I think at this stage I may reply to the questions that have been put to me during the past few days of the debate. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) has asked me to make a short statement in regard to the question of the agreement we are trying to negotiate with the Sugar Association. I will give the answer shortly and in order that it may assist, and as it refers to certain agreements, I shall read it. The question of the utilisation of the 400,000 tons of cane made available for the sugar industry, in terms of Paragraph 17 (e) of the Sugar Agreement, for the settlement of returned soldiers—as the hon. member knows a committee consisting of representatives of my department and the industry were appointed to consider the utilisation of this tonnage in the existing sugar belt, land owned by the existing industry. Negotiations have fallen through on account of (1) uneconomical prices of the land. The prices that the industry was going to charge for the land were uneoncomic. Then (2) it broke down on account of their insistence that they need not sell the land outright but that they could grant it leasehold, in perpetual lease. As far as I am concerned, and my department, we under no circumstances would agree to settle soldiers or any other settlers on leasehold land. As I have said before the tradition of the people of South Africa is that they want to own their land, and whenever we put a soldier on the land he is going ultimately to get title of that land and it will be his own property. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) asked whether they would get title under Section 11. Of course. He will see that. After these negotiations had fallen through I appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate the utilisation of this tonnage at Pongola, Umhlatusi and at Umfolosi. I should like to tell the House that we have for a considerable time been busy developing the land at Umfolosi. It is marshy land and requires draining for the purpose of preparing it for the growing of sugar.

Are you going to grow more sugar?

As the hon. member knows at Umfolosi there is without exception the best land in the whole of the sugar belt that we have available for the growing of sugar cane, and we are busy reclaiming that land. A very considerable area of land is being reclaimed, and it is the same with Umhlatusi, where we are canalising the land. The Umhlatusi River periodically overflows its banks and we have to try to prevent that before we start growing cane on these lands, and we are doing this canalising to pave the way for settling the soldiers there.

Have you any land available?

We are getting land ready at Pongola. Well, I appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate the utilisation of this tonnage at Pongola, Umfolosi and Umhlatusi. At Pongola we reckon we may be able to start off with about 70 returned soldiers. The first houses and holdings have already been prepared at Pongola. We may be able to increase that number from 70 up to 100 or even up to 150. We have started planting the cane in readiness for the time when we shall have to expand on a far bigger scale, when we are ready to have the soldiers settled there. I had a word on the subject with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who lives in the vicinity, and he tells me the growth of cane there has been exceptional. I have just received the report of the committee, and I have made arrangements to visit Natal after the present Session and to go into the matter personally, bearing in mind the recommendations of the committee. I will bring the matter to finality and I shall leave no stone unturned in regard to settling the soldiers on sugar lands. Immediately on my return I shall make a full statement to the Press on my decision. I may say. Mr. Chairman, that the time will come when the Department of Commerce and Industries will negotiate bearing in mind the requirements of the internal consumption in this country, with the sugar industry, that all the expansion of the internal sugar consumption in the country in excess of 400,000 tons of sugar will come to the Government to be used by new settlers. We hope the time will come when that expansion will take place. The time will come when we shall require more land, and there is some other land which I am going to have investigated during the recess. I shall be in a better position to tell the House something about that in the next Session. Then the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) askéd me certain questions in regard to the economic position of returned soldiers, more particularly in regard to land settlement at Pongola, and I shall now reply to that. I have the answer on paper and the hon. member for Berea will be able to use it in future because it is a definite reply. He has requested me to make a statement regarding the Government’s policy in connection with post-war settlement. I will deal briefly with this matter. The settlement of returned soldiers will take place under existing land settlement laws, which are quite adequate for this purpose. As far as settlements are concerned, e.g. scales of maintenance allowances have now been submitted to the Treasury for their approval and concurrence, to remedy the higher cost of living prevailing at the present time. Let me explain we have made representations to the Treasury, but it is obvious at this stage it is difficult to say what that amount will be. We do not know what the conditions may be when we ultimately settle the soldiers on the land, but whatever the conditions are at that time the amount of the allowance will be made to correspond with them. These allowances could not be fixed earlier as the end of the war was awaited and conditions were’ changing all the time, and if these were made earlier they might well have been out of date now. In determining the allowances now proposed, the evidence of bodies representing soldiers was taken into consideration. I might mention that the allowances suggested compare very favourably with those offered by other countries, taking into consideration both the direct advantages on settlements and direct allowances. The representations made by the Van der Merwe Committee have mostly been adopted and they have also made recommendations in regard to allowances. There will be about 2,000 plots available on closer settlements when fully developed. About 75 per cent. of these are completed or under construction and developed so as to be ready for allotment in a comparatively short time. When fully developed there will be approximately 1,000 farms excluding closer settlements in different parts of the country available for allotment. These farms are now being inspected with a view to determining their suitability, whether they are economic holdings, whether they have sufficient water supply, etc.

Are those Section 16 farms?

Yes. They are being brought into readiness for allotment as fast as possible and boreholes are being sunk to improve the water supply wherever necessary. Here again I would like to draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that we have depleted our number of drills; some are still up North. Then again many of our personnel have joined up and we have not sufficient staff to work the drills. Furthermore, we have a number of drills that have become obsolete. In fact, my Department have started to make their own drills which will be worked under their own power; these are being made in our own workshops at Pretoria at the present moment. Ten of these drills have been prepared and they are being tested out. I must say that as far as the tests are concerned they have so far proved eminently successful. The allotment of farms will commence as soon as soldiers have returned from overseas. The exact stage when allotment will be commenced with will be determined in conjuction with the Director General of Demobilisation. Allotment on settlements will be on individual leasehold and not on communal leasehold. If settlers, however, wish to assist one another on a voluntary basis in certain farming activities there will be no objection. My own experience in farming, however, is that there is no question of two neighbours helping each other; at any rate it does not last. The return from plots however, will be for the individual occupant. There is very close co-operation between the Director-General of Demobilisation and this Department. As far as applications are concerned for closer settlements these will first be scrutinised by the Director-General of Demobilisation and then forwarded to the Department for the necessary attention. We are leaving the Director-General of Demobilisation with his staff of returned soldiers to assume the responsibility for them so there can be no complaint directed against my Department as to these settlers not having had a fair deal. They will be tried, so to speak, by their own peers. As far as the existing laws allow, returned soldiers’ representatives will be placed on committees dealing with these matters on the settlements. The actual machinery to be used in the allotting and training of returned soldiers will be that of this Department, supplemented where necessary, by representatives of demobilisation under existing laws. It is the intention to place returned soldiers on individual farms who have a past experience of farming and who have a little capital. That is outside on closer settlements where we have direct supervision by our superintendents and other people. As far as the closer settlements are concerned, returned soldiers will be placed with less experience and capital, as ample provision is made in the existing laws for their assistance on settlements and for their necessary training, etc. Therefore we put those with less experience directly under our supervision on the closer settlements. On these settlements returned soldiers and others will be trained by competent and qualified agricultural professional men. The Land Settlement Acts make provision for granting loans to settlers. This is also applicable in the case of those who wish to purchase farms under Section XI of the Act. In both cases provision is made for loans and I cannot remember within all the period I have been in charge of that department that we have turned down any application which has been within reasonable limits. We are always out to help them and give them loans for boreholes, livestock, equipment, etc. The department has done everything in its power to expedite the preparations for settling returned soldiers at the end of the war. In this connection I say without any fear of contradition that this department has rendered trojan work up to now in preparing for this big State undertaking. All this preparatory work, which has been going on for years now, has been done under war conditions when there were very great difficulties of staff and manpower, as well as difficulties in acquiring the necessary materials to prepare for the settlement of soldiers and others after the war. Some difficulty may arise in connection with equipment, but fortunately we have been laying by a fair amount. They must have draught animals, and I may tell the House we have several thousand draught animals ready, and cows, and implements to go on with, but not nearly enough. I am sorry I cannot give the figure, but I think we want something like 12,000 draught animals to begin with.

What is the basic rate of interest?

It is per cent. for the first two years, I am speaking now of those allotted holdings and the prices fixed by the Land Board. For the first two years no interest on the capital and they do not pay any; and thereafter for a period of 63 years that this lease runs, the amount is divided up into instalments, and we can take 63 years as representing the life of any ordinary man. For the second two years it is 2 per cent. In the first two years no interest is payable on the capital. Then over a period of 61 years they pay a basic rate of 3¾ per cent.

When do they get title?

They get title, but the date is not necessarily fixed. If a good man who has paid off 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the capital debt asks for his title we deliver the title.

Do you attach the servitudes to the title?

And what a title!

What a title! Ask my hon. friend over there (Gen. Kemp) what a title. The hon. member gave an account of all the speculations that took place. Let me say here and now that if we were to take away these restrictions on dividing, and bonding, and selling went on without any restriction. I say without fear of contradiction that within 10 years there would be no land settlement in this country. The whole thing would be quite impossible. You would find that 90 per cent. of the settlers on the land will have lost their land, they will have speculated and lost it and will be sitting on our doorstep again.

That is true.

I say without fear of contradiction, in spite of what hon. members opposite may say, that is the position. In order to safeguard the State, in order to safeguard the man, the State advances all this money and gives all these facilities. In order to safeguard them these restrictions have to be imposed. It does not mean that these men cannot sell their land. If hon. members will come to my office they will find that sales are a daily occurrence. But of course we are limiting it. For instance, my hon. friend asked whether I would stand for wealthy men and big companies buying them out. We do not allow a rich man to buy them out. There is another point I should like to make. In this country under our land laws we have areas where the settlers pay us a basic rate of 1 per cent.; and in order to sell their land, at a profit of a few hundred pounds, they borrow the money at as high a rate as 10 per cent. to pay off the capital. Do you realise what is going to happen? Settlers have come and asked for their title and they have wanted to pay the purchase price? We have asked them whether they borrowed the money, and we find that has been done, they have got the money elsewhere. There was a time also when the Land Bank made them advances, but we have made an arragenment with the Land Bank who will not make advances to the settlers without consulting us, for the simple reason that the Land Bank rate of interest is 4½ per cent. and ours is 3¾ per cent. So when settlers come and in reply to our question admit they have borrowed the money we say that we will not do it. We say: We will not put you into the hands of people who will bleed you and fleece you. That is our policy. Hon. members must realise we have to guard the interests of these people. You have no idea how easy it is for these people to sell their land. There are areas where, I think it is in the hon. member’s constituency, one man has already got 35,000 morgen of settler’s land; and where are those settlers? Probably they are back again on our doorstep, or walking the streets. We are the trustees. I want to make that position very clear because there has been a tremendous amount of propaganda made about these restrictions put on the land. Let me say at once that there is nothing in it. The man who comes to us and wants land under the conditions which we give must realise that we are looking after him. We are going to rehabilitate him and we are not going to rehabilitate him to a certain stage and then allow him to get rid of his land. I can quote numerous cases where we agreed to a man selling his land. He sold it and now he is walking the streets. I do not allow that. We must look after these people and we will continue doing it. The restrictions put on their land is no handicap whatever. Yesterday it was stated over there that a great crime is committed because a minor son, when he becomes a major, cannot live on the land. But do hon. members realise that we are rehabilitating? We put the poorest of the poor on the land. The curse of South Africa is overgrazing and dividing the land into small pieces. The State puts a man on the land and he has three sons. While they are minors we educate them and give them, if necessary, a subsidy, so much for the man himself and so much for each child. We have had cases where son No. 1 becomes 21 and gets married and has a family and also lives on the same holding. That holding was intended in the first instance to afford a living to one man with his family. Now the son marries. The same thing happens to No. 2. What becomes of the State’s policy of giving these people an economic living? No. 3 gets married. I have had such instances. We find it is no good to say we are rehabilitating that man in the first instance and then by allowing him to do that breeding poor whites. In that way the State will be breeding poor whites much better and faster than otherwise would be the case.

There were 37 voters on one farm alone.

It must not be forgotten that during the war period production was concentrated on military requirements and production for civil requirements was relegated to the background. Although these difficulties still exist today everything is being done to speed up the settlement of returned soldiers as far as possible. With the limited staff and facilities at my disposal I cannot do more than I am doing and hon. members may rest assured that no stone is being left unturned. I must however issue a note of warning that settlements may be delayed for various reasons. It must be realised that in order to put probationers on the settlements, much equipment is necessary and much preparatory work required. These things I am all doing to the best of my ability, as far as circumstances allow me to do so. An hon. member has asked a question in regard to what guidance and instruction people are getting on the farms. I am now talking of the closer settlements. An arrangement has been made between us and the Agricultural Department by which they are going to train a large number of young men as instructors, and when they are fully trained my Department will draw its requirements for inspectors and instructors from the Agricultural Department, and in that way implement dur requirements. I think I have given a full statement in regard to all these questions.

Will any allowance be paid to these probationer farmers until such time as they are satisfactorily established?

No, I think the subsidy is only given on the closer settlements, but we give the farmers seedwheat, draught animals and other animals, and if he wants to buy sheep or things like that we give him a loan at a cheap rate of interest.

†*The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) asked me whether it would not be possible to give those people a farm near Rust der Winter where we possess land. The reason why the hon. member asked this is very well known to me. Rust der Winter is a settlement and the labour question there is very acute, and if we could make available there a farm on which the natives could live, they would be able to obtain farm labour. I cannot do so under the conditions as they exist today, but I am very sympathetic in this matter and when I return to Pretoria I shall further investigate it and see whether it is not possible to give assistance in some way or another.

†The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has told me about the Municipality of Dundee who has a fair amount of land suitable for small holdings and which they are prepared to place at the disposal of the Government for the purpose of settling disabled soldiers there, or those with small pensions which can be implemented by the earnings from these holdings. This matter however falls under Social Welfare and I would advise the hon. member to put that proposition to the Minister of Social Welfare. I am sure he will give it all the attention and assistance required.

†*We have discussed the question of lessees very frequently and very widely and from time to time I have explained the policy of the Government in regard thereto. Now I have again put down in writing a short summary which I want to read out in reply to the questions which have been asked—

The question of temporary leases in regard to soldiers on active service was brought specially to my notice by the Director-General of Demobilisation, Gen. Brink. After discussions and a thorough investigation by the Directorate of Demobilisation, temporary lessees on active service were classified into various groups by the Directorate of Demobilisation. It was decided that in certain cases the lease would continue to be valid until such time as the soldiers would return from outside the Union. Others again were extended until further notice by the Department. This measure was taken especially in order to reassure the soldiers on active service outside the Union that, whilst they are doing their duty towards the people and the country, they need not worry about the living of their wives and children.

Will the Minister tell us how many lessees have been given notice that they will have to vacate their farms?

What is the compensation which will be paid to those people for improvements?

I have said before that I cannot give the exact number. The leases with the tenants were all on a three-monthly basis, and some of them even on a monthly basis. We purposely fixed such a short time so that after the war the land could become available immediately when we need it.

How can a man farm there with mealies if he can receive three months notice?

That is the reason why the holdings were granted to the people practically for nothing. I want to say here that very few of the lessees have paid for more than 25 per cent. of the rent value of the land. The short period of giving notice was taken into account in the fixing of the rent. Some were fortunate and stayed on that land for several years, butthe explicit condition was that they must not make improvements and expect to be paid compensation for such improvements. That was laid down in the lease agreements. Here we have a number of cases, as I said before, where land has been let to people practically for nothing, and in many cases a process of destruction has taken place, so that today it is impossible, I am afraid, to estimate the enormous amount of damage we have suffered as a result of tramping out, destruction, etc. In quite a number of cases destruction took place on a large scale.

Can the people remove the improvements?

They can remove improvements. I was just saying that the process of destruction on Government land has been of such a nature that it would have paid the State much better not to let a single square inch of land and rather to let it lie fallow for a couple of years and to look after it. This is one of the things which is going to delay the placing of the soldiers on that land. We have in fact to start rebuilding right from the bottom again in order to make them habitable. I want to add that there are also Cases where the farms and the land have not been destroyed. There were people who did not overstock, people who made improvements which are of value and which will come in handy. In such cases we will not tell them to remove the improvements, but if we can make use of them ourselves, we are going to have valuations made and pay for them. One should always remember that the way in which a man treated us during those years will be taken into account.

Will the political convictions of a person have any effect on that?

That is again an uncalled for remark.

Did the Government make provision for any steps to be taken in regard to the people who are being driven off their land?

What a question. I have often explained that. There a man rents land for one month or three months and do you think it is possible for the Government in that case to accept responsibility for that man.

