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.…

In 1938, in the inaugural address at the meeting of the National Research Council the hon. the Acting Prime Minister referred to research in these words—

This Bill if the fulfilment of the hope expressed in those words. I congratulate the Minister on its introduction. I wish, Sir, to refer briefly to the research work conducted in our universities. A special committee in 1940 reported on this matter to the Minister concerned. One of the biggest difficulties is that teaching and research are parallel functions, and the research function is undoubtedly sacrificed to the teaching function. That is to say, it is sacrificed to the examination fetish. This policy too, has the result of tending to crowd our universities in the early courses with large numbers of immature young men and women. In the second place, the universities have no special funds for research. What research funds they have are obtained from their general funds or from endowments. I hope that this Bill will later make provision for special grants to the universities for research. There is undoubtedly a great need for a forward policy in South Africa on those lines. In the South Africain Journal of Economics towards the end of last year figures were given as to the amount spent in various countries on research. It was said that 1 per cent. of the national income was spent in Russia, three-tenths of 1 per cent. in the United States, one-tenth of 1 per cent. in Great Britain. If Dr. Schonland could have access to one-tenth of 1 per cent. of the South African national income, a sum in the neighbourhood of £500,000, he would be able to do the national work he is designated for with confidence. Figures for Canada are rather interesting. There they had just prior to the war 1,000 industrial laboratories, with over 5,000 professional and non-professional workers. Funds invested in laboratories in Canada for research purposes amounted to £2,500,000, i.e. for industrial research. The annual expenditure on research was £2,000,000. If the Research Council to be established will grant lump sums to the universities, it would be able to prescribe the field of research, and the present unsatisfactory practice of prosecuting research mainly in order to obtain Master’s degrees or doctorates would be modified, very much to the advantage of the country. Now, Sir, notwithstanding the Minister’s statement that social research would be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, I trust, however, that later the Bill will extend research into the social sciences. The need for that was well expressed by Professor Young, to whom the Minister made a gracious and worthy reference. Professor Young says—

We need to speed up this branch of research in order to avoid a lop-sided research policy in the Union. It is only on a multidirectional research basis into our resources and conditions that we can hope to develop South Africa’s material wealth and social welfare. I therefore join with the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in pleading with the Minister to include social research among the activities of the council. This Bill should result in stimulating social research in the Union and in that way our colleges could take, as is their national duty, more guidance in determining social objectives for our people and in formulating social programmes. For too long the universities have been satisfied to go smoothly along teaching what is well-known and traditional, with the result that our young men and women come out of the universities with an ideology largely negative and passive in regard to our social problems. That policy also tends to promote the money-earning value of degrees. In other words, lacking proper research activities, the universities have become to a large extent only senior vocational schools with an examination bias; I could correctly say, almost an examination psychosis. This Bill, I believe, should help to get rid of that, and put a stop to the policy of placing science in the shackles of theory, tradition and isolation. Only research, as the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) reminded us, and more research, can break those bonds, The war has largely changed our attitude to social problems. The Prime Minister in a moving portion of his speech before he went overseas told us that the time had arrived when it is now necessary for us to restate our social ideals. That, I believe, is one of the most important functions of our universities. They should conduct research into social trends; I would go further and say that they should actually plan those trends. Why? Because the social order of the future requires planning; planning requires intelligence, a body of knowledge and definite objectives. The only alternative to chaos and insecurity in the future is a planned society. We must look, therefore, to the universities to formulate on the basis of technical and sociological research (I fail to see where we can draw any satisfactory line of demarcation between these two branches) our social goals and determine the techniques by which we can realise them. I believe that this desirable object can be promoted to a great extent by this Bill. Now, I wish to say a few words in regard to co-ordination. I take it that it will not be the policy of the council to do research itself in the meantime until it has its own buildings and laboratories; but that it will instead, right away, initiate, sponsor and encourage research in the appropriate centres. I think that in this matter we may well take the example of Canada, by setting up associated committees under the proposed council to achieve unity; for co-ordination cannot mean much if it does not utilise the technical knowledge of the men in the universities, in the Government departments and in industries, so that they work together as a national unit. I think also we should not allow the experience gained during the war to be lost. Investigations conducted during the war in connection with the National Supplies Board, the Director-General of Supplies, the Board of Trade and Industries, the commodity controllers, the food controller and the Planning Council—all these investigations need co-ordination, so that the technical knowledge acquired during the war might go into our national research records. In South Africa, as in England, in comparison with the United States and Canada, the volume of research in industry is very thin indeed. We could, of course, blame the Government for this. I think a great deal of blame can be laid at the door of our economic system. I take one illustration only, namely, the excessive protection given to industry. This has led to the growth of cartels, quotas and tariffs. These have resulted in ensuring profits; and when profits are ensured and almost guaranteed in that way, plant and equipment and production methods in use at the time are generally regarded as good enough. We can go so far in our protectionist policy as to give it a prohibitive effect on research. The remedy lies partly with the State. I believe this Bill can clear the decks of some cartellised influences in South. Africa; and give further stimulus to the research which is so necessary to industrial progress. The remedy lies also with industry. I was glad to have that note sounded in the Minister’s speech. Industry should use research to a greater degree in order to achieve greater efficiency and in that way lower costs, and so make less urgent the need for high protection. Then again we have an example in the United States of boards of directors in big industry with men, sometimes in a majority, who are specialists in certain branches of science. How many South African concerns can say that on their boards of directors there are several scientific authorities? I hope this proposed council will begin right away by impressing upon industry the necessity for investigation into industrial possibilities and that industry might make more use of men with specialised training. In that way we can bring the laboratory and the production line, of which we shall hear more in future in this country, into very much more closer cooperation than they are today. This Bill will make a notable contribution to the progress of this country. I hope it will help to speed up the industrial progress of the country in a manner we have never realised in the past. It will help also to maintain the value of researches achieved during the war; I am confident it will be a very effective instrument in planning the peace.

