the price of maize to the farmer has imposed collectively an enormous burden on the consumer. An enormous burden, has been placed on the poorer consumers of the country, and in this respect the Government has shown no adequate sense of responsibility. The price has risen steadily and the consumer has had to pay.

Did the price rise last year?

The hon. Minister jumps to the one fact that the price did not jump last year. That is perfectly true. The price to the farmer was Increased last year from 16s. to 17s. 6d. a bag, while the controlled retail price was kept steady, with the result that the Government has congratulated itself upon subsidising the price of maize to the consumer. But I regard that as only a question of point of view. I know that the farmers dislike the suggestion that they are being subsidised, but in my opinion the increase of 1s. 6d. a bag in the price of maize last year to the farmers was not a subsidy to the consumer, but a subsidy to the farmers and the basis of my argument is twofold. The first point is this; that when maize was 15s. a bag, in 1942, the Social and Economic Planning Council told the Government in the most emphatic terms that as a matter of national policy this food ought to be subsidised to the people, that that was a price that the ordinary poor consumer dependent on maize could not pay. After that the price was raised to 16s. and the argument of the Social and Economic Planning Council became only more emphatic with that rise in price. The Government cannot now say it was not urged to accept the recommendations of the Social and Economic Planning Council in that regard. The attitude of the Council was most forcibly brought to the attention of the Government in this House last Session. Yet in spite of that the price was raised to the farmers while no concession was made to the poor consumer. I want to repeat the plea I put up last year in this House. I think it is only more urgent as time goes on and the cost of living rises. It is that the Government will subsidise the consumption of maize by the poor consumer extensively. I mean extensively; I mean that the Government shall put maize on the list of commodities it subsidises through the food depôts. The intention is not to make more maize available to the people, but to fulfil the principles of the Nutrition Council’s recommendation which, if they are not to be regarded might as well be tom up, and that is that the native people and the poorer consumers generally should be enabled to add to their diet some of the protective foodstuffs which are at present beyond their reach. Until they have available a cheaper basic food, there is not the remotest hope of the bulk of our population getting anything like a sufficient diet. I say this in spite of the argument put up in some quarters that the cost of living allowance has balanced the rise in the cost of maize. We who represent the poorest consumers know only too well there are great stretches of country in which the cost of living allowance has not benefited the poor consumer at all, that it has been counter-balanced wherever it has not been based On wage determination, by declining wages, so that in many cases, the poor worker is finding himself in a much worse position than he was before the war. We have the right to urge the Government to tackle this question of subsidisation of the poor consumer with a seriousness that so far has been lamentably lacking. My final point is this. This whole question of the consumption of maize in these last few years has raised a number of queries as to the future of this product in this country. We have had this phenomenal rise in production and with that rise a phenomenal increase in the amount Of money spent on maize in this country. We have also had the question as to whether the cost of production of maize has justified the prices paid and that brings me to my second point. I have asked on various occasions on what basis of costs the price of maize has been fixed in the past, and I have never yet succeeded in getting any reply. Recently I have seen that the result of enquiries in other quarters is going to be equally unsatisfactory. Now I feel that this is a matter of the very greatest importance to us. We should know what our maize is costing to produce, for the simple reason that maize is our basic agricultural product. The whole of our agricultural policy is based on maize. The future of the meat trade and the future of the dairy industry, as well as related products, are based on maize. In the circumstances it is an extraordinary situation that we can get no authenticated information as to the cost of production of maize, and as to which are the most suitable lands for its economic production. We can get no information as to whether South Africa is in fact a suitable maize-producing country, and what its prospects are in that regard. In the circumstances I want to impress upon the Minister the urgent need of a scientific enquiry into the whole question of the maize industry. When I say scientific I mean scientific. I do not suggest that we want a commission comprised of a lot of people who have no idea of what is involved. This is essentially a scientific enquiry. We have taken on the responsibility for fixing prices and putting the force of law behind them. The Government has entered a whole new field of enterprise in which we are backing our regulations in the economic field by penal sanctions. We should know what are the costs involved. We cannot do that until we have the scientific enquiry I am asking for. I know exactly what the answer will be, or at least I can guess. The answer will be that the Department has not got the personnel to do it. The investigation should be done, I rather gather, by the Division of Economics and Marketing. I suppose that is so, and I suppose it is true that the Division has not got the personnel and the time to do it. My reply to that is that if the Government is convinced, as I am, of the urgency of this particular enquiry, which I think is absolutely fundamental to the reconstruction of our agricultural policy, absolutely fundamental to our agricultural policy, the personnel can be found. It will probably mean adding to the staff of the Department of Economics and Markets. I am inclined to think that that would not be a bad thing. It is probably high time that we increased the range and the staff of the Division of Economics and Markets, in order to enable it to carry some of the new burdens that it has acquired since the country embarked upon something in the nature of planned economy, and branched out into these fields of applied economics. I rather imagine that when the Division of Economics and Markets was established, it was established with the idea of providing farmers merely with knowledge of suitable prices. I doubt whether it ever was conceived that it should have the responsibility of making scientific analyses of the economic value of our agricultural resources. But that is the obligation that lies on it now. That is implicit on the whole policy of control boards; and until we get the scientific information on which we can base our policies, the sort of criticism that has gone on in this House all this session is going to go on every session, that is everybody shouting about the control boards, their follies and their futilities. The real reason for all the criticism against the boards is that there is no true scientific foundation to anything they do, there is no correlation of these activities, there is no correlation of the needs of agriculture and industry. You will not get any of these things until the Agricultural Department through its Division of Economics and Markets, applies itself to this essential problem of applied economics. I trust that the Minister will give this plea his serious consideration. I know that many farmers are beginning themselves to get anxious about this. I think a great many farmers realise that it would be very advantageous to have information which would clear the way for a better understanding between consumers and producers. It is not going to pay anybody to have this friction that exists between these two groups, for the impression will get abroad that the whole of our applied economy is based simply on political pressure; and this can only be avoided if we give a scientific basis to the decisions made by the Department. I know it is going to be a long-term investigation. I do not under-estimate the problems involved; but I do maintain that these difficulties do not constitute a valid reason for deferring the enquiry. It is no reason for putting it off. It is essentially a reason for beginning it. I hope that the Minister will see it in that light and that he will concede a demand which I believe will find support in very many quarters. If he does this he will have done a very good thing for the country.