Some of them were lessees on that land for 23 years.

Then they were fortunate. In all those 20 years they only paid one-quarter of the value of the rent. I think I have replied to all the questions with the exception of those put to me by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and which I think are very personal.…

No.

How much land did you have?

That is no concern of yours. I did not ask the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F.H. Bekker) how much land he has.

I will tell you and I obtained it in an honest way.

Well I need not tell you what I have. But if I should tell you the hon. member for Wolmaransstad might feel the repercussions of it.

How much land do you have under irrigation?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad asked whether I own a farm “Koppieskraal” of which 100 morgen is under irrigation and whether I transferred water from one farm to another. He furthermore asked whether I own another farm “Bloubank” and other farms and whether I have a total of 400 morgen under irrigation. In the second place he asked me whether it is still the rule that one person cannot get more than 50 morgen irrigable land? The position is as follows. The Riet River Dam is a Government dam which was constructed there by a previous Government. From the Riet River Dam to Jakobsdal is a distance of approximately 50 miles, and along the river there are a number of farms, more or less 100, which are within reach of the canal. Long before I owned a square inch of land there or had the idea to buy land there, I met the farmers and the hon. member was also present. Mr. Havenga was also present. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) has 100 morgen there; that is correct.

100 morgen under irrigation?

Yes. Mr. Havenga who had the dam constructed there also has interests under that dam. We made the agreement that for every farm with title deeds, with its own deed of transfer, 50 morgen of irrigable land would be allotted, without consideration of the size of the farm, but only in respect of the farms which on that date had their own title deeds. We would not allow further sub-division with consequent further water rights.

And where they had already been sub-divided?

We said that we would not give any more water to sub-divided farms on that condition.

But those that had been sub-divided before that time, before that arrangement was made?

If they had their title deeds they were considered. I think the hon. member over there will be able to bear me out, but I think there was a case of old Mr. Badenhorst who said that he had sub-divided his farm into three parts. We then said that he would be entitled to three times 50 morgen. But otherwise we said that 50 morgen was sufficient, and the hon. member will agree with me, and we made a further limitation which has now been confirmed by legislation, namely that the people who obtain water for 50 morgen will not be allowed to sell any of those 50 morgen or to sub-divide it. If they sell they have to sell the whole farm. The idea of those 50 morgen is to improve the position of the farm, to enable the owner of the farm to make a fodder bank and to improve farming conditions on his farm. That limitation is still in force. The remarks the hon. member made about a company being able to buy up land, applies to settlements. There I have laid down restrictions. But that has nothing to do with private owners. Private owners can sell to whom they want to. In that case there is no restriction. In this case they do get water for which they have to pay water levies. Now they ask me whether I have 400 morgen under irrigation. I bought eight farms there of 50 morgen each.

Did you transfer water from one farm to another?

Yes, and the hon. member for Oudtshoorn did the same. But when you transfer the water from one plot of 50 morgen to another farm, then you do not get water for those 50 morgen. What is wrong with that?

When did you buy the land? Before the Act was passed*

I bought in July, 1943.

And when was the Act passed?

In 1944.

When you bought it, was there any prospect of the Act being passed?

We made that arrangement long before I bought the farms, but in 1944 it was incorporated in an Act.

If a person transfers water from one farm to another, can he then sell the first-mentioned farm without the water?

He can sell it without water rights. His water rights have then been transferred to the other farm. The first farm is then a dry farm.

Is the Minister a settler or a farmer?

I am a farmer just like any other private farmer. I must say that this discussion is most unsavoury and personal. I have no need to reply to it. It is not a decent discussion. I said that it might have repercussions for the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. The hon. member has a farm at Pongola under our water scheme. The previous owner made application to the Government, of which the hon. member was a member, to obtain water on his farm, but it was refused to him. After I introduced the arrangement about the 50 morgen, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad bought that farm. The water was refused to the previous owner, but nevertheless the hon. member bought the farm and then he came to me and said: “Give me the water”. I gave him water for 50 morgen.

Quite correct, for 50 morgen.

But the Government of which he was a member had refused the water.

He then was no longer a Minister and the matter is therefore, quite in order.

The farms which, I bought, I bought in the open market together with the water rights thereon and I paid for them as they were. I want to say once more that I take exception to the kind of personal accusations which are made time and again. They are ferreting out my personal affairs. There is nothing which cannot see the light of day. They can pry as much as they want to. I am not afraid of it and I hope that it will now come to an end.

I am thankful for the information given by the hon. Minister. Today we expect great things from him. I just want to ask a few questions. The hon. Minister in his speech said that he had promised that he would look after certain persons. What will happen to the persons who during the war gave of their best and worked hard in the factories and similar undertakings and are today being dismissed? Will they also get an opportunity as settlers? Then the Minister said that apart from the policy which he explained during the previous Session, he will see that the people will receive compensation according to their merits. There are, however, many who cannot get that. There are some people who can remove their improvements, but how can a man demolish a dam or a cattle dip, if he has farmed on a holding for 13 years or more. You cannot take that with you. Fencing and other effects you can still remove but not such improvements as dams and dips. There are some people who have already left the farms which they had. Have they the right to demand compensation for the improvements which they left behind? I hope that the Minister will reply to this. Some of those people are now already homeless, and have no means of existence.

The Minister said that nobody was homeless.

I can assure the Minister that there are many who are homeless. The Minister also spoke of the 3¾ per cent. which people pay on land after they have been in occupation for two years, but here I have a letter from the Department reading—

There they mention 3½ per cent. and the Minister made us understand that it was 3¾ per cent.

It is 3¾ per cent.

But in this letter they mentioned 3½ per cent. and in my district there are also other people who have been informed that it is 3¾ per cent. That is why I asked this question. Will the hon. Minister explain why some people were informed that it is 3½ per cent. and others that it is 3¾ per cent. per annum? We should like to know where we stand. We know that during the war it was said that we were involved in a struggle and that land would be allotted to soldiers on their return. There were scores of people on the land who hardly did any sowing because certain people received letters that they were not allowed to sow any crops. In these circumstances they lived there for three or four or five years and they never were entitled to sow anything there. Today they are walking the streets. Where must they go? I can quote instances of persons now living in our towns. Their farming activities have ended and today they are staying in the towns and are very poor. They have sold everything and are in a precarious position. Surely the Minister knows that every man tries to obtain his own plot of land and to become independent. I think we can now expect the Minister to give a reply to the question of what he is going to do for those people. Is he going to give them an opportunity to obtain land? The land in my district has not been tramped out. In fact it really was an uninhabitable area and now it has been made inhabitable, and improvements have been effected and the land has not been tramped out, but the people there are now without a future and they do not know where to go. There is one more question I want to ask and that is whether the Minister will take people to court who today do not know where to go to and therefore remain on the land after they have been given notice to leave? What is the Minister going to do?

The hon. Minister has been telling us of the conditions in relation to the new servitudes imposed by the Land Settlement Office under the Act of last year. I am not at the moment recommending a change in the law. I merely want to show him more in sorrow than in anger what his law has done to the cause of land settlement. I say without fear of contradiction that no worse blow has been inflicted upon land settlement, as I know it, in our province than the blow the Minister has levelled at that cause by his amendments of 1944.

Hear, hear!

The hon. Minister must surely know of the indictment of this Act that has been published practically in every number of the “Farmers’ Weekly”, a highly esteemed journal throughout South Africa, since this Act has come into force.

The letters were nothing less than sabotage.

I do not wish to sabotage anything or anybody. I am here to speak without fear of the effect of this Act upon land settlement, as I know it. My forefathers were in Natal probably before the hon. member was born and the land settlement schemes of those days gave them a good title. I am not resenting any remark the hon. member may make, and I want to discuss the matter temporarily and moderately and with due regard to facts. In Natal for almost 90 years land settlement proceeded, long before Union took place, on a basis which was satisfactory, because it held in view this essential that if a man was placed on the land he must secure a title that was as free from blemish as that of his neighbour. Under the Act of 1944 we are now in the course of abandoning that. We are in the course of giving a man a title which is a blemished title, a title on which the bank manager will look with suspicion, and a title which in the open market will be regarded only as second best. The Minister says he has been obliged to do this because of the speculation that has been going on amongst settlers who have been put on the land. I venture to challenge him to prove what speculation has occurred in our province— Natal—to justify every settler in our province suffering this depreciation in his title because of a limited number of people who have been embarking on speculation in regard to land allotted to them. The whole burden of the cry of the best kind of settler, the man who takes up individual title, who chooses his own neighbours and his’ own land, who rapidly stands on his own feet, and who is able “to look the whole world in the face and fear not any man,” is in this strain. He is the man who today is most vocal in the “Farmers Weekly” in condemning this title, and he puts to members of Parliament—who are here to defend the rights of the people who sent us here—he puts to us a good test: He says: “Ask every member of Parliament—Will you send your title to the Deeds Office willingly to have noted on that title the servitudes that appear on ours?”

Hear, hear,

I am prepared to do it.

If the hon. member will pardon my saying so, the hon. member has said that in a spirit’ of freshness which is displayed in the House so often but without serious intention. I shall appeal to a more sober-minded and a more experienced man. Will the hon. Minister agree to send his title for endorsement in this way?

If I got this land under the land settlement laws I would agree with great pleasure.

The hon. Minister is begging the question, with all respect tohim. There is no person who with the concurrence of his heirs would willingly send his title deeds to the Deeds Office to have them encumbered by this servitude.

Might I point out to the hon. member that he cannot reflect on a statute unless he moves for the repeal of that statute; I cannot allow the discussion to go too far in that direction.

I have no wish at this stage, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, to pursue that. I am not reflecting on the statute beyond saying its effect has been very unfortunate; and I am merely asking any hon. member in this House to stand up and say it is so harmless that he would agree to have the servitudes entered on his title. The Minister is not one of those. He says he would only volunteer if he were a settler himself, in other words if he were a poor man. He would have to go a long way before he reached that pitiable stage. I want to discuss very briefly the conditions that are complained about in the “Farmers Weekly”.

They say that was sabotage.

If I am accused of sabotage….…

He did not accuse you of sabotage.

I referred to the man who wrote that letter.

But surely the man who wrote that letter, being a person who suffers in consequence of the servitudes, is entitled to speak out without being accused of sabotage. It is a free country ….

It is not a free country.

The Nazis there say No.

I want to say briefly how these things are affecting the settlers who bought their land as far back as 1924 when it was free from everyone of these conditions. There was a signed and duly authenticated agreement between the Minister’s predecessor and themselves, saying when they had completed certain payments they would receive a free Crown grant, unblemished by any conditions. The Minister comes along and imposes on them, by unilateral arrangement, conditions which are distasteful and painful to them. The Minister is able to do that by virtue of the power that stands behind him in this House, and he has done that. Today he may, with all the vigour we know he possesses, stand up and thunder against the unfortunate people who demur. He may call them saboteurs. He may use all the invective….

That is not fair. I never used that word “sabotage”.

I accept that readily, but he certainly does not display the same patience towards these people as I should like to see shown. The people in our province—Natal—have never speculated in settlement land. I am in touch with men who could sell their land under conditions that appear attractive to them. I have accompanied many a would-be seller to the Lands Department where the sale was justified, and the consent has been given freely and readily by the Lands Department in our province, but I know of no settlers who have been involved in these abuses that have been spoken of. I do not deny what was said by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) whom I respect very highly, that there has been speculation in his district. But my belief is where an agreement has been in existence as far back as 1924 and where these people have complied with the agreement we are not entitled to go back on that agreement, and to impose servitudes injurious to a settler’s title.

We must thank the Minister for his very kind reference to the work done by the Committee that went into land settlement. I must say I also regret that the House has not been supplied With a copy of the report showing that committee’s work. It might be better if everyone knew what was done as stated in that report. I am glad to say that that report has been well received by other departments and that the department most concerned, that is Demobilisation, is still in contact with the committee in regard to any new problems that arise. Let me say this on the question of title. We asked these settlers: How do you feel about all these restrictions placed on land settlement? They told us that they were hearing everywhere about these difficulties down at Cape Town but so far as they were concerned on the settlement they were living quite happily and they did not find the restrictions irksome. They are absolutely satisfied and do not worry about them. A challenge has been fung across the floor of the House as to whether new restrictions are being placed on these people and whether they are being given different title to what was held out when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) was a Minister. These soldiers coming back to the settlements will be new owners in the land settlements, and I want to challenge anybody to tell me that their conditions will be in any way different to the conditions of new people who came on to the settlements at the time when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister. On their titles it was stated that the particular farm was granted under the conditions of the law, or the regulations that were in force at the time the hon. member was Minister; those regulations had the same power in those days as the present Act and were actually put into force by the Department of Lands in the same way as the law now is. So that any new man who went farming would in the first instance enter into occupation of his holding under the same conditions as he would have entered into at the time when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister. The only practical difference was in relation to his future prospects about selling to somebody else. I do not think we need worry about that any more. I should like to pay tribute to the Lands Department for the work they have done on these settlements and for the very good prospects the soldiers will have right through the country, that is to say those who are lucky enough to get plots on the settlements. I am sorry the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) talked disparagingly about these settlements.

To a point of personal explanation, I never littered a single word in disparagement of the settlers.

The disparaging talk about title has had the effect of putting off a number of soldiers who are contemplating making application for these plots. On that committee we saw people from all parts who had seen these settlements and who considered that they were a tremendous asset to the country. We can, with the fullest confidence, advise any soldier to go on to these settlements. There is no question about it. I will discuss one point in connection with the restrictions that are placed on the settlers. Take Vaal-Hartz. Some men there who had been there for a long time took transfer of their plots. They had bought that land for something like £1,000, for a plot of 30 morgen.

£700.

They had houses and everything. Just lately similar plots of that nature were sold at Warrenton, which is just a little further on, and personally I would prefer to be at Vaal-Hartz. These plots were sold at £200 a morgen. So you have the position that the soldier settlers, if they were allowed to sell straight away, would receive about £6,000 for their plots. In making such a sale they would not have been doing the right thing for the coutry or for anyone who might be settled in the country. We have to take action to prevent a man speculating. These settlements must be used for the purpose for which they were intended. It is not intended that people should speculate, that they should live there a few years then sell the plots and go elsewhere. I hope that hon. members appreciate that, and that they will bear it in mind when there is talk about restrictions on soldiers in connection with our land settlement. The whole scheme has been worked out more or less on a same basis, and on the basis of the assistance they will get out of demobilisation. But if you give the soldiers the right to make a few thousand pounds in a few months’ time it would not be fair to the scheme as a whole. The question has been asked, as I have said, how our settlement schemes compare with similar schemes elsewhere. I may tell the Committee this, that this committee on which I have the honour to sit went very carefully into this question. We made comparisons, and I maintain that not only does our scheme compare favourably with those in other parts of the world, even in South American states, but our schemes taking them in general, are very much better. Where people make a mistake is in leaving out of their calculations the initial capital that is used to bring these schemes into operation and to put them under irrigation. Some of them are excellent schemes but they have cost a tremendous amount of capital to bring them into a state of preparation which is necessary for settlement. It is not always realised that 30 morgen under irrigation is much better than 30 morgen under dry land. So the comparisons are hopeless when they do not take into consideration the relative state of preparedness of these different areas. I say again that the criticism that is heard is not fair to the soldier, who should be dissuaded from listening to the criticisms of these people who would be better employed in assisting the returning soldiers to make good use of the lands the Government is making available for them.