I also wish to associate myself with other members in welcoming the introduction of this Bill. Science, like religion, belongs to the people. It is not the property of any one individual or any one nation. It also has that further similarity, that the more you take out of it the more you find there is in it. I believe that this Scientific Council will help us not only to discover our national assets, but will also help 4 us in the utilisation of those assets and to see that our national assets are not wasted. The Council will be able to do invaluable work by putting before us the results of its scientific investigations. These investigations should lead to up-to-date industrial development. I believe that this Council will do a tremendous lot of good if it also devotes its energies to a scientific agricultural survey of our country. In this way it will be able to help our food production enormously. It will be able to help us to produce the best kinds of food, that we should take full advantage of our soil, and in that way it will help us to safeguard the health of the nation. I would like to refer you, Sir, to an article that recently appeared in “American News.” In this article it was stated that in one district where vegetables were grown in a certain class of soil it was found that these vegetables were deficient in iron, and in that district between 52 per cent. and 96 per cent. were found to be anaemic. Dr. Abbott, who made this investigation, states: “It appears then that soil deficiency operating through the plants grown thereon and ultimately on the health of the people, is a factor which should be considered”. I would like to see our Onderstepoort laboratories transferred to this Council, to work under this Council, instead of under the Agricultural Department as at present. I feel that then the research workers will be able to devote their energies entirely to the scientific side. I feel that they should be free from departmental regulations. May I here quote an experience I myself had. Years ago when I was up at a factory I was told to investigate the extraction of nicotine from tobacco; but I was told, we have an old extraction plant here and you had to fit in your investigation in such a way that we can use this derelict plant for extracting the nicotine. We certainly did succeed in extracting nicotine with that plant, but it assuredly was not done in the most efficient manner. Therefore I am advocating here that the Onderstepoort laboratory should be free from all departmental regulations, that they should not be governed in their research work by expediency, by something that might suit the department at the time. They should get on with the work in the true interests of the country. The hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) referred to the fact that our forbears used penicillin long before it was officially recognised as having been discovered, or rather though we now say we have recently discovered it. The same sort of thing has happened in other directions. For example, for a long time now people in Natal found they could make meat tender by wrapping it in paw-paw leaves. Recently the Americans discovered that they could for this purpose extract a substance which they are selling today under the name of Tendra, which can be used even for tenderising old roosters—and incidentally they are quite good after being treated with Tendra.

Why not try it on the Cabinet.