I do not intend to restrict myself today to agricultural matters, and I want in consequence to leave what the hon. member who has just sat down has said to the Minister of Agriculture. If he cannot deal with her we shall later try to help him when the main estimates are under discussion. Before I come to the point that I want to deal with namely, internees, I cannot omit to return to an observation that was made by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. A. C. du Toit) in connection with one of our prominent leaders, namely the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). The hon. member for Prieska tried to tell the House today that during Fusion, from 1933 to 1938, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad went round from platform to platform to confess his guilt in connection with what he had done during the Rebellion; and that he also had the privilege of accompanying the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and of standing with him on the same platform when I stood in an election, and that he had never hesitated when there was an opportunity to say that he was sorry that he rebelled. In those days we did not have a constitution such as we have now. There was nd other method of gaining our liberty than by recourse to arms, and consequently that is why that procedure was followed. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad was prepared to sacrifice his life to regain the freedom of our country, but after the Statute of Westminster we realised that this was no longer necessary, to use weapons to fight to regain our freedom, but that we could do this by constitutional means, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad only on one occasion hesitated to say that he always stood for the big ideal of an independent South African Republic. And for the hon. member for Prieska to come here and state that the hon. member for Wolmaransstad had owned up over what he had done in the past—well, I leave it at that. During the course of the debate on the second reading and now during this third reading debate of this Bill, we have dealt with some important points, and there does not remain much to say, but I will confine myself to one important matter, and that is in regard to the group of internees who are still in the camps. I will not try to pretend that the people who are today in the internment camps are innocent. Leave it at that. I will even go so far as to say that, rightly or wrongly, the majority of them were guilty of subversive activity in one form or another. I want to compare their circumstances with those at the time of the rebellion in 1914. We then had instances which are well known to all of us. Every instance of a rebel was enquired into—we will not talk now about Jopie Fourie—and under the then Prime Minister, Gen. Botha, most of the rebels quickly regained their freedom, even while the Union Government was still at war with German South-West Africa on our borders. Then we come to the case of the leaders of the rebellion. The war with South-West Africa was past, but the Union then engaged in war in East Africa, also not far from our borders, and we found that Gen. Botha, and I will give him that honour—who influenced him I do not know—but he was the responsible person who released the leaders of the rebellion, notwitstanding that there was still war being waged on the boundaries. What is the position with the internees today? There is only a small number still in the camps. Our nearest enemy is about 5,000 miles distant from our borders. What danger is there to the public in releasing our internees today? At that time the rebels were released. Was it necessary to return to custody any of the people who were set free? I think there was not a single case of a rebel who was placed in prison a second time because he had again rebelled. And in this war I do not believe that any of the then prominent rebels have had a share in these subversive activities that occurred. That shows that the releases were justified. Now perhaps the English-speaking members will say that we must appreciate their position. Our Boer nation has had experience of how they also rebelled in our country. We think about the Jameson raid. We know how in a big-hearted way the Boer nation at that time liberated those English rebels, and consequently I am making this appeal to the English-speaking element to be also big-hearted. I am not thinking only of the men who are lodged in the internment camps, but especially of the innocent women and children. Most of the people who have been interned worked in the dark, even their wives and their grown-up children were not aware that the husband or the parents were engaged in this. In consequence the wives of these men had not the slightest idea of what had happened and had not the slightest chance of exercising their influence to see that such things were not done. In the majority of cases the women and children were innocent, but they are the people today, who are suffering worst in the circumstances. We are not a homogeneous nation. We also have a history behind us which causes us to think in divergent ways over matters, and we sometimes do things that I admit are wrong, but which I think are human. I ask the Minister specially to take this matter into serious consideration on that account, and to liberate these men. There the Minister of Justice is sitting and he has the fate of these men in his hands. He is a son of President Steyn, one of the greatest Afrikaners that the country has ever known, and I am convinced that if the old president still lived he would do everything in his power to gain their freedom for these men. We no longer have the president with us, but we have his son, who is in a position of authority that will enable him to show mercy towards these men. There is also his worthy old mother. She is advanced in years today, and in the evening of her life, and I am convinced in my heart that if he gives these people freedom it will do her heart good and she will feel proud and happy that she has brought someone into the world who today can show this magnanimity.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 23rd February.