I cannot agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe), namely that his experience when he went round with the Committee was that all the settlers were highly satisfied with the changes which came about through the Act which was passed last year. I do not agree with him on that point and the position is quite different wherever I go. I leave it at that. I am sorry that the Report of the Minister’s Committee has not been tabled here so that we might acquaint ourselves with the findings of the Committee. The Committee visited all the settlers and we hoped that that Report would be tabled in this House. Yesterday I put a few fair questions to the Minister. He resents me having put those questions to him and this morning he comes with a threat and says: “The hon. member for Wolmaransstad has asked me those questions but they may have repercussions as far as he is concerned.” I want to say at once that I do not come under that settlement of the Riet River. I only put a few questions to the Minister. My land is on the Pongola and the Minister granted me 50 morgen. I pay £1 per morgen for the water running over the farm. I do not find fault with that, but I asked those questions yesterday because the Minister always tells us that 50 morgen under irrigation is sufficient for any man. A further reason why I asked those questions is because the Act of 1944 does not lay down that when you have bought a farm which is not riparian, you can buy water rights for that farm, which you have bought at a later date, as is the case in this instance. I leave the matter there. I now want to come back to the question of settlements. The Minister told us how those farms were neglected, how some farms deteriorated and how the land was destroyed, but surely the Minister has his inspectors there. If those farms were let on a temporary lease, then he could have had his inspectors there to see that those people would look well after the farms, and to take care that no damage was done to the farms, and if such a lessee did not act in accordance with his lease, then the Minister could have cancelled the agreement. There are, however, people who were lessees on those farms for 15 years and more. They were under the impression—and I did not hide it when I was the Minister—that when one day that land would be advertised and allotted, their applications would be given consideration. Once a man is on the land the Land Board cannot easily remove that man from his land. I am not talking now about land which the Minister let in recent times, but I am talking about holdings which were leased out eight, ten and fifteen years ago. The Minister simply gave them three months notice and they were chased off their farms.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) will shut up, I will be able to continue. He can make a speech afterwards. Among the people who now have been given the sack by the Minister, you will find returned soldiers of 1918. Those people for four years made war for the country and when those people came back they were given temporary leases on the understanding that they would afterwards have an opportunity to become owners of the land. There is for instance Mr. Rademan. He received notice that he would have to leave the farm within three months and the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) met him a month ago on the road. He was then trekking. The Minister told us here that nobody was put on the road. I now want to ask the Minister whether it was fair to let those people go before he asked for applications. If the Minister calls for applications in order to allot that land, when the soldiers are back, then it will still be time enough to give those people notice to quit. The country has to produce and those people who have now been put on the road had to sell then belongings and many of them had to trek to the towns. We maintain that these are inhuman actions by a Minister who pretends to have the settlers’ interests at heart. Is that human? No, it is inhuman to chase those people away. The farms are now lying fallow. The Minister says that he is looking after those farms. Has he again appointed caretakers on those farms or is the inspector going around now and again to visit the farms? What will happen on those farms? The doors are removed, the windows are shattered, and the houses damaged. During this period the farm is damaged and when one day the returned soldier arrives there, there will be extra expenditure to build up again what has been broken down. If the Minister is honest—he is in a better mood this morning—then he will admit that he treated those people in a very unfair manner by simply chasing them off their farms, in some cases six months, nine months, or perhaps a year before he is going to allot the land. That land is now being damaged by natives and loafers. I want to raise another point, however, in regard to this matter. At the commencement of his speech the hon. Minister said that he wanted to give the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) the assurance that when the soldiers come back they will obtain ownership rights. Is that in order to pacify the soldiers? Nobody is satisfied when he gets something which does not become his property. The Minister knows that in accordance with the Act of 1944 that land cannot become the legal property of those people, and now the Minister every time refers to me and says that I started that thing. The Minister knows that last year this matter was thrashed out here and that that is not the case. Only in the first instance had they to obtain permission when they transferred the land to a second person, and thereafter that person could do with it as he liked. Now the Minister and also the hon. member for Rustenburg say: You see, if that man sells the land he can make £200 profit on it. All right, but why place restrictions on the poorest of the poor. The poor man goes there to make a living and if afterwards he can make a profit and can buy twice as much land to make a better living, surely he should be able to do so. But the Minister does not want to allow that. In the towns loans are given to returned soldiers in order to build houses. Is there a single person who has built a house with borrowed money and to whom restrictions apply that he may not sell that house if he can make a profit? If he can sell that house at a profit of a few hundred pounds, there is nothing to prevent him doing so. The Land Bank lends money to people and there is no restriction that they may not sell their farms. But in the case of the settlers, the poorest of the poor, the Minister does not want them to also provide a future for themselves. On a previous occasion I told the Minister that a man only cherishes what is his own. You do not love something which is not your own and if you know that you are on a farm of which you will be only an everlasting lessee, then you will not love that farm. You will not build up that farm as you should build it up, for you have no security. It is ridiculous to tell us that the people there are satisfied. I have travelled around quite a bit and I did not meet a single person who declared that he was satisfied with this everlasting quitrent to which he is subject. The Minister says that the people are satisfied and the hon. member for Rustenburg says that they are satisfied. I do not know whether I was merely unfortunate in meeting only dissatisfied people, but at all the meetings which I attended the people said that they were dissatisfied and I do hope that a change will be brought about. There is dissatifaction throughout the country from one side to the other. That is the position and I still hope that in future a change will be brought about in this position. But as I am on my feet now, I want to say that I hope that I will still have an opportunity to discuss another question in regard to the Pongola settlement. I told the Minister how fine the sugar cane was standing there and he is now going to put settlers there. Within a few years the sugar cane will be ready for cutting. What are the prospects for the people there when the sugar cane is ripe; will there be a mill there to process the sugar cane or must those people send their sugar cane to Natal? If so, it will have to be transported there by motor lorry at a very high cost. Surely that is impossible. I hope the Minister will go into it and that he will tell us what steps he is going to take to assist the settlers with a mill. Then I want to say something in regard to the canals. I am glad that Dr. Thompson is present, because he can supply the necessary information to the Minister and can tell him that the canals are dirty. On my land there is a leakage and the land is showing signs of brak. I told the manager that the furrows had to be cleaned. They are busy doing that. But hundreds of natives have been dispensed with for the sake of economy, and if they continue at the present rate, it will take them years to complete the work. [Time limit.]

I will be very brief. In regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) I want to say that it surprises me that he should be the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know that every settler is dissatisfied with that legislation.

Those you have incited.

It seems to me that the hon. member does not know of the existence of a journal like the “Farmers’ Weekly”. I challenge him to quote one single letter which has appeared in the “Farmers’ Weekly” expressing approval of that Act. Everybody is dissatisfied. Take the agricultural societies, and the members of the agricultural societies in many places are predominantly supporters of the other side, and you will find that they are just as dissatisfied with that Act. From morning till evening they pass resolutions to protest against that Act, and it is amazing that the hon. member gets up here and denies that such is the case. I agree with him that there are many settlers who keep quiet, for the simple reason that they are their holdings, and they do not even know about this Act. That is precisely the unfairness of it that the Minister gets an act through this House which amounts to a breach of contract as far as these people are concerned, and they have not been notified. They are not aware that their contract has been altered. Today they sit on their holdings, and only when they get their title deeds, they discover the difficulties they are in. Only when they want to sell their holdings or when they want to pass a bond, they discover these provisions embodied in their title deed. That is the reason why I have got up now, because I want to know from the Minister of Lands what his policy actualy is. I know that I would be out of order if I were to advocate an alteration of the Act on this occasion. If that were not so, I would go more fully into the matter. On this occasion, however, I want to know what the Minister’s policy is since that Act has now been placed in the Statute Book. Fortunately it is one of the Acts in regard to which the Nationalist Party has undertaken to repeal that Act immediately when they come into power. But in the meantime we should know definitely what the Minister’s policy is as far as the application of that Act is concerned. Suppose a män gets his title deed and wants sell his farm, is he allowed to make a profit or not? What is the interpretation going to be? The man possibly got the land at 10s. per morgen and he can get £3 or £4 now. Will he be debarred from selling at a higher price than the one at which he originally obtained his land?

Of course not.

I would prefer to have a reply from the Minister because I want to know what policy he is going to pursue. We know that the person buying from him will be placed under the same restrictions, because this servitude is going to be everlasting—or as long as the present Government will be in power, which fortunately is not going to be long—because the Minister has informed us that it is going to be a perpetual servitude. Of course, that minimises a man’s chances of selling, and there are many instances where such a person has to sell his land. Possibly he falls ill and has to stop farming, or his son wants to take over the holding and there are other children. We want to know in what circumstances a sale will be approved of.

We are always considerate.

Do you want to allow that man to sell to a rich man?

Possibly the rich man intends to go in for farming himself. Possibly he desires to extend his farming operations. I also want to tell the hon. member that it is not my act and not my policy, and for that reason I am not compelled to reply. I want to know the Minister of Lands’ policy and he should tell us whether he is going to refuse a poor man to sell his land to a rich man who desires to go in for farming himself. If he is only allowed to sell to a poor man, and he is under all these restrictions, you are going to limit his chances of selling.

It must be a bona fide farmer.

*Mr. NAUDÉ I do not want to go into that question, because I disagree with this Act. I only want to know the Ministers policy. Secondly, I want to put the question to the Minister in regard to these people who are being removed from their holdings. I want to know from the Minister how many children of over 21 years of age have been removed from these holdings and what steps have been taken to make provision for these boys. The Minister of Lands ought to know, and the department is sure to know the number of cases which have occurred. I want to appeal to him, and I hope it will not be in vain, that these people should be… treated with consideration and they should not be compelled at a moment’s notice to leave the land. I see that the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) is absent, but I want to congratulate him on the attitude adopted by him today. He is one of those who is already coming forward to point out the disadvantages of this legislation, and how it is going to be detrimental to land settlement and not in the interests of settlement.

But he voted in favour of the Act.

Yes, he voted in favour of the Act and he has already come to the conclusion, as many hon. members on the other side will in due time also come to, that they voted on the wrong side, that they made a mistake in connection with the Act.

And if they do not see it know, they will find out at the election.

Yes, but we see the signs that they have already discovered their mistake. All that is still needed is an election and then the settlers are going to settle accounts with them so that all of them will find out their mistake. But then, of course, they will blame the Minister for the mistake, and they will not admit their own mistake.

The voters have settled accounts with you already.

Not in connection with this matter.

We will read to them from the 1937 Hansard.

I’m glad that the Minister returns to that, because it affords me an opportunity of reiterating once again the difference between the two Acts. The Minister continues to tell us that the Act of 1937 was exactly the same as the Act passed by him. We know that that is not the case. What happened in 1937, was this. The Act of 1937 took cognisance of the fact that possibly there might be settlers who land into trouble and who are forced to sell, and who might in the circumstances possibly agree to unfavourable transactions. The 1937 Act laid down that only in regard to the first transfer the settler will be protected so that the Department could see to it that he would not sell to his disadvantage. It only applied to the first transaction, but the present Minister of Lands went further and made it perpetual, so that all sales in future will be subject to his approval. He applies it to all future transactions. That is Very different. Control over the first sale can be justified. I personally was not very strongly in favour ever of the 1937 Act, but at the time it was the policy of the Government side, but that policy certainly was not the legislation passed by the present Minister of Lands. There is no comparison between the two. But let us leave it at that. I want a statement from the Minister as to his policy. How is he going to carry out the Act. In the first place, I want to know whether a settler will be allowed to sell at a profit? Will he be allowed to sell to a man who is already in possession of land and who wants to farm on the holding, or will he only be allowed to sell to a poor man who has to be assisted? In regard to the soldiers who want to become settlers, I hope the hon. member for Potchefstroom and other members opposite will make it very clear to the soldiers what the conditions are, what the restrictions are attached to their holdings, so that the soldiers know that they can never become full owners of the land, so that they realise that they will be under a perpetual servitude, and that as far as improvements, bonds, sales, etc., are concerned, they will have in all’ cases to approach the Department of Lands and to get permission, just the same as a bywoner has to go to his master. I hope that they will explain that, because otherwise they will not be honest with the returned soldiers, and I want them to put the position very clearly to them. If that is done, no soldier will desire to become a settler, unless he has no other prospects, or knows that the National Government is going to repeal that Act shortly. These are matters in connection with which we would like to have a clear statement today. [Time limit.]

I was rather surprised to hear that speech from the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). What is the reason? Why does he want the Minister to tell all the soldiers that they will not get that land in their own names? Is this a little bit of organisation on behalf of the Nationalist Party to put soldiers off applying for the ground so as to enable those who remained at home, the Nationalists’ friends, to get these plots? Because I want to tell the hon. member for Pietersburg that there are now roughly 6,000 applications from the north for these plots and others coming in.

They do not know about this condition.

Is the hon. member trying to put the soldiers off? He knows that there is nothing wrong and it will be our duty to see that these soldiers are not put off applying for the ground. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister a very old evil which has been lying dormant for a considerable time but is now again showing its teeth. I refer to the cutting up of farms in the close proximity of the large cities. The procedure seems to be to cut them up into five and 10 acre plots. Usually these farms have been a failure from the agricultural point of view and have been worthless. They have not been able to grow crops and there is a scarcity of water on them. I know of three farms within a radius of 25 miles from Johannesburg which were cut up into 10 acre plots, and I believe the selling price per plot is roughly about £500. What is the position? There is no water, little grazing, and the ground is unsuitable for agricultural purposes. Who are going to buy those plots. It will be the man who will retire on pension, who has possibly worked in the civil service for 30 years and managed to scrape some money together. He will be the type of man who is caught. Those who feel the call of the land in their blood will be in the same position, having bought these plots. They will be the victims. It will not be the rich man. Worse still, unfortunately it was laid down by the Director of Demobilisation that clerks who joined the fighting service must return to their particular job. They cannot apply for these farms that the Minister will advertise. We will find a repetition of what happened after the last war. Many soldiers will feel that they cannot go back to office work. They will want to go back on the land. They will be the ones who will be stuck.

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

When the House suspended business I was busy discussing this cutting up of useless farms into small plots of roughly about 10 acres, farms in and around large cities with particular reference to Johannesburg. Actually these plots of land are useless. The land is waterless, and the farms I mentioned to the Minister this morning are, from an agricultural point of view, quite useless. Unfortunately this has become a ramp at the present time; and, as I pointed out earlier, I am afraid the victims of this ramp are mostly going to be returned soldiers and pensioners. I want the Minister to act very quickly on this matter, because in my opinion this is a very popular time for this ramp to be carried on. We know some 6,000 men have applied for State farms while there are only about 3,000 farms to go round at the present time. So 3,000 men who would be legitimately entitled to farms will have to go on hoping. Fortunately our demobilisation organisation has issued a circular which sets out if a man was before the war a clerk or was employed on indoor work he is to return to his pre-war occupation, and failing that he will get no help at all from the department. Otherwise we should have a repetition of what happened after the last war. A large number of clerks went away and, as a result of living for some time in God’s fresh air, on return they refused to work indoors again. The same thing will happen now. Therefore I say it is urgently necessary for the Minister to act at the present time. These men will receive a fair amount of money; they will have gratuities granted to them; and these landsharks are waiting now to get the full benefit of the nest-egg these men have managed to accumulate and of the gratuities they are entitled to. That is the position, and at the present time it is an urgent matter. I suggest this to the Minister, that before any farms are cut up his department should have them investigated. The farm owner desiring to cut up the land should submit a report to the department saying what the land would be suitable for. Then the Minister could send out his inspector and see whether that land is suitable for small farming. That is the only form of protection you can have. It offers protection for the returned soldier. It offers protection for the pensioner.

Furthermore, and this is possibly equally as important as the other two points, it offers protection for the land itself. It will assist in preventing overcrowding of the land. What is happening at present? During the course of a full day’s debate on Dongola that point emerged that the land was being overloaded.

Rubbish.

The hon. member says “rubbish”. But it does not matter whether it is small or big farms. If there is not a blade of grass growing in some parts of that area what else is the explanation? I sincerely hope that the Minister will make it an urgent matter to protect, in the way I have indicated, our soldiers who are returning to the Union.

This morning when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) put the question to the Minister concerning his 400 morgen of irrigable land under the Rietrivier scheme the Minister said it was distasteful that anybody should question him concerning his private property. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that he is the last man to talk of distasteful things. ’One thinks back to what happened at the docks here, and one thinks of what happened at Hutchinson, and what happened at Kakamas. Now we have come to Rietrivier, and I want to tell the Minister that he is the last man to take the word “distasteful” in his mouth.

Why go into that again?

The Minister states this morning ….

What about the docks?

The Minister says that he holds eight farms under the Rietrivier scheme.

Tell us about the docks.

It seems to me that the would-be Minister of Lands makes his yearly speech by interruptions. Any decent man doesn’t even take notice of his interjections. I am dealing with the Minister of Lands. He got up and told us that he has eight farms near the Rietrivier scheme and that he holds 50 morgen of irrigable land under each of these farms. Now I want to ask him this afternoon to inform us what the names of the eight farms are. I want to tell him straight to his face that it is not correct. He does not possess eight farms and 50 morgen of irrigable land in respect of each of these farms. I want to tell the Minister how he came into possession of the land, because it is a distasteful thing that a Minister of Lands should stand up here and tell us that he is placing restrictions on people because otherwise within a short time the settlements go out of the hands of these people, and then he gets up and says that he has already bought eight farms. He condemns people who buy land under settlements and he has already bought eight farms himself. That is a reprehensible thing for a Minister to do.