A most effective way of marking linen, etc. is by tattooing the juice of an avocado pip on to it. It does not wash out. All these things we can make use of. Research naturally helps us to make use of our natural resources. Owing to our mild climate here in South Africa the majority of our houses are heated by open coal fires. Coal fires are particularly low in efficiency as regards giving out the heat that could be given out. They are particularly efficient, however, as regards polluting the air. Owing also to our only being able to extract the heat available in the coal by that inefficient way we have the benefit of only 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of the heat available, whereas in a properly constructed plant today we can get over 85 per cent. of the heat available. Not only are we polluting the air but we are wasting the heat this coal is able to give us. An average adult consumes about 30 lbs. of air a day. He consumes about 3 to 4 lbs. of solid foods, and he consumes about 4 lbs. of water per day. We note through these figures, therefore, that it is necessary for us to breathe pure air, when we consider, as I remarked earlier, that we consume on an average per day 30 lbs. of air. Getting back to our heating system it is possible that this research council may show us how we may have a central heating system which would not only heat up the houses but would also provide us with the necessary hot water which we need for bathing, washing-up and all the rest of it. They could provide it in such a way that the air would not be polluted nearly to the same extent as it is today. They could advise us how we could do that. They would also in that way bring about that it would be relatively easy to heat many rooms in our houses. Today owing to cost, more especially in areas far removed from the coalfields, we find only one, or two at the most, of our rooms is heated, and that possibly also accounts for unnecessary dampness occurring in the rooms. This heating system will therefore also help us as regards the health of the nation generally. I feel we could have an efficient centralised system and carry the hot water for several miles. In that way we could help to keep the air pure, and provide heat and render it available to all. I feel also the council should see that our national assets are not wasted by private enterprise, more especially as this would affect future generations. Today we are still producing coke by the old beehive methods where all the by-products are wasted. That is something I feel the council will advise the Government should be put an end to. That is one thing that should be put an end to. Years ago there was a big factory in Natal which, in order to extract 2 per cent. of nitrogen from the coal, burnt all the by-products to atmosphere. It is true they did hope when they started that other industries would go there and that the power would be made available. But it is not just to future generations that a concern should be allowed to destroy our assets in such a way. I feel that this scientific council will do a tremendous amount of good in bringing to the notice of the Government matters such as these. The most important thing they will have to do first of all is to diagnose, and then to treat. After all, it is essential before we plan first of all to have our survey. This survey and this diagnosing will be done by the industrial council. It sounds simple but it is not being done, for the simple reason we have never yet had a council that has been able to give this advice. I welcome the introduction of such a council. Our industrial development in South Africa has been very much on the principle of copying what is being done elsewhere or else on the hit-or-miss principle. We know as science develops this hit-or-miss principle has got to be done away with. We know the value of X-rays, we know the value of X-rays in diagnosis today, and you will find the up-to-date doctors are making full use of it. This council should also help us as regards our housing problem. They should plan to avoid abuse and the mistakes that are usually made in a country which is starting industrial development. We find these abuses and mistakes resulting in slums, in death-trap roads and in areas finally having to be deserted. This we find simply because there was no proper planning in the early stages of the industrial development. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to this council that it uses efficiency and stability in industrial development as its yardstick; and that it does therefore lead us to the belief and show us the necessity of having a far-sighted policy and not, as is so often the case, just looking for immediate profits. We owe a great debt to future generations, and I look to the council to advise us as to how we can pay that debt and to see we do not in the meantime waste any assets which are the property of future generations. One little example. Supposing you have a coal seam of 6 ft. and above it a coal seam of 3 ft. In order to put profits into the pockets of the shareholders it might be decided to work the lower seam, and through that the upper seam would be lost to future generations. That is not a fair policy; it is a policy of this generation stealing from future generations.

Of course we welcome this Bill which is now before the House. Research is the heart of the organism of development and of the industry and other scientific activities in the country. Possibly we never had any legislation on any matter in connection with which so much depended on one appointment. The result of this legislation depends 100 per cent. on the man who is to be appointed at the head of it. Research is not something which one can manufacture, but something which can only be developed by somebody who is gifted and who is a born research worker. That is the reason why in this case the entire result and success of the legislation depends on the man who, as the head or president of this body, will have to give guidance throughout the country. I believe that the Government in this case will succeed in appointing such a person. I think that the intentions of the Government are of such a nature that we in South Africa will really be in the position of obtaining a research organisation which lives and not one which will be petrified. Research can be as dead as a stone and consequently it depends on the man at the head of it whether progress will be made. Furthermore, I am glad to notice that a certain measure of freedom is given to institutes, universities and other organisations which are already doing research work and what we need further in South Africa, as other countries also need it, is that the head of such an organisation shall be somebody who can discover talents and is able to notice it where it is present among the ordinary citizens of the country. The difficulty which research bureaux of the State or a bureau which has to be a unit without branches and without co-operation from the universities, is that certain persons may be appointed as research workers in certain directions, whereafter it may become apparent that the whole thing is a failure because those people do not possess the particular talents for the work. We therefore feel that this legislative measure is of the utmost importance and that it contains the seed for great success in South Africa. I am not so certain about this committee of nine which is to be appointed because it will be an honorary committee which most likely will meet a few times a year only. It is not quite clear what functions such a committee will be able to exercise. That committee will be advisory but that is something which by its nature is largely a matter for the head of the organisation, and I think that this committee will more or less be a committee which will examine what has been done or what should have been done during the period when the committee was not sitting. That, however, is a matter which we will find out through experience and if it should become apparent that it would be better to have a permanent committee, steps to achieve that can always be taken at a later stage. I therefore welcome this legislation and I feel that if will achieve a certain measure of co-ordination among all branches of research work which will have to be undertaken in South Africa, not only as far as industrial research is concerned but also in regard to all scientific research which we can possibly undertake. There are certain kinds of research work which in my opinion we should not undertake and we cannot undertake. There are people who strongly advocate cancer research. The only cancer research in our country which will be of any value is the clinical form of certain types of treatment. It is a wrong idea that we with our meagre equipment can do more in the discovery of the causes of cancer than what is being done in America and England. Our research in South Africa will largely have to be of a practical nature. Our industries offer a field for research work. We shall have to commence with less highly developed industries and I am certain that the tendency as far as the direction we are going to follow and the people we are going to use, will be of a practical nature. We do not want to restrict them in any way, because research can be divided into two main classes—longterm research and short-term research. My opinion is that we can leave it to fhe experts to keep in mind all the aspects of the matter. As I said before, we welcome this legislation and we see in it the seed for a great development in South Africa.