He is a business man.

I want to inform the hon. the Minister that he has a farm by the name of “Koppieskraal”, which he bought from a certain Mr. Koch. When the Minister purchased that farm, Mr. Koch had 100 morgen under irrigation. Fifty morgen of that falls under “Koppieskraal” itself and 50 morgen, which he transferred as a right from the farm “Bloubank”. That is where the 100 morgen at “Koppieskraal” came from. But after the farm passed into the possession of the Minister, he went and allocated to himself an additional 50 morgen, and in that way today he has 150 morgen of irrigable land at “Koppieskraal”. It is true there were two registrations, but how did he get the third 50 morgen? Mr. Koch sold “Bloubank” without its right of 50 morgen of irrigable land. And moreover the Minister informs us that “Bloubank” had 50 morgen irrigable land, but there were only 29 morgen, and that is not the whole story. We now have dealt with “Koppieskraal” where he holds 150 morgen. There were only two registrations. Now he goes and buys the farm which is generally known under the nickname “Tipperary”. I suppose that is very appropriate when thinking of the Minister. I do not know what the name of the farm actually is, but I believe that one name is “Octavi” and one “Biscuit”. These are four registrations and at 50 morgen irrigable land each, we get to 200 morgen irrigable land. Now we come to the most astonishing fact. The Minister bought another farm a second “Bloubank”. This farm “Bloubank” belonged to a certain Mr. W. Coetzee. But there was another man who had a hire purchase option on it, a certain Mr. Kruger. Subsequently Mr. Coetzee was not prepared to sell to Kruger. What happened? The Minister of Lands bought out Mr. Kruger’s rights for £500, I am informed, then he went and bought the farm of Mr. Coetzee. Now I want to come back to the question I put to the Minister as to where he has his eight farms. He told us this morning that he has eight farms, each with 50 morgen irrigable land. I only know of seven farms in his possession. I do not say that the Minister came by those farms in a dishonest way.

Before I reply, I want to know what you are inferring when speaking of the docks.

The Minister’s conscience should not worry him in regard to the docks. I am dealing with Rietrivier.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, here a very serious reflection has been made against my character in regard to the docks, and I believe that I am entitled to put the question to the hon. member as to what happened in regard to the docks.

If the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) desires to make a charge against the Minister of Lands he has to do so by way of a substantive motion.

The words used by me were that the Minister was referring to distasteful matters. I said that those words carry us back to the docks, to Hutchinson, to Kakamas, and to Rietrivier. That is what I said.

What is the reflection?

On a point of order. If the hon. member is casting a reflection, is the Committee not entitled to demand that he should say what it is? It is distasteful from A to Z.

I want to ask the hon. member if he is making a charge against the Minister in regard to the docks, to state what it is.

I have not made a charge. I did not make a charge in regard to Kakamas, Hutchinson or the docks. The Minister can read my words in Hansard. But in view of the fact that the Minister is now driving me, I want to put this question to him: In view of the fact that this land should have resorted under the Department of Lands, why did the Prime Minister take it away from the Minister of Lands and place it under the Minister of Transport? Let him tell us here what the reason was. He dare not do so. I want to spare him. It is necessary in his case. He knows that I am stating a fact. The land at the docks should have resorted under his Department, and the Prime Minister thought fit to take it away from him and to place the Minister of Transport in charge. It is now his duty to inform us why the Prime Minister took that step. Does the Prime Minister not trust him? Let him get up and tell us. [Time limit.]

Let me reply at once to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). I said this morning that this is one of the most reprehensible methods which I have experienced in my political life of some 25 years—may I say that it is the lowest method which I have come across that my character is besmirched by way of insinuations. Mention is made of the water at Hutchinson and then “Die Burger” publishes a cartoon on its front page “Conroy’s Water at Hutchinson”. Of course, the object is to give their readers to understand by way of inference that there is something wrong.

But there is.

If I have done something wrong, you can take up the case.

Nobody who is a Minister, will enter into a contract like that with his own Government.

It was wrong for you to enter into such a contract.

Go and say that outside.

Of course, I am prepared to say outside that the Minister should not have entered into such a contract.

It is not the first time that these tactics have been employed. Now the hon. member once more referred to the docks and intimated that there was something underhand. The docks never resorted under my department. It is sea which was reclaimed and it was done by the Railways Department.

It was done by a Dutch concern.

They were the contractors. The Railways Department reclaimed the sea. It was done with money belonging to the Department of Railways. It falls under the Railways Administration and they are dealing with it. To say that the Railways took it away from me—I state that it is an infamous lie.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. Minister entitled to accuse another hon. member of telling an infamous lie?

The hon. Minister must withdraw that.

I will do so, but at the same time I want to say that a stop should be put to these methods.

Yes, if you discontinue these tactics.

I think I have dealt with the docks story.

Not at all.

The seashore still resorts under you.

Yes, the seashore, but not the sea.

The land between the high-water mark and the low-water mark.

I don’t think it is necessary to go into the matter any further.

I am of the same opinion.

That hon. member should be ashamed of his conduct in this House. He wants the names of the farms. He says that he can only find seven. I bought two farms from Mr. Koch, “Groot Koppieskraal” and “Klein Koppieskraal”. Mr. Koch also had a farm “Bloubank” which he had sold previous to that and that was entitled to 50 morgen irrigable land, but he retained the water rights and those water rights fell to “Klein Koppieskraal”.

Were the water rights retained for a specific farm?

They were added to “Klein Koppieskraal”. They should give me an opportunity of stating the facts.

We only desire clarity.

I stated that I bought “Groot Koppieskraal” and “Klein Koppieskraal”. That is more than 9,000 morgen. Each one of these farms were entitled to 50 morgen irrigable land. Mr. Koch sold the farm “Bloubank” before I purchased that farm from him, but he had retained the water rights and they were transferred to “Koppieskraal”. That comprises three farms as far as water rights are concerned. Then I bought four farms, each under separate deed of transfer, and each entitled to 50 morgen irrigable land. These farms are “Ibani”, “Biscuit”, “Leniesdal” and “Octavi”. Now I come to “Bloubank” which I bought. Mr. Coetzee gave an option on “Bloubank” to a certain Kruger to buy that farm for £8,000. He came to me and asked me to take over the option, and I paid him £250 for the option. The hon. member mentioned £500—of course, it would also have satisfied him to say £5,000.

Then apparently he told another lie.

Is the hon. member in order to ask the Minister whether the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (mnr. Boltman) told another lie?

I did not hear that. Did the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) say that?

Yes, I put that question. But I am prepared to modify my words and to ask whether the hon. member has told an untruth. /

On a point of order, that really doesn’t improve the matter. The insinuation is that the hon. member told an untruth, and I want to ask whether an hon. member is in order to level such a charge against another hon. member?

I made no accusation against the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). I said that the Minister of Lands only had seven farms, while the Minister said he had eight. Subsequently he said that the Minister paid £500 for an option, while the Minister only paid £100 for it; and then I asked whether that was the second lie that he told. I did not say he did tell it. I asked whether that was the second lie he told.

Now the position is perfectly clear. If the hon. member asks whether it was a second lie then he is accusing the hon. member of having already told a lie. I ask whether the hon. member, seeing he admits that he accused the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg of telling a lie, is in order.

The hon. member cannot accuse another hon. member of telling a lie, and he must withdraw it.

I shall withdraw the word “lie” and I shall ask the Minister if this was a second shameful untruth.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I was sent out of the House yesterday because I said that someone told a definite untruth. Now the hon. member says that another hon. member stated a shameful untruth.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “shameful untruth”.

I only asked whether that was so.

The hon. member cannot put a thing like that in the form of a question, and he must withdraw it. He cannot accuse another hon. member of telling a shameful untruth, and he must withdraw it.

I did not make such an accusation.

Order!

If this House considers that I should withdraw then I withdraw it, but it means I am withdrawing something that I never said, because I made no accusation.

He said he asked the Minister whether it was the second shameful untruth that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg told. It is in my opinion nothing else than saying that the hon. member told a shameful falsehood.

I think the hon. member must withdraw that, because he cannot put anything of that sort in the form of a question.

Very well, I withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, may I point out that the hon. member has withdrawn, but after he sat down he said he was still of the same opinion. It appears to me as if he is trying to get past the ruling of the Chair.

The hon. member must withdraw unconditionally.

Very well, I withdraw.

It is not the first time that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg has resorted to this dirty sort of attack. These are attacks that are quite baseless and that have only one object, and that is to try to throw mud. I wish I could get him outside and then I would deal with him. I have now given him the names of the eight farms.

Only seven.

I have already explained the position to the House. I only need to add that I bought the farms on the open market at the market price. I leave it at that. What I should like to know is what protection I have when an hon. member makes false allegations that are absolutely baseless with only one object, by implication to blacken my character; this is then circulated by his newspapers throughout the country and is exploited in the country. In those newspapers there then appears: What about Conroy’s farms? And that sort of thing. I have now explained the position.

I do not intend to waste the time of the House in referring to these scandalous personal attacks made on our Minister of Lands, which cannot in any way be substantiated, at a time like this when something constructive should be spoken about for the benefit of these land settlements. The Government’s land policy is designed to help people on to the land to find a means of making a living and it is designed to create stability as regards production and land settlement. But our hon. friends of the Opposition feel that this is a fruitful field for political propaganda, advantageous to them, and they do not for a moment want to consider those unfortunate people whom the Government want to help, people with a natural urge and a land hunger which exists in the blood of all South Africans. We have heard criticisms of the Vaal-Hartz settlement. A few weeks ago we discussed the social welfare settlement for semi-fits and they are trying to pretend that that was the Government’s land settlement policy. Now, all our social welfare land settlement schemes allot a certain amount of land to each person, and that is all these men can manage, but that is not the Government’s land settlement scheme at all, and hon. members know that. On the Vaal-Hartz scheme I contacted settlers myself whose income per annum has been in the region of £2,000 per annum during this war period, and this land has been allotted to them at an absolutely uneconomic price, at enormous cost to the State and the taxpayer. I know that irrigation water was delivered at Vaal-Hartz at a cost of £100 a morgen but the State was far-sighted in regard to that land settlement. We know that the Vaal-Hartz may take 2,000 or 3,000 settlers, and cities will arise in that area. There will be development which will be of great value to the State through this farsighted policy and there is settlement offered to soldiers to day which is far above anything else offered to any soldiers anywhere else in the world as regards land settlement. These men are allotted 20 or 30 morgen of land under irrigation with grazing rights on large grounds. They need not be experts as long as they are people who are desirable for that type of life. They are advised of what to grow and how to plant. They also have an assured product for their markets, schools, recreation fields for children and adults, hospitals. These people are in close proximity to each other.

We know all this. Why tell us?

It seems necessary to tell you. I am glad that you know of all these conditions under which soldiers are settled there.

We know it.

We started that scheme.

I am glad that the Opposition now acknowledge that these land settlement schemes are of great advantage to the settlers. It is pleasing to hear them admit it on the floor of the House. But I do want to refer to the plea they have made as regards the title of the ground, that settlers should be allowed to speculate and sell their ground for profit. They want instability and dissatisfaction. That is the field in which they wish to make political propaganda. It is only by having dissatisfied people that they can aim perhaps one day to come into power, but they will never succeed in that. When’ the State… encouraged these land settlement schemes at enormous cost to the taxpayer it would be quite unfair to allow the settler to speculate with those advantages. As you heard this morning similar ground at Vaal-Hartz can be sold for £6,000. Some of these places were sold at a figure of £800 and £1,200 to settlers. [Interjection by the Minister of Lands.] I am glad the Minister corrected me there. I understood the Minister to say that settlers had allotted their plots to them at the figure of £800. These plots on the open market would undoubtedly be worth £6,000. If they were able to sell it at will speculators would take unfair advantage of the taxpayers’ money. I am convinced, so convinced of the advantage of land settlements, that I want to appeal to the Minister to establish a land settlement scheme on the Fish River in Albany and the adjoining districts. There we have thousands of morgen of deep alluvial soil and the Minister will provide water by a scheme he is busy with now, by which water from the Orange River will be brought io the valley of the Fish River. In this particular area we need feed for stock. Dairymen want to produce milk at a lower figure but they need cheaper feed and if the Minister would inaugurate a scheme in the Albany district of the same type as that at Vaal-Hartz or at Loskop I believe it will bring an impetus to farming, stabilise agriculture, help the taxpayer and allow farmers to sell oxen not at six or ten years of age, but at two or three years of age, and mutton at six months instead of two years old as the poor consumer now has to eat.

When is all this going to happen?

It could all happen if we have a land settlement scheme on the Fish River, where we have an equitable climate and better soil than at Vaal-Hartz. I am asking the Minister this in my firm conviction of the great advantages these schemes bring to our country and in view of the fact that they lead to great development and an increase of population in the cities in that vicinity, and increased output for industry. [Time limit.]

I do not want to detain the House long, but I put a relevant question to the Minister of Lands and he has not yet replied. I should like to know whether any difference will be made between the soldiers of 1914-’18 and the soldiers who fought in this war. I know of cases where people who fought in the war of 1914-’18 have made application. They stood by the government of those days and I am afraid that those people were not treated on the same basis as the soldiers of this war. I shall appreciate it if the Minister will give a direct reply to this question.

I am glad at any rate there are a few members in this House who understand something about land settlement in South Africa. From time to time harmful and detrimental articles have appeared in certain newspapers disparaging in an undeserved way the reputation of our settlements, and I invite any person who wants to know something about this subject or who wants to pass criticism to visit the settlements himself and to interview the settlers and to ask them whether they are worried about the restrictions. The hon. members for Albany (Mr. Bowker) and Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) will remember that we asked these people whether the restrictions were worrying them. They replied: We are not at all worried about the restrictions, we are satisfied that we are able to make a good living here. That is the first question we must put. Is the settler placed in a position in which he can make a proper decent existence with his wife and children, in comparison with the rest of the Union of South Africa? I think my opnion is of some account, and I can tell you that the average living standard of the settler on the State settlement is superior to that of 80 per cent. of the people in South Africa today, and if we wish to be guided by figures we can take the average income of the settlers on Vaal-Hartz and on the Nkwalini settlement in Natal. Hon. members may be surprised to learn that there are settlers at Nkwalini who have an income far exceeding £2,000 a year. And when you begin to talk to them you hear from the one that not long ago he was a railway official, a poor man. He tells you that he is sorry that he did not come there twenty years ago. He has bought a farm for his son Piet and one for his son Jan and paid them off. If that is not a test I do not know what is, and the people tell you that the restrictions do not worry them, that they are satisfied. What more do we want? And as the hon. member for Albany has rightly said State settlements have been instituted at State expense and we do not want to put a weapon in the hands of the enemies of settlement, so that they can say we are wasting money owing to the settlement being a failure. We and the country must be able to come after ten years and say that that settlement was a success. Then those who had ah objection to it may say that they really had a little objection at that time but they are satisfied that the people were properly rehabilitated and that they were able to care for their wives and children. That is the effect at present on the State settlements. I wish one thing, and that is that the State should be in the position to settle every necessitous person in South Africa who desires to have a plot on a settlement. Then we would place 80 per cent. of our poor whites in a position that would redound to the honour of our population and our State. I do not want to revert to the part of the debate that was disposed of. But if you go over the report, over the matter we discussed yesterday, you will also find that witnesses stated under oath how grateful they were that they landed up at Vaal-Hartz. And let me say that Vaal-Hartz and Loskop and Rietrivier and Pongola are of the same standard. The State schemes of settlement are today absorbing a great number of people and the country can be proud that those people have been and are being rehabilitated. The Minister must not allow any meddling with the regulations. You can understand if a poor man after a couple of years receives an offer of £6,000 or £7,000 there is a big temptation for him to sell. May I add I have heard intelligent people say: Well, if I have to sell I shall take £10,000 but not a penny less, because it is worth that to me. I do not believe that the chairman of the South African Agricultural Union will object when I say he has stated that in his opinion that was right. I am in absolute agreement. If I did not possess a piece of land and if I got the chance to obtain a piece of land I would not wait till the sun rose tomorrow but I would immediately try to obtain it under the so-called restrictions. I hope that hon. members who have been opposed to the schemes and who did not realise everything will appreciate that they are harming people who have hoped and expected to get land under such a scheme. Now they hear that you are a slave and that you do not get title to the land, and I do not know what else. But the same thing will happen as has happened in other spheres, as for instance in the commercial world. Someone tells you that you should not buy certain shares and then he runs and buys them himself. We can only harm those poor people who are dependent and who are looking to the State by prejudicing them, against the schemes because we know that 75 per cent. of a man’s success depends on the confidence with which you tackle the task and if we send people there who have not faith and confidence in the system, people who go there because they have nowhere else to go to but who have already lost confidence and have been prejudiced because of all the stories that have been told them, we can well understand that these men will start in a half-hearted way and that will be to their detriment. Any man who goes to a settlement with a little initiative and a modicum of willpower will never be heard of as suffering poverty. We and the country may always have the privilege to point to the people and their families as rehabilitated people, and I hope the Minister will stand firm and not permit the regulations to be interfered with because that could only lead to our settlements being weakened and play into the hands of the enemies of land settlement.

I should like to reply to a few questions that have been put. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) asked me what will become of the people who worked in industries during the war period and who exerted all their energies in them. He wants to know whether they will be able to get land. Yes, if there is suitable land they will also get it. The Government has already clearly set out its policy, that we intend to provide work for all the people who fall in this category. Every citizen can apply for a farm or a holding when it is advertised, but I want to repeat so that no one will be under a misapprehension—that while every citizen may make application preference will be given in the first place to the soldiers.

That is a great pity. There ought to be no discrimination.

It may be a pity, but this land cannot repay the debt that we owe to the people who fought. They will get the first preference, and I want to tell the hon. member that not all the soldiers that applied will get land. The organisation of the Director of Demobilisation, Gen. Brink, classifies the people in various categories. Of those who apply for land first consideration will be given to those with perhaps a little experience of farming. If possible we do not want to have a repetition of the experience we had during the last Great War when people were settled on the land at random, people who never were on a farm, and secondly at an uneconomical price, and it was a failure. That organisation will classify the people and send the names to our department, and if farms are advertised they will receive first preference.

Is there any Act that makes it compulsory for soldiers to be given preference?

That is the policy.

Has the Land Board no longer any right or any say?

The Land Board gets a complete list of names and they can select according to the merits, under the law.

Will the Land Board no longer have a free say?

The hon. member asks what the position is, and I think that with an eye on the fact that this is probably the last Session—we hope that when we assemble again the soldiers will have returned—I thought it well to make a statement.

You talk about the last Session. What do you mean? Are we going to have an election?

I am talking about the last Session before these people return.

I should like the Minister to clarify one point. Will it generally be only a question of whether a soldier has done war service or are there other qualifications?

I have explained that. I stated that the Director of Demobilisation will in the first place, as far as possible, select people who have already had a little knowledge of farming and who have a little capital.

What about the home front? Will they be counted with the soldiers?

Yes. Then I want to point out to the hon. member that those who served on the home front are mostly people advanced in years, and other provision will be made for them. The hon. member for Marico asked further whether improvements can be taken away. Yes. I made that very clear this morning. Then the hon. member stated that certain people got letters in which a rate of interest of 3½ per cent. was mentioned while I said it was 3¾ per cent. The hon. member is perfectly right. Until the 1st April, 1940, the rate was 31 per cent. in connection with all the contracts. From that date it was increased to 3¾ per cent., and that is the rate now in force. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) complained that the condition of certain canals on the schemes had deteriorated. I admit that. That is so according to my information. When we had to launch out on departmental farming on a big scale it was almost impossible to cut off the water supply and to clean the canals, but now that things are more normal we shall cut off the water and clean the canals as far as we can. Then I come to the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). He asked what our policy is in connection with settlers who want to sell their land. Can a settler sell his land with the restrictions on it? Yes, he can sell his land, and let me tell the hon. member that such transfers are occurring daily, but we have the right under certain circumstances to refuse. Let me mention a few instances. A man came to me and told me that we had refused to allow him to sell his Section 11 farm. It was near Naboomspruit, in those parts. I said to him: Old friend, how long have you had the farm? He replied two years. I then asked what he paid for it. He said £2 a morgen. I next asked what size the farm was and he stated it was 1,700 morgen. What is the price you want to sell the farm for, was my next question. His answer was £12 per morgen. Will the hon. member say that I should have given my consent to that? Can you carry on with settlement in that way? Let me mention another case. A man came to me after the department had refused a neighbour of his, a wealthy farmer, to purchase his settlement land. He applied to take over a bond of £500 the department had on the settler’s farm. I am a businessman and I saw immediately what the idea was, and the department refused. Then the other person came, the wealthy farmer, and he saw me personally in Pretoria and reproached me for having refused. He wanted to know why I would not allow him to assist the settler. He said that the settler had asked him for £500, and to tell the truth he had already given it, and now I would not agree to him taking the bond. Let me say in the first place that he had to pay a higher rate of interest to this man, namely 5 per cent., while he only paid 3¾per cent. to the department. I then asked why he wanted to take over the bond, and eventually he admitted that he wanted to collar the man’s farm. I said that under no circumstances would I allow that. He was paying 3¾ per cent. to the department, and he should be left there. The hon. member over there spoke about Vaal-Hartz, into which we have put a lot of money. There were unfortunately a number of private owners when we commenced Vaal-Hartz and it was before I introduced the restrictions in the Act. The provision then was that people who had land within the scheme could select 100 morgen where they wanted to. Now some of the private owners have sold erven for £4,000 and £4,500, pieces of land the size of an ordinary erf. These pieces of land are scattered throughout the settlement and they are being sold up to £200 per morgen.

That is creating an almost intolerable situation. Let me just show how impossible it is. One of the owners has selected 100 morgen of land say at the station Border and he has taken it around the station, totally cutting us off from the station. He selected it that way under the Act. We could not get near the station, and he result was that the Government was obliged to build a new station a mile and a half further on. Those are the conditions existing there. We have large administrative costs. We shall be spending during the current year and the following year the sum of £150,000 on Vaal-Hartz for drainage alone, and the costs in connection with the canals and administration runs into some thousands of pounds every year. Must we now allow the, settlers to sell their land to rich people so that we shall be saddled with the administrative costs for the benefit of a group of rich people who are going to benefit by it? We say that a settler may sell his holding, but not to his neighbour and not to a settler who already has an erf, so that he then would have two. But if there is a man from outside who can afford it and if the price is reasonable—we do not permit speculation, we will agree to it.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) mentioned the question of cutting up small holdings in the neighbourhood of Johannesburg and other towns. I want to remind him that last year we passed a Bill delegating to the Provincial Council the power to deal with plots of land of that sort. So he should go to his provincial authorities in Pretoria; they have the power to deal with the matter he has brought up in the House.

†*The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) asked me for a direct reply to a question whether there would be any differentiation between the soldiers of 1914-’18 and those of 1939-’45. I have already explained that. The soldier who has fought in this war is going to get preference over any other man. After we have provided for the requirements of these men the others will be consider with the ordinary citizens.

Notwithstanding that that soldier of 1914 is now above military age?

We are first going to provide for the requirements of the soldiers of this war. It may not be to the liking of the hon. member, but that is the reply.

The remarks made by the Minister seem to me not to take into consideration fairly all the circumstances that surround this question. I believe it has been stated by one hon. member that I supported the Bill of last year. I do not quite know what the hon. member may have had in mind as I did not hear him speak. I want to refer him to the division on the second reading, Hansard col. 3614, on which I refrained from voting. I want to refer him to the divisions on most of the amendments. Hansard col. 7614 shows most of the amendments, and in every one of those I refrained from voting. I also refrained from voting on the third reading. The hon. Minister may remember or not his asking me why I did not vote on the third reading, and I expressed my view that I was not in support of the Bill. The Minister denotes that he does remember the incident. I had brought up reasons through my colleague the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Neate) on the second reading debate why the servitudes should not be passed. Those objections were brought up on the second reading, it is true riot at very great length, by my colleague the hon. member for Natal South Coast. He said, during the second reading—

Those remarks were made in consequence of a letter sent to me by Mr. Vardy who, among all the correspondents in the Press—the “Farmers Weekly,” the “Star” and the Natal Press—has expressed himself very clearly in regard to these titles in a letter in the “Farmers Weekly.” He said—

1. (a) The owner may not permit any other Europeans to reside on the property other than his wife, his daughters or “minor” sons without Ministerial consent.
2. (b) The land may not be sold, mortgaged or sub-divided by either the seller or any other successor in title, without the consent of the Government of the day.

Particular notice should be taken of the fact that the servitudes being perpetual are passed on in every subsequent deed of transfer. Further, Act No. 42 of 1944 being retrospective in its effect, the farms of all Section 11 settlers who took up ground as far back as 1912 but had not taken out their Crown grants when the 1944 Act came into force, are now burdened with these servitudes for all time.

And you voted for the third reading.

I did not, Sir.

Here is your name.

The hon. member may argue until he is brought to a standstill, but as I have already proved the Minister came and asked me why I did not vote on the third reading; and if my name appears in the division list it is certainly there in error. In his letter Mr. Vardy explains his position in the following terms—

Please make a distinction between the man who buys with his own capital and the man who is financed 100 per cent. by the Government. Where the Government has given him implements and other things it is over 100 per cent.

Many of these men under Section 11 had not got any of these conditions. They never applied for implements.

Many did, large numbers.

There is a letter too from a Mr. H. G. Trollip who has had a great deal of experience with the Land Settlement Act. He writes to the “Farmers’ Weekly”, as Mr. Vardy did, in opposition to these servitudes. He says—

May I again remind the hon. member of the rules of the House? The hon. member may not reflect on a statute. If the hon. member reads an extract reflecting on a statute, he identifies himself with that extract, and I am sorry I cannot allow it.

I withdraw that part of the quotation. At the moment I overlooked the rule which the hon. Chairman had laid down. In almost every issue of the “Farmers’ Weekly” there are remonstrances against the working effects of this Act, and I say from a very close association with the land settlement farmers that it is unfortunate that these should be among the effects of the Act. I do not deny that hon. members may speak joyfully and hopefully about the future of land settlement. Personally I do not share their optimism at all, and in regard to the Land Settlement Act I have already suggested to the Minister that he should for the purpose of stimulating the success of the settlement of soldiers on the land abandon the present servitudes so far as soldiers are concerned, and that he should follow the example of our neighbouring country, Southern Rhodesia, where they have taken power, just as power is taken under the Marketing Act, to have a separate scheme put forward for the settlement on land by soldiers, and then leave the Minister power to propound a scheme that would be acceptable to the soldiers in giving them a great benefit in regard to the purchase price so as to express in tanglible form our appreciation of the wonderful services they have rendered to the country. The Minister has expressed himself as unwilling to do this, but I hope on second thoughts and on perusal of the correspondence appearing in the “Farmers’ Weekly” and in the other journals devoted to farming interests, he will agree that some such encouragement and stimulus will be needed if we are to justify the conditions under which the soldiers are to be placed on the land on their return.

We have now heard that land will be allotted to the returned soldiers during a certain period. My difficulty is that a certain number of our soldiers will for a long time after the conclusion of peace serve in other countries to further stabilised peace in Europe. I hope that we shall not wait until all these soldiers return to South Africa before the land is given out. Then I want to return to what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) mentioned here in connection with Section 11 and settlements. I want to tell him plainly that I respect his feelings very highly, but I sincerely hope that if I mention a few cases to him that he will accord me the same credit. In the first place I want to mention the case of a settler who exchanged his farm with a native for a waggon and a span of donkeys, and that native is today living in a European area. That happened, however, years ago. I hope the hon. member for Pinetown understands that a native who bought out a land settlement farm is living today in a white area amongst white persons and we cannot get him out.

How did he get past the law?

I shall make my own speech. Let the hon. member find out. Then I want to go further. I want to say that the Act that is today in operation will have a good effect. For this reason that we have at least laid it down that people who are not dependent on farming cannot absorb that land as they did in the past. I should like to quote another case for the information of the hon. member for Pinetown. During the war a certain firm had a big contract in this country. They made a lot of money out of motor chassis. What did they do? They bought more than 80.000 morgen of land with the object of evading income tax. They sent the necessary scrapers there. They sent people there to build houses and before the Minister could take steps to stop it they evaded a considerable amount of income tax by absorbing 80.000 morgen of land from the settlers, and today they are prepared to sell that same land that was valued at 5s. a morgen to the Government for 50s. I think the Minister conferred a good service on the white population by inducing them to attach themselves more firmly to mother earth. I only want to say this in reference to what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) stated. We must teach our children to acquire a love for mother earth. We do not want our children to sell the land. A big firm in the country—I shall mention their name—Stewarts and Lloyds—did not sell their business in order to have extensions throughout the world. They let their business grow out of the parent business. In the same way if we give a piece of land to someone he should use it for expansion for his children by buying land. Every man must have a pride in his land. He must teach his children to gain an affection for mother earth and so that they will not expect the State to look after them. He must teach his children that mother earth will put him in a position that in the case of illness he will be able to pay the costs attached to that illness. I think we must show the greatest honour to the settlers because they show what the land can yield. What happened in a certain area in the Transvaal? Under the Hartebees settlement things have reached the stage that an Indian has already got land there, and but for the fact that there is legislation all that land at the Hartebees settlement would be in alien hands.

One has already got land at Vaal-Hartz.

I hope and trust that hon. members on the other side who have been pleading will advance the same plea for the poor people with a view to seeing that the land does not go out of their hands. I should also like to say this to the hon. Member for Pinetown. This is what one of the experts says—

This is a statement by an expert, not a man belonging to my Party; he is a member of the Party on the other side. He said that we should peg the people to the ground and that from there they should branch out in older to buy further land for their children and that they should not throw the responsibility on the State. We should teach our children that we want to buy a piece of land for them, and that they will not always have to depend on the State. But I would like to go further and I would like to tell this to the hon. member for Pinetown. He said here that it is noted on the transfer deed and diagram that the settler will not sell the land without the approval of the Minister. I want again to congratulate the Minister on that provision. I have had personal experience in this connection and what has it been? A man who owns 35 farms interviewed the Minister the other day with a view to collaring another piece of land, but what is the tragic aspect of the matter? This land belongs to a man whose son is a soldier in the north, and while he is there this man is trying ’to grab the land, and when the soldier returns he will find that his father’s land has been thrown away. I hope the hon. member for Pinetown will agree with me that we should care for our sons so that they will not later be reduced to beggary. I want to make another appeal, this time to the Minister, that when we expropriate land today we should see that we do not pay too high a price for it. The settlers have progressed very well since the commencement of the War, but what has been the sequel? Produce has now to be sold by them for next to nothing. Tomatoes have been sold on the market for 2d. and 6d. per tray. Green peas have been sold at 1s. per 100 lbs. I should like to stress that when we purchase land we should see that an applicant for land will not be used as a “catspaw”, as an Englishman would say, merely to enrich another man, but that we should see that the settler will make a good living on the land in consequence of our having seen that the price was reasonable. Another point I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention is in connection with the notice that has been issued regarding a change in the provision affecting certain settlement farms which were leased at 10s. a month. I do not think that a man is entitled to lease 10,000 morgen for £6 per annum. I only want to say this, I think it is very wrong. I suggest that this should also be made to apply even to proclaimed land, because the sequel now is that the lessor on a settlement area is affected while the man on proclaimed land still has the privilege of paying 10s. a month. I hope that procalimed land will be placed on the same basis as settlements.