It is gratifying to note that this particular measure which is before this House is receiving the unanimous support of every section of the House. The Government is often blamed for not going in for progressive legislation, but to my mind this Bill is the natural corollary to legislation passed during the last two Sessions, relating to the reorganisation of the Board of Trade and Industries and the Standards Bill which is to be followed with a research council such as is proposed today. For many years I have been interested in research work, because I think, particularly in a young country we should make our contribution to scientific knowledge as far as the world is concerned, and though we are a small country we should undoubtedly play our part. We had a very interesting resumé from the Acting Prime Minister of the functions of this council, and I think it is very timely because there are many people in this country who are not aware of what is really being done in the country, and when we are informed there is in the country the South African Institute of Medical Research, the Fuel Research Institute, the Leather Research Institute, the Sugar Research Institute, an institute dealing with building research, and on the horizon a national physical laboratory and a deep level mining research institute, it gives us some idea of what is being done and that the Government are mindful of the fact that we in this country have to play our part. What I am concerned about is this. I sincerely hope that under the aegis of this particular council our research workers will be given all the encouragement they possibly can be given. Undoubtedly the research worker, whether in the field of engineering, or the field of chemical research or the field of physics, does not in the ordinary days of peace get a great deal of encouragement. We run to the research worker mainly when we are in trouble, in other words in time of war. During times of peace we fall into the mood of laissez faire and then the research worker is regarded more as a hindrance than anything else. But we have to remember the population of the world is continually increasing. It was computed in 1760 that the population of the world was roughly 600 millions, while today it is computed that the population is about 1,700 millions, and if it had not been for the benefits which science has conferred on mankind that increased population would be starving today. We have to realise that and it is only by a co-operative effort on the part of scientists throughout the world that the population can be maintained. We have to realise, too, that in our own country we have an ever-expanding population. Therefore we have to play our part in the scientific world and in this co-operative effort we should contribute something to the benefit of mankind. That is how I see it, and that is how the scientists see it. The anomalous position has arisen, however, that although scientists have contributed the greatest benefits to humanity they have also been the contributing factor in some of the greatest disasters that have befallen mankind, that is not the fault of the scientist, that is probably the fault of politicians; politicians all over the world. But we have to see to it that politics are put on a sound basis and we should encourage scientists to contribute to the benefit and not to the destruction of mankind. In a country like this we can ‘ill afford to have any waste, and we should exploit every asset to create the optimum amount of employment in the country. In this connection I am of opinion that only by paying the closest attention to the exploitation of our products in connection with the expansion of industry are we going to make the greatest contribution towards the employment of our available manpower. I was rather disappointed in one respect with the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister, when he said that this particular research council would not be directly interested in the question of agriculture. I am quite aware of the fact that a council of this nature cannot dabble in everything, and that it cannot go fully into the question of agriculture. But I want to make this point, that where you have an agricultural product whose ultimate end is a matter of processing or manufacturing the co-ordination of research work in respect of that product is very vital and important as far as industry is concerned; because I view industry, as I said before, in this way, that its value to the country is determined by the optimum amount of manpower it can employ. Therefore it is vitally necessary, in my opinion, that the raw product which has ultimately to be processed is raised to the highest standard possible by the application of science to production. If the raw product entering the factory is a good product it cheapens the cost of manufacture. If you exploit the by-products available in the factory and see to it that a good product enters the factory, you are not only going to cheapen the price of processing as far as the primary product is concerned, but you are also going to cheapen the price of the manufacture of your by-products. That is a natural corollary. I am speaking with a certain amount of experience in regard to an industry which is today paying attention to the exploitation of its by-products. I want to take the opportunity in connection with this Bill of giving the House an opportunity of learning what private enterprise can do at a very low cost, compared with the total cost of its output. For many years, as you know, I have been connected with the sugar industry. We were put into the position whereby in the years 1918 to 1920 we were menaced with a very serious disease known as streak in our cane. We immediately realised that unless we, as an industry, helped ourselves and spent some of our own money we were heading for a serious position. So in the year 1925 we decided to embark on research. Today we are spending only…13 per cent. of our gross output in research, yet that small amount of money has been a most profitable investment, as profitable an investment as