The Minister stood up this morning and for the umpteenth time tried to pose as the patron saint of settlers in South Africa. Let us consider for a moment how the Minister has protected the settlers. We come to Section 11. The Minister approves the applications under Section 11. The applicant must pay his 10 per cent.; he has also to pay interest. I have no objection to raise to that; that is right, it is only business. But what is happening now? After a number of years the settlers’ obligations to the State are complied with; he has paid off his debts. The settler then comes and applies for his Crown grant, and how does the Minister protect him. He can have his Crown grant on condition that it is endorsed with a servitude that he cannot lease, sell, or mortgage that land during his lifetime. That is beautiful protection. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not realise that he will get no applicants with initiative to apply for land under that system. The Minister is under this system killing the little spirit of independence these people have. He is smothering their initiative. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) rose this morning and delivered a pathetic plea for the protection of the Minister and he tried to tell how good the scheme is, that 6,000 soldiers have already applied for land under this system. I want to ask him how many of these soldiers have been informed that if they come in under that system they will never become owners of the land. The position is that after the capital debt and the interest has been paid the Government still has the land. I want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that I believe very few soldiers have so little initiative as to be prepared in the future to settle on that land as the Minister’s slaves. As an old settler I have some knowledge of the matter I am discussing. The Minister can get hold of my file for himself. I am proud of the fact that I was a settler, and I would never in the future go on to a settlement under these conditions But I should like to go further. The Minister has created the impression there is not enough land available for settlement. Temporarily lessees have now been notified they will have to leave the land because that land is necessary for returned soldiers, and while that länd is not adequate the Minister is engaged in hunting these people off the land. Today by way of interjection I asked the Minister what arrangements are going to be made to assist those people who have now to leave the holdings. Last year I put the same question, and the Minister’s reply was they could consider themselves fortunate that we assisted them to lease the land at such a cheap rate. Is there no department then which owes a responsibility to these people? Many people who were given notice to vacate their land are today stranded in the towns and cities. They cannot adapt themselves to urban conditions but the Minister is now chasing a number of them into the towns. Instead of finding a home for these people on the farms, the Minister comes along with indifference to the House and divests himself of the responsibility. When we asked him what his plans are in regard to these people he has no reply to offer. Consequently I dm putting this pertinent question to the Minister: What plan has he in respect of these people who are going to leave the holdings? If there is no land for these people they will have to sell their stock, and while there is no land the Minister will continue his destructive activities and be giving these people notice to quit. What is going to become of them? The Minister is creating a problem in South Africa, and I want to express the hope that when the Minister rises he will tell us directly whose responsibility these people are and who is going to save them. If they are driven into the towns they will be lost. It is all very well to stand up and to plead as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has done. He has told us he has visited settlers and found they have a good home. No, I maintain we should not kill a man’s initiative. A man also wants to work himself up in life, and if you deprive the farmer of his initiative you will kill the spirit. The Minister told us yesterday that he now begins to see some rays of light. I congratulate him, and I hope that he will yet see the whole light. I want to tell him this, however, that the farming population of South Africa will view his exit as Minister of Lands with pride and appreciation.

I feel that a lot has been said on the Lands Vote that has nothing whatever to do with lands, so I would like to make a few remarks dealing with the Lands Department.

The hon. member is reflecting on the Chair.

I do not wish to make any reflection on the Chair and if that is so, I would like to withdraw that remark. There is very considerable anxiety on this side of the House with regard to the future settlement of soldiers. On this side of the House we are particularly anxious that the very best that South Africa can offer shall be made available to these people who have done so much for us, and it is from that point of view that several members have been anxious to find out from the Minister under what conditions these settlers are to be given land. I feel that once this is known there will be much more satisfaction throughout the country and it will be realised that these plans are reaching maturity and that our soldiers will soon know how much land is available and under what conditions they will be able to obtain the land. There is one point I would like to stress particularly, and that is the question of water conservation, so that these holdings will not in any way be short of water when they are given to our soldiers. A lot has been said about boring for water, and a lot has been said about providing windmills and bringing water to the surface, but you can only bring to the surface water that is below the surface, and unless we are prepared to spend a lot of money to conserve water, we will soon find that many of these expensive windmills will have no water to pump. I think it is essential that wherever possible we should start to conserve water. We should have the very best engineers that are available in South Africa in order to try to find suitable places for storing water. On this question of the title to the land, when this matter came before the House last year, I was rather worried with regard to one or two aspects of the Act that was then amended, and since that time I have found several practical illustrations of what has been mentioned in the House today, that is, settlers’ ground having been bought up by other people, these settlers have been tempted by high offers to sell. They have got rid of their ground and today they do not know where to go. I am convinced that there is a great deal to be said for the position that was put forward by the Minister that the people should not just be given title to the ground so that they can, make a profit on it and in that way think they are doing something very good, whereas actually they are doing themselves harm. A number of cases have come to my notice where the Government bought ground at very considerable expense. They made this ground available to settlers for less than they paid for it, and the men made a few hundred pounds profit and today they have nothing left. It is essential to prevent people from making mistakes of that kind. I feel that particularly in the settlement areas this is a wise and necessary provision. In the other cases I think improvements can possibly be made, but this is not the time to discuss it. I know you will rule me out of order, if I tried to do it. There are a number of matters in the Lands Vote that I feel could be touched upon. There is just one point I would like to mention with regard to the sub-economic holdings.

That is for another department.

I would like to suggest that wherever we have purchased ground, it should all come under the Lands Department, and it would be a very good thing if there were more collaboration between the Government departments in the purchase of land. I approached the Lands Department and was told that this came under Social Welfare. I went to Social Welfare and they told me that they were keenly interested but that the Lands Department had to value and buy the ground for them. As a result of that I mentioned the question of sub-economic small holdings, and after a great deal of reference from one department to the other, these are now being inspected, and I hope will soon be bought for this particular purpose. A great deal has been said in regard to the condition that no male European over the age of 21 years, may be allowed to reside on a settler’s farm. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has had many applications for exemption from that restriction, and if so if a reasonable case is put up, whether there is anything to prevent him from granting that exemption, and if he will explain to the House whether that is a serious disability to the farmer who may be getting old and who may want his son to assist him. With these few remarks, I want to say that I feel very much happier about the passage of the Bill last year. Many things which seemed to be difficulties at the time, have now been straightened out.

I am glad the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is present. He advanced a plea for the Vaal-Hartz scheme. I recall the years when the Nationalist Party took up the standpoint we should utilise the revenue from the diamond diggings at Namaqualand to establish settlements. Who opposed it? The old South African Party of which the hon. member for Albany was a member. Today he is making a plea for the Vaal-Hartz scheme. One is making slow progress with the South African Party. Today they are also beginning to talk in favour of the iron and steel industry. At first they were against it. Now they are being converted, and we are glad to see it. One is not discouraged. The hon. member for Albany rose again today and talked about a scandalous attack I was supposed to have made on the Minister of Lands.

Naturally.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) stood up today and said that I spoke an untruth.

Yes.

There we have it again. The hon. member says yes. Now I want to ask the hon. members for Albany and Johannesburg (West) to state when I spoke a single untruth; let them tell us, and I shall be prepared to resume my seat. Why this silence now? The position is that the Minister of Lands stood up this morning and definitely stated that he owns eight farms alongside the Kraaipoort scheme, and that he has 50 morgen of irrigable land on each of them, 400 morgen in all. When I stood up and said that I challenged the Minster to mention the names of the eight farms he could not do so; he could only mention seven. Who told an untruth then in the House, I or the Minister of Lands? Let those hon. members now stand up and tell me when I stated an untruth? It is not a shame to stand up in the House and to tell the truth; it is shameful for these people to brand me as a liar and then not be able to tell me in what respect I am a liar.

You know that you are protected by the rules of the House.

Order, order.

I want to say that the Chairman and the Speaker have never treated me unfairly in this House although they have frequently called me to order. After that I have always found I was wrong.

A little bit of sugar for the bird.

I am not looking for sugar; I am prepared to pay the penalty when I do wrong. But now I want to put a further… question to the Minister. Seeing he has seven farms ….

And you have none.

Seeing he has seven farms how did he come by the water rights on the eighth farm? He bought two farms with 100 morgen of irrigablê land and today he has 150 morgen of irrigable land for those farms. There is one concrete furrow laid down for the extra 50 morgen in respect of which he has obtained the water rights, and do you know that he is the only owner on that scheme who has a concrete furrow.

Is the hon. member insinuating that the hon. Minister acted irregularly?

No, it is not irregular, but I maintain it is improper. I shall explain why I say that. I would not repeat things I am told unless I believe they were true. The owners at Jacobsdal asked the Minister to construct concrete furrows, and last year the Minister stated they would cost too much. But at the same time a concrete furrow is running to the Minister’s 50 morgen of irrigable land.

On a point of order—I do not know whether it is a point of order—but the impression now being created is that the Minister has been making concrete furrows for him himself with Government funds.

I put a question to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) as to whether he insinuated that the Minister acted in an irregular manner and the hon. member said he was not insinuating that. Is that correct?

Yes, that is right, but I want to repeat what I said. I say it is unfair, and now I want to make this statement. I have been told that the Department of Lands was constructing a furrow for the Minister in June, 1944.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, when the word “unfair” (onbillik) is used as he used it, he is making an insinuation of dishonesty.

That is not a point of order.

I shall be glad if the Minister of Lands will stand up, cool, calm and collected—I do not want to treat any constituent of mine unfairly — and tell us why a concrete furrow was constructed to this additional 50 morgen of irrigable land, that too while the owners of Jacobsdal had furrows that were being used for filtering the water away and asked for concrete furrows and did not get them. I also want to ask him to reconsider granting them their request. I have mentioned this matter in the way it has been presented to me, and the Minister can tell us whether it is so or not. Many members have mentioned here that the Act of 1944 is not a handicap on the settlements. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked me to put this question, whether an official of the Department of Lands did not accompany him to the settlers of Swellendam and that the settlers concerned were so dissatisfied with the restrictions that have been imposed on them that they asked the Government official to convey this request to the Minister of Lands. They said that if the Minister was prepared to compensate them for all the improvements they were prepared to get rid of the land, so dissatisfied were they. I want to say this openly, that as far as my constituency is concerned before I came into contact with any settler they wrote letters to me intimating their dissatisfaction over this measure of the Minister’s and asking me to combat it. Furthermore, I should like just to put one question to the Minister. How many temporary lessees have been thrown on to the road as a result of the Minister’s statement that at the end of May they would have to vacate their holdings?

Not one.

I am glad the Minister has now conceded that they can remain there until the new settler is placed on the land, but every one of them individually has received a letter from the Department, and consequently I cannot see how the Minister can employ the argument that it will entail too much work to give us the numbers. I think the Minister could get that for us in half-an-hour, if he merely goes to the offices in the Transvaal, Natal, the Free State and the Cape Province to acquire the information. If I desire particulars concerning a settler the Department of Lands gives it to me within five minutes. It cannot take much time to provide us with the information in regard to the number of settlers who have to vacate their farms.

The accusation the hon. member has made against me is just as devoid of truth as all the other allegations he has made this morning. Before he apologises for those insinuations and insults he has directed at me I refuse to answer any of his questions. If he wants information he can ask for it and I will see that he is replied to from the office.

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) made an insinuation here, and any ordinary person who listened to his speech must have deduced from it that his statement is to the effect that the Minister had a concrete canal constructed to his farm with State money.

May I point out to the hon. member that I asked the hon. member whether he made an insinuation, and he then said that he is not doing so but that the Minister’s actions are unreasonable?

I accept what you say, Mr. Chairman, that he did not perhaps intend it that way. If it is not so, what has he or I to do with it whéther the Minister has a concrete canal or a golden canal constructed to his farm, if he does not do it with State money?

But at whose expense was that canal constructed?

The hon. member must tell us that. There the hon. member is again insinuating it and therefore I have the right to ask this question, whether he is insinuating that the Minister had the canal constructed at Government expense.

Nobody knows, and can you tell us?

When a member makes a statement like that in the House he ought to know what the actual position is.…

The Minister can tell us that.

I have nothing to do with that. If Darters opposite were to erect a building of gold or if it wants to get bricks from Pretoria whereas it can buy bricks here, that hon. member and I have nothing to do with it. His object was again to cast a blot on the Minister’s good name. Let him get up here and say whether that is so or not. Let him rise here and say whether he suspects that the Minister used State money for that canal. The hon. member also said that the Minister let thousands of settlers go. I state here that the Minister did not let one settler go. But yesterday I pointed to this statement which was made here so that it should get into the Press in order to bring people outside under the impression that the Minister had put settlers off the ground.

You know that I spoke about temporary lessees.

Then why did the hon. member speak about settlers? The hon. member uses that word “settlers” to mislead the public.

Is an hon. member entitled to say that another hon. member uses a certain word with the express purpose of misleading the public?

The hon. member may not say so and he must withdraw it.

I will do so, Mr. Chairman, but then I say he knowingly and wittingly used the word “settlers”. He stated here that thousands of settlers had been put off the ground, and I say he does it knowingly and wittingly.

I was speaking about temporary lessees.

The hon. member will receive another opportunity and he can then make a second false statement that settlers have been chased off.

I will rise again.

It is not true that settlers have been put off the ground. Reference was made this morning to temporary lessees who have been on their farms for eight or nine years and who are now chased off. I should very much like to know what the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), who at that time was Minister of Lands ….

And who had your support.

I put this question in all sincerity: Why were those holdings not allocated at the time, and why were those people kept on the ground for nine, ten or 20 years?

Because it was not the custom to allocate everything at once.

But that is no excuse for nine years.

Is that also an accusation against the present Minister of Lands?

Yes, it is an accusation against both Ministers, but the excuse of the present Minister is that earlier during the war he stated that he would issue no ground during the war, but would only rent it temporarily. If that had not been the case I would have had the same complaint against him.

And what about Field-Marshal Smuts who consistently followed that policy?

No, the General has nothing to do with that. I asked the hon. member for Wolmaransstad in all honesty and reasonableness what the position was, because we should like to know. Why did he not allocate the ground, with the result that those people remained temporary lessees for nine and ten years? I put that question to take away blame from the present Minister. He clearly stated that during the war no ground would be allocated; he followed that policy and we support him. He is now going to allot that ground. But why was that ground not allotted in the years of peace before the war?

Why did you not raise that complaint at the time?

We had no complaint; the complaint came from the opposite side because this Minister had given notice to these people.

You said that that was an accusation again the hon. member for Wolmaransstad.

There was no complaint. I have never complained about the matter. The complaint came from the opposite side, and therefore I put the question. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is tilting at windmills but he will not get past this. My question is quite clear and pertinent: Why was that ground not allotted and at the time only leased from year to year?

Your question is reasonable. My point is only as to why there is an accusation.

The hon. member for Waterberg will have another opportunity again to insult me as he did last night. Reference was made here today to the Act of 1944. I had the honour, or it was my duty, to go and address a meeting in the constituency of Marico last year. A very large number of settlers attended the meeting. The majority of them were members of the Opposition Party. Before I went to the meeting I was informed by letter that a motion of no confidence would be put in me. I went there and those people wanted to know what the position is in connection with the Act of 1944. After I had explained the Act to them the meeting unanimously decided that I was to ask the Minister of Lands—and I do so today—not to withdraw the Act of 1944, but Clause 9 of the Act of 1937. That is the mandate, because they now understand that no restrictions are put on the settlers but on the next person who purchases. They are satisfied with the position as it is, but they want the limitation to the Act of 1937 to be withdrawn. I give the House this information.

Where was the meeting?

In portion of Rustenburg which today falls under your constituency. It was on the farm “Dwaal-boomkom”. Greeff of the Ossewa-Brandwag was also at the meeting. I can give the hon. member more information about it. I had to drive 240 miles there, because they said that the hon. member had not come to explain to them what the position is. I now want to leave this matter and bring another question of great importance to the attention of the Minister.

Where did you get petrol to drive so far?

I shall be glad if the president-to-be of South Africa will give the Minister a chance to listen. I want to raise a point in connection with the farms falling under Section 11. We know that it is practically impossible for any man to buy ground under Section 11 owing to the uneconomic price of ground today. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to subsidise the settlers under this section. We know that the settlers in the more populated settlements will not pay half the value of the ground. We also know that the ground purchased under Section 16 is revalued and then allotted at economic prices. They are all met at the expense of the taxpayers. The Government gives these people an opportunity to buy ground under Section 11, but they must buy at a market value. They cannot buy at prices ruling today, and I just want to know whether the Minister will not make a plan to give those people a subsidy by means of revaluing the ground.

When one listens to the arguments of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) one must realise in what a hopeless position the Minister finds himself if he has to be defended in that manner.

The Minister is man enough to defend himself.

I thought so, but the hon. member for Rustenburg evidently does not think so, and the Minister evidently does not think so either, because why does he make use of the futile efforts of the member for Rustenburg to do it? But just listen to the argument of the hon. member about this pressing matter of the temporary lessees who were chased off their ground. We today all feel hurt about it and the people themselves feel hurt at being driven off their ground in these circumstances. The hon. member for Rustenburg and the other members opposite of course know that it does their Party a tremendous amount of harm. They cannot defend it on its merits and therefore they try to divert attention from it. The hon. member for Rustenburg tries to do so by saying here that the former Minister of Lands did not issue those farms. He says that he blames that Minister (Gen. Kemp) for not issuing the ground. He says he also blames the present Minister, but then he realised what he had said and tried to get out of it by saying: But the present Minister clearly stated, when the war broke out, that he would allot no ground before the’ soldiers returned. I then said that if that is the accusation against the former Minister of Lands, why did the hon. member for Rustenburg, who had supported him for years, never raise it?

I sat behind him for only one year.

Whether farms are allotted or not is not purely the responsibility of one Minister. It is a matter of Cabinet policy. In all those years the present Prime Minister was a member of the Cabinet, when the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was Minister of Lands, and it was the policy of that Cabinet not to allot the farms. Now the hon. member for Rustenburg says that it was a wrong policy.

No contracts of lease were entered into for 10 and 20 years.

There are cases under the old Transvaal Act where contracts of leases were entered into for 20 years, but I am not concerned with that now. I am now concerned purely with the attempt made here to distract the attention of the nation from the difficult position in which the Minister and members opposite find themselves. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) also tried to defend the Minister and he told us about the case of a settler who sold his ground to a native for a wagon and a team of donkeys, and he says that this native now has that farm in a European area. Where is that farm?

At Bandolierkop.

In Zoutpansberg?

I will be able to give you all the information.

I should like to know, because it is of course entirely illegal. A native cannot become the owner of ground in a European area without the consent of the Governor-General. I should like to know and it will be very interesting to know why the Governor-General, or in other words the Cabinet, gave consent to a native buying a farm in a European area. To justify his policy the Minister Quoted cases, and the hon. member also did it, of Indians becoming the owners of farms. They said that it is a terrible thing. That is peculiar, because when we on this side plead that an Act should be passed that Indians should be prohibited from buying ground except in areas set aside for them, members opposite rise and put up their hands in the air in indignation saying that that is an unreasonable thing to do to the Indians. I am very glad that they have now raised objection to Indians getting ground just where they want it, and I hope that they, together with the Natal members, will support us that Indians should hot become the registered owners of ground except in areas set aside for them. If they are not in favour of such a Bill they should not pretend to be indignant here at Indians having become the owners of this ground. It is not honest to do so. I should like to ask the Minister of Lands again to give us information in connection with the following cases. I give him the information as I received it. The first case is that of three farms which belonged to the late Major Watkins in Zoutpansberg. His widow applied to the Minister of Lands to sell the farms to a certain Van der Merwe for £4,000. I want to state here that I do not know these people, but my information is that the Minister refused to allow the ground to be sold to Van der Merwe for £4,000. After that the widow interviewed the Minister and he promised to give further attention to the matter. The final result was that the widow under the circumstances was obliged to sell the ground to the Government for £3,600. The Minister can tell me whether this information is correct. Then there is the case of a certain Nott who is a soldier up North. I am informed that while he was in the North and therefore not able to attend to his affairs here his farm was cancelled. His brother held his general power of attorney. I do not know why the farm was cancelled. The Minister will be able to tell that to the House. I was only told that it was cancelled. The ground was re-advertised and his brother applied on behalf of the brother who was up North, but that farm was not again allotted to him. His application was refused and it was allotted to someone else. I should be glad if the Minister could give us information in connection with these cases, because they were put to me in this manner. [Time limit.]

In his reply the Minister overlooked a few questions and I should like to repeat them. Sugar is now being planted at Pongola; is the Government going to erect a sugar mill, or will the sugar have to be sent to other parts of Natal a few hundred miles from there? In the second place, I asked what the position is since the discharge of 100 natives, as the canal is very dirty, as the Minister admits.

I did not say it is very dirty. I do not know exactly what the position is.

The water is turned off three days in the week and we get it only on four days. I want to ask the Minister to place more natives there and to clean it up within a month or six months so that it will not be continually necessary to turn off the water. I think it is a reasonable request. I think the department will also agree with that. The officials there would like to assist but they are under the instructions of the head office and they have had to discharge the natives, so that naw there is not enough labour. There are large trees alongside the subsidiary furrows and if these trees are not taken out the roots will again penetrate the canals and it will not be much use cleaning them out. Another matter I want to mention is in connection with Government farming. I mentioned it twice last year. Last year I made the objection that the Government was farming in competition with ordinary farmers. The Minister said it was war time and we wanted to produce as much as possible so that the nation would not be reduced to starvation. It is always said that we farmers are now making money easily. Well, the department has all the equipment and labour and fertiliser and the department has been farming on seven farms. I have before me the report of the Auditer-General, and in paragraph 7 on page 128 he says—

A small portion was ready for sale, but the larger portion of the crops was still on the lands. If the Department of Lands with all their equipment and with the best land at Vaal-Hartz, Pongola, Rietriver and these other places cannot make a success of farming it is clear that we farmers must be having a rough time. As the Minister is now going to farm on a small scale I hope he will see to it that the farming is carried out properly. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) charged me with having sinned in not having advertised the lands when I was Minister.

I did not say you sinned.

He levelled it as a charge against me that I did not advertise the farms. Many farms were not advertised because at that time we had a great amount of land. The land could not be advertised simultaneously, and at that time when we advertised we frequently had no applications. The temporary lessees were people of the poorest class, and we considered it was fair to lease the ground to them from month to month and give them an opportunity to make a little progress. Then later, when the lands were advertised, if they had made a success of it, we could give these temporary lessees preference in respect of this land. I think that was a good policy. Last year the Minister was up North and we asked him when he returned to make a statement in regard to the inundations at that time.

Will you please mention that under irrigation.

Very well. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) brought up the case of Mrs. Watkins. May I say that we have always considered that this woman — whose husband was an official who retired from the service and obtained a farm in the Zoutpansberg — has not been fairly treated. When she wanted to sell she was not allowed to do so. That is our information.

She gave an option to Van der Merwe and Van der Merwe did not make any use of it.

I should like to invite attention to the necessity for an enquiry in regard to underground water supplies.

The hon. member may bring that up under irrigation.

I shall be glad if the Minister would give us a little clarity in connection with the case of Mrs. Watkins. By way of interjection he said that she did not sell the ground to Van der Merwe because Van der Merwe did not exercise his option to purchase. My information is that the Government refused to permit her to sell the ground. I should be glad to have clarity in that regard. She was in Pretoria, according to my information, and tried to get consent to sell the ground to Van der Merwe, and it was refused. As regards the announced policy that as regards ground for settlement, preference will be given to returned soldiers, I again want to say that our Party and any reasonable person must adopt the point of view that that is a wrong policy. There is not the least justification for passing over an ordinary Union citizen who is suitable as a settler and only to give preference to one class. The object of settlement should be to give the ground to the best potential settlers. That was always the policy of the Government. To make a success of settlement ground must be given to those who are most suitable to make a success of farming. Take the Northern Transvaal, my constituency, Zoutpansberg, Marico, that is the bushveld. It is not just everyone who can settle there and farm with success. One must be able to suit oneself to circumstances and have a fair amount of experience of farming, and in many cases experience of that particular area. Hon. members opposite will be able to support me when I say that often people from other areas bought ground there and within a year or so they had gone under and gone away, because they are not acquainted with that area. For that reason the correct thing to do is to give people who are born there and know the conditions the first chance, if they are competent farmers.

The soldiers who came from those parts.

I have not the least objection to it that if a soldier and a citizen apply, and the soldier is the more suitable of the two, that it should be given to the soldier, but it should not be done solely because he is a soldier. I take another case, and I will mention the name, because I have had much correspondence with the Minister in connection with this matter, hitherto unsuccessfully. It is Mr. D. J. N. Roux, of North Brabant.

Send it to me.

I am always busy sending, but without success. I raise it now because it is a beautiful example of what I have just said. He was born in the Rustenburg-Waterberg area. His father was a poor man. I have known the family for the last 25 years. He was bom and raised there. He was very poor and started farming on a small scale. Today he already has a herd of over 100 cattle. He proved that he can adapt himself to the Bushveld. For the past 20 years and more he has been applying for a farm, but never succeeded. He had to wander from one place to another and eventually became one of those unfortunate people who had no other refuge but to become a temporary lessee of the Government.

That is just why I asked why the farms in the past were not advertised. He would then have had a chance.

In his need he eventually took refuge on a farm, North Brabant, which was unoccupied, in the district of Waterberg. He is now there with his herd of cattle, and if the Government puts him off the farm he will perhaps be obliged, like many others, to sell out lock, stock and barrel. If he has to do that in the present period of drought it is evident that he will possibly be ruined. Farmers who have to sell out under such circumstances in this drought, will have to accept ruinous prices. I want to ask the Minister to reconsider cases of this nature. It is probably that North Brabant and many of the unoccupied farms will not be allotted for years and years. Many of the farms not even have water yet; boring has not been done and they will not be allotted. But if a man like this has the farm he may perhaps arrange with his neighbour to get water there. I ask the Minister not to cause these people to leave until the time arrives when farms are actually allotted. And if the farms are allotted, we have a man there who has proved that he can make a success of farming in that area, and he ought to get preference above people from other areas. That is a reasonable suggestion. But there is another aspect of the position in the northern portions of the Transvaal which I want to deal with. That is the condition which arose as a result of the drought. Many of the people, and also many temporary lessees, are today in a doubly difficult position. They are put into the road because the Government puts them off the farms which they occupied temporarily, and in these times of drought they can find grazing nowhere. Whither now? Grazing is so scare that they cannot find grazing on other farms. What must they do? I got into touch with the Minister’s Department and also the Department of Social Welfare. The Department of Social Welfare investigated the position in the north and the report was also sent to the Department of the Minister of Lands and I received a copy. The official who invest!’ gated in Potgietersrust states—

That is the finding of the Department of Welfare. Perhaps the Minister does not know about it; perhaps the natives illegally occupy the farms. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) referred to article 9 of the Act of 1937. Let us be clear. It provides that nobody can sell the ground without the consent of the Minister, but if that consent is obtained that restriction is no longer applicable to the new purchaser. In the Act rushed through by the present Minister of Lands that restriction is passed on from one owner to the other in perpetuity.

Yes, but I said that nothing more was placed on the present settler.

Let us be clear. If a farm has been sold once under the old Act, the servitude disappeared, whoever bought it. But now the servitude remains there for all time. But as regards another point I want to support the hon. member. People who bought ground under Section 11 at high market values often find it difficult. It is, I think, the policy of the Department not to allow revaluation, but if that ground reverts to the State, perhaps because a man can no longer hold it and must return it to the State, the new man receives a revaluation and gets the ground cheaper. The first man who was there can have no revaluation, but perhaps struggled and sweated all the time to make ends meet, and I wish to ask the Minister to meet such cases. There is another matter I would like to raise here. So many amendments have been made to the settlement Act that it is almost impossible to recognise the original Act and I wish to ask the Minister whether it is not possible next year to have a consolidation Act. I further wish to point out that it is particularly interesting to see how well the settlers fulfill their obligation towards the State. In the latest report of the Department of Lands we find that the Government spent on all sorts of settlements, including boring and everything else, a sum of £16,963,790. That of course does not include Crown land issued by the Government on application. That is since the Settlement Act was passed in 1912. But in the same period the Government received back £16,300,000, or only £600,000 less than what it spent on settlements. But if we look at the interest paid by those people in the same period, that is from 1911 to 1944, we find that it amounts to £4,629,000. That includes Crown land issued. In other words, a quarter of the money paid back was interest paid by these people. I want to say that in honour of our settlers; The State has received back almost the full amount, and now the settlers still have to pay the State £7,235,000. In the course of 33 years these people paid almost one-quarter of the capital amount in interest. That redounds to the honour of those who were assisted by the State, and the question arises whether it is not possible for the State to assist these people by having a lower rate of interest. The State has received a good rate of interest for its money and I want to appeal to the Minister to investigate it.

I should like to reply to a few questions. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) said that there was doubt as to when the ground will be readvertised. Right through all the war years we said that that would happen when the war is over. Now the question arises as to when the war is over, now that it is at an end in Europe, or when the war in the East is over.

Or perhaps with Russia one of these days.

Can you never be serious? We decided that the end of the war is the end of the European war. We will allot the ground and advertise as soon as the Director of Demobilisation, who has the whole organisation of the returned soldiers in his hands, tells us that we can now advertise. Of course we cannot wait until everyone returns. Some of them will perhaps have to remain there for an appreciable period still, but as soon as the Director of Demobilisation is of the opinion that enough troops have returned for us to proceed, we shall do so. The hon. member referred to the rise in the value of ground which makes it so difficult for settlers to acquire ground at prices at which they can make a decent living. We admit that. I always wish to give the House the fullest information I have in connection with matters. My information, éven as that of my predecessor, Gen. Kemp, is that it is an unfortunate truth that where the State buys ground we do not acquire the best ground. When ground is offered to us it is always ground for which people cannot get the price, When they offer it in the open market, which they hope to receive from the Governtnent. I discussed the question seriously with the Land Board, namely the question why the settlers must always be put on inferior ground when we buy ground; we must be prepared to acquire good ground at higher prices-, which it is justified to pay for better ground. The aim was always to acquire ground as cheaply as possible to give an economic existence to a man, but where one buys cheap ground one needs larger ground, and it is more economical to buy better ground. We have decided to increase the subsidy given by us, that is, the price we pay for ground, which was limited to £2,750 when I took over, or £2,500, to £3,500.

That is Section 11.

Yes, I referred to Section 11, and the idea is to increase it to £3,500. The Land Board will try to purchase good ground at an economical market value, and not always inferior ground. As a practical farmer I know that if you pay £1 for bad ground and £2 for good ground, it is better to pay £2 for good ground. We hope that in this way we will be able to place settlers on better ground. It is true that we have a fair amount of money with which to purchase ground during the war, but especially from 1942 ground began to rise, and at present prices one can hardly offer settlers ground and expect them to make a decent living there, and as a result we now purchase less. We know that after the previous war ground was also very high and at those prices it was uneconomical for settlers. At the same time I want to say that I also instructed the Land Board that where they purchased ground for settlers they must also be convinced that the settlers will be able to make not only an existence, a bare economic existence, but that they should be able to live better there than they were able to do in the past. That is the general policy of the Government, that we want to raise the standard of living of our people. As a result we adopted the point of view that where plots are allocated that must also be taken into consideration. The Land Board takes that into consideration. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) again raised the matter of servitudes on ground, but that has already been discussed here and replied to so often that I need not devote much time to it. If we simply have to accept that as soon as a person has paid off his farm he can sell and mortgage it as he likes, a settlement will simply come to an end, and especially the more populated settlements will fall into the hands of rich people. The Government has a Settlement Act to administer, with the object of putting people into a better position. Rich people are not assisted under the Settlement Acts. The people whom we want to rehabilitate are poor, and we cannot permit those people again to revert to the condition in which they were before.

†The hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) wanted to know about major sons: Is it the law of the Medes and the Persians that a major son cannot live on the land? Certainly not. I described today that when we give a holding to a man and his family of minor sons, it is calculated that that holding will give him at least a decent standard of living, and when his sons become 21 they have been educated at the cost of the State and they must get out and not divide the income of that land by one or by two. But I say it is not a law of the Medes and Persians. There are cases where a man is allowed, when he is becoming old, or cannot do farming any more, to have his son there. Certainly it is done in that case. The son can also be the heir.

But in the meantime the son is forced to leave.

While the father can still make a decent living while farming on his own, the son must leave. But if he becomes old he can bring in his son on the ground. But we do not allow that farm or any other holding under Section 11 to be bequethed to more than one son. He can only leave it to one son.

But he must get permission from you?

Of course he must get permission, otherwise it gets out of hand. It happens every day of the week that numbers of people make application to keep a son on their holdings. There are cases where the holding is so improved and the income has increased so much that there is room for a son and even for a second son. All these things are considered and every application to retain a son on a holding is dealt with on its merits. There are hundreds of sons who are allowed to remain with their father on the land.

†*I want to tell the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) that our farming has in the past been so extensive that we reduced the work on the canals. The farming is now being decreased — that is another question he put — and we will now clean the canals. We shall also inspect the damage being done to the concrete by the roots of trees. We have not yet got a mill for the sugar cane, but it is not necessary. I speak subject to correction but I understand that it takes three years before sugar cane can be cut.

From 16 to 17 months.

The period may be shorter at Pongola because the cane thrives well there. When the time is ripe we shall make plans in connection with a mill. The other difficulty was in connection with the road. We feel that the sugar export will pass through the Transvaal and not through Durban*. There is no railway and I have already brought the matter to the notice of the Minister of Transport. When the stage is reached that the product is available they will be prepared to investigate the position. In the meanwhile we have approached the Provincial Council of the Transvaal in connection with the construction of a hard road to Piet Retief. If that can be done we shall be able to convey the cane there. I want to tell the hon. member, and he can accept it from me, that eventually there will be a profit of £36,000. But I want to go further. Even if there was a loss of £50,000 or £60,000 I would not have hesitated to defend that in the House, In the first place we have conferred a great service on, the farmers in placing them in a position to maintain their potato production, and the hon. member knows what the food position is in the country. When one farms with vegetables one is farming with something very susceptible to damage. Frost in one night can cause damage running into thousands of pounds, but I say even if we suffered losses I would have made bold to defend it in view of the food position the country is now faced with. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) mentioned the case of a person who is on Government land, and who is unable to make a success of his farming.

I want you to give him a farm.

If I did it in that case many other members would come to me ten at a time. In the case of the widow Watkins I want to tell the hon. member his information is wrong that we refused to allow her to sell the land to Van der Merwe. The position is that Van der Merwe did not exercise his option. In regard to the case of Nott, I have not the information handy, and I will send it on by letter to the hon. member. Then he mentioned the drought in the Northern Transvaal. We know about it, but the hon. member’s information is incorrect when he says that natives have trekked in and allowed their stock to graze on the lands that were vacated. We are very vigilant there, because we want to ensure that the farms are not trampled down and eaten out when we allot them. The hon. member ’ for Victoria West (Mr. Luttig) asked whether it was not possible to reduce the rate of interest in respect of farms bought under Section 11. In the first place I want to say that my colleague, the Minister Of Finance, would think twice about doing that. I would not take the liberty of asking him to do so. In the second place a rate of interest of per cent. is low enough. I am speaking under correction, but I believe the Government borrows money at 3 per cent. Then there are the costs of raising the loan and the administration costs, and I think the difference is trifling. Then mention has been made of the revaluation when a holding under Section 11 is cancelled and given out again at a reduced rental. I should like to give a considerable amount of information on this because it is a matter that is mentioned from year to year and it has also been alluded to by my predecessor. I shall tell the House why it has been refused and why is was done. Under Section 11 the Government advance was 90 per cent. of the purchase price of the land, and in addition to that money is given to buy cattle and implements and to sink boreholes and so forth. The sum far exceeds the purchase price. A big responsibility is connected with that, and we do not always get the money back. We have the man who farms badly and we know there are people who do farm badly. You can give them the best farm and yet they will peter out. Under Section 11 we also get poor farmers. Now the provision in the law is if a person in four consecutive years fails to pay his interest the Minister is obliged to cancel his holding. I have no option. If in such cases we should revalue the land and give it to the same man — well, we already have cases where people deliberately refuse to pay in the hope that we would cancel and revalue — you can take it from me that the number of cancellations would increase by thousands, because all a man would then have to do is to neglect to make payments over four years when his farm would be revalued and he would get it back. That would kill Section 11. The question of revaluation is consequently eliminated entirely. I think I have now answered all the questions.

The Minister of Lands has stated he will not reply to my questions. I will leave it at that. A man can sound his retreat as he wishes to, and if the Minister elects to announce his retreat in this way I leave him to it. I should like to turn, however, to the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). I have stood up here and asked the Minister to give the number of temporary lessees who will have to leave their farms at the end of May. The Minister stated it was difficult to get those numbers. I do not recall exactly what word was used, whether he spoke about lessees or settlers, but it was clear to all that I referred to the people who were notified that they would have to leave their farms on the 31st May.

You referred to settlers who were thrown on the road.

The member can refer to Hansard and see what I said. Everyone knew I was talking about temporary lessees, although it is peculiar to refer to people who have been 20 to 44 years on the land as temporary lessees. We have always referred to those people as settlers, so why should the hon. member now come here and say petulantly that I was misleading the public. He challenged me further to mention one settler who had been driven off the land by the Minister.

Not for the reasons you mentioned.

Now the member is trying to give it another twist. I have before me the report of the Department of Lands for the year 1944, and in Appendix 2 there is a return of the holdings allotted under five-year leases where the option of purchase has not been exercised by the person with whom the contract was entered into or where it was given up Or where the lease was terminated between the 1st April, 1943, and the 31st March, 1944. There are 15 persons whose contracts were cancelled. The reasons are classified under eight heads: under unavoidable circumstances there are 5; non-payment and in arrears, 3; lapsed through effluxion of time, 1; reorganisation, 4. Now we turn to the previous year ending in 1943; there were 40.

What has that to do with the matter?

The hon. member accused me of not being able to mention a single settler who had been driven off the land by the Minister, and now I have mentioned to him a whole bunch of them.

It is not the Minister, but the law.

In that year there were 40. Unavoidable circumstances, 7; nonpayment and in arrears, 7; lapsed through effluxion of time, 1; reorganisation, 8. Now I want to put this question to the Minister. Seeing that 7 people were put off their land in…1943 owing to non-payment, was a single penny paid to them in respect of improvements on their farms? No, there was not. I mentioned the case of the farm Vaalbank in my constituency. It belonged to three farmers. According to the Land Board’s report the improvements were worth about £2,000. Those people were turned adrift and those hon. members cannot tell me now that the people concerned received a penny for their improvements. This is what this Minister does, and then he comes here and makes an attack on the administration of Kakamas for them only paying up to the extent of £200.…

The law prevents it.

If the law prevents the Minister from paying out for improvements what right has the Minister to attack Kakamas because they only pay up to the value of £200? It means that if Kakamas is brought into the Land Settlement Act the people there will be in a much worse position. I have never heard of anyone using such an argument. I only want to tell the Minister this; he has not the moral courage to furnish us with the number of people whom he has put on the road, because it would be child’s play for him to give us the information. It only takes a couple of minutes to obtain the information in the Department of Lands, and it would not take half a day for the Department of Lands to tell us how many people received notice. I only want to say this, that the Minister of Lands refuses to admit that he has done something inconsiderate. He can refuse to reply and do what he likes, but Kimberley (District) will give the first answer outside.

When I addressed the Committee earlier in the day, I was dealing with the conditions caused by the drought in the Northern Transvaal. In the first place we have the temporary lessees there who are compelled to leave their farms. I also referred to the report of the Department of Welfare in this connection. The Minister says in regard to that report that he can give me the assurance that the farms which have been evacuated are not used by the natives for grazing purposes. I take it that the Minister is absolutely genuine when he gives that reply, but if he knew that world, he would realise that it is not so easy to give that assurance. Those farms are not fenced in, and it is impossible for the inspector of lands to give such an assurance to the Minister. The official of the Department of Welfare mentions it in his report as a fact that the natives in many cases have come in and their cattle are grazing there. He recommends that the other people should be allowed to graze their cattle there until such time as the farms are given out.

I accept the report of my own Department.

If the Minister were to send somebody there especially, he would find the same condition prevailing. The reason why he does not want to allow the people to graze their cattle there is, in the first place, that there will be soil erosion, and in the second place that the grazing will be destroyed. I want to give the hon. Minister the assurance that if there is sufficient grazing on each farm, the chance is a hundred to one that if these people are allowed temporarily to make use of the available grazing, it will not be destroyed by fire. The grass is burnt every year. The grass grows high and is destroyed by fire every year from one end to the other. Take the New Belgium Block. I have received a number of letters from prominent people in those parts, informing me that the grazing should be temporarily let to people. These are ordinary farmers who cannot find grazing. The farms in the New Belgium Block comprise some 136,000 morgen and all that land is lying there without bringing in any interest. There is plenty of grazing standing two feet high. Lately not many cattle have been grazing there and rains have been sufficient in those parts. Further north these people have no grazing. The recommendation of the official of the Department of Welfare is to the effect that this grazing should temporarily be placed at the disposal of those people in order to alleviate the drought conditions. What can be the reasons that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accede to that request? Last year in his reply he told us that if he were to allow that then the veld would be tramped out. The Minister is aware of the fact that the grass there is burnt down every year if it is not grazed off. The only way to prevent that is to allow the people to go there. In August and September the veld is burnt off from one end to the other. Would it not be much better to have it grazed off, in that way saving possibly a few thousand animals which otherwise would perish? Even if that land is kept back for returned soldiers, it will not be allocated within the next six months. Allow the people to use the grazing there on a temporary basis. The Minister must not come here and tell us that the veld will be tramped out. I do not care who told him that. It is the sandy part. The veld is not good in all these parts. There are only good patches. The more the Minister allows it to be grazed at the present time, the better. There is only one way to improve the quality of the veld and to sweeten it and that is to overload the veld for a few years. In those parts we have no soil erosion. It is not possible to have soil erosion there. Tramping out of veld is an impossibility. I am speaking as a farmer who knows the world. There is only one way to sweeten the veld and that is to have it tramped out for a few years, then you will have sweet veld. Now it is sandy, sour veld. The Minister need not be afraid that the soil will be destroyed if he allows these people there to go there with their cattle. That is the best means that he can employ to improve those farms for the people who will ultimately settle there. Apart from the Belgium Block there are many other farms which are lying idle and on which the Minister can save many people during the next six months if he will allow them to go there with their cattle. I have a letter in my hand which I received from a responsible man, a special justice of the peace in his area. I am not referring now to the Belgium Block. I am referring to the Waterberg bushveld between the Matlabas River and the Magol.

Is that the stiff sickness area?

That is what is known as the stiff sickness area, but the Minister need not be afraid that the cattle will contract stiff sickness. The cattle only contract stiff stickness if they remain there permanently. They will not get it if they only go there for six months to graze. And even if they remain there permanently, they do not contract stiff sickness provided they are given phosphate, and therefore the Minister need not be afraid that the people will lose their cattle as a result of stiff sickness if they go there for six months. This special justice of the peace, and I want to mention his name—Mr. Van Wyk— asked me to press the Minister to make available those farms. He writes that as far as those farms are concerned which are unoccupied, where, in many cases there are windmills and handpumps, even where there are houses, in many cases because these farms are unoccupied, the pumps have been taken away, other things have been removed, the windows have been taken out, and he says that it is all due to the fact that the farms are unoccupied. The Minister therefore has caused the Government to suffer considerable damage as the result of these farms being unoccupied. If he had given out these farms on a temporary basis, it would not have happened.

The Transvaal has won. You might just as well stop.

These are not things to treat lightly. We are dealing with people who are threatened by starvation. We are dealing with people who will be totally ruined if they cannot find grazing for their cattle. On the ordinary occupied farms, in most cases, there is no grazing. The rain was not sufficient, but on most of the unoccupied farms, for the very reason that they have been unoccupied, there is grazing, and why should the Minister not allow the people to go there for these few months with their cattle to make use of the grazing there? It will not interfere with his policy, whether that is right or wrong. I ask him to reconsider the matter in order to meet these people.

I do not want to take up much time of the House, but I want to address a few words to the Minister. This morning he made a statement that the land which they will have at their disposal to allocate will comprise same 2,000 farms. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that the time has come, where large companies have bought a hundred thousands morgen of land which are lying idle today, that the Government should step in in order to get hold of that land? When I was Minister of Lands, I made a statement to the effect that if these companies were to continue to leave the land unoccupied, the Government would step in in order to get possession of this land. The Minister told us that under Section 11, the purchase price has now been increased to £3,500. I am very glad to hear that Now possibly the man can get a slightly bigger piece of land. But I want to issue a warning here, namely that the Minister should be very careful before paying higher prices for land in these times. We know that the prices are abnormal at present, and there is no shadow of doubt that a time of depression lies ahead of us. Today there is plenty of money in the country, but we must think of the future, and when the depression comes and they have paid too much for the land, especially at the present price level, then I am afraid we once more will have to follow a policy of revaluation and writing off. It has been my experience that even where the land board recommended that a farm should be purchased at a price of £4,000 or £5,000, I very often succeeded in buying the farm below the price mentioned by the land board. I always succeeded in bringing down the price by 10 per cent. or 15 per cent., and X think that is a very good suggestion. I know that the land board was dissatisfied. They thought that I placed no confidence in them. My reply was that such was not the case, but that it was a question of business, and I retained the confidence of the land board. We bought the land at a lower price. For instance we bought the big block in the Lydenburg district at a reduced price, and also the big block in Schweizer Reineke. In most cases we succeeded in purchasing land at a price 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. lower than that recommended by the land board. Where I welcome the increase in the maximium amount to £3,500, I at the same time want to issue a warning. Most people will now hear that the purchase price has been increased to a maximum of £3,500, and there will be a tendency to demand that maximum price. That holds a danger for the future. We know how difficulties are beginning already. One hon. member quoted the example of a man who had to sell 100 lbs. of peas for 1s. and who obtained 2s. for tomatoes. Probably that is going to happen in future. Prices will be very low and for that reason I say that we should be very careful not to increase the price of land, to find at a later stage that a man has paid an uneconomic price for his land, because then we will have to write-off again. I do not say that in order to proffer criticism. I only say so as a friendly warning, based on the experience which I have had in the past. There is nothing more I want to say in this connection. I only want to reiterate that I hope that the Minister will take steps to expropriate the hundred thousands of morgen of land which are simply held for speculative purposes, and which are not occupied. I feel that the State should step in and expropriate such land. I want to suggest that to the Government. This is a policy we strongly support.

The hon. Minister said today, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler), that the lessees may remove the improvements erected by them when they have to leave the farms. I think that I understood the Minister correctly, namely that the lessees may remove the improvements. Is that so? Must I take it for example, that if a lessee has built a house there, that he is allowed to break down the roof of the house and remove the windows and doors? If this is the case, I am very glad about it, for there are lessees who have spent pretty large sums of money on the farms which they have held under lease, and they were worried that they would have to leave all those improvements standing. But now we learn that they may remove them. The fact remains that on account of the Minister’s intention of making those lands available for returned soldiers, he is depriving other sections of the nation of an existence. The Minister has not made provision for those people. Today they are wandering round and do hot know what to do. I am thinking for instance of a case in my own constituency. Fourteen days ago when I was in Lichtenburg, a certain Mr. Van der Walt, a lessee, told me that he had to leave the ground and he said that he did not know what to do with his cattle. Here and there he had hired a small piece of land, but he was at his wits’ ends. We cannot do otherwise than raise bitter objection to the Minister’s action in hot making provision beforehand for those people before he informed them that they would have to leave the farms. Those people feel bitterly disappointed and we raise objection to this step which the Minister has taken. I think the Minister is doing these people an injustice by chasing them off the farms before he has made provision for them elsewhere.

May I point out to the hon. member that this argument has already been repeated ad nauseam.

Yes, I shall not repeat it again. I want to say to the Minister that he is not only Minister for a portion of the nation. He is responsible for the whole nation, and those people who he is now sending packing are just as honourable citizens of the State as any other people, and he is doing an injustice to those people and we make objection thereto.

I would like to take the Minister for a moment to a place of lesser importance—to the Kruger Game Reserve. I want to urge the Minister to consider increasing the membership of the National Parks Board by at least two members, one to be an expert specialising in zoology, and another to be a botanist. In view of the development of the Kruger Game Reserve in the future and the role it will play, we feel that this is a very essential requirement. I admit that the advice of such experts can be obtained. But if one reads through the minutes of the meetings of the Parks Board, one finds that this really constitutes a deficiency. If we had two such experts on the Parks Board, much good work could be done, and it would be of inestimable value to the development of the Kruger Game Reserve. In the past the Parks Board has performed much good work. Then there is another matter in this connection. I would like to suggest that a start be made immediately with training a number of lecturer-guides for the Kruger Game Reserve, and that in a few of the major camps lectures be given regularly from time to time during the season on the various aspects of the Kruger Game Reserve, that the flora and fauna of the Kruger Game Reserve should be dealt with, and that lectures should also be given on matters pertaining to ethnology. We feel that this constitutes a great deficiency. In view of the important role which the Kruger Game Reserve is playing today in the life of the nation, it is one of the deficiencies which exist. The Kruger Game Reserve ought to be a large school for the whole nation. The appointment of a number of lecturer-guides is a much-felt need, and I feel that a number of lecturer-guides should be appointed who will give lectures there from time to time. I am thinking, for example, of the wonderful starry heavens which we have there, the beauty of which most people have no eye for. If lectures could be given each evening in the most important camps, it would be of infinite value.

I will go into it.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Olivier put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—17:

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer. K.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—67:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett,’ R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence. H. G.

McLean, J.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon’ V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Luttig put and negatived.

Vote No. 32.—“Lands,” as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 33.—“Deeds,” £90,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 34.—“Surveys,” £120,000, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 35.—“Irrigation,” £440,000, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 21st May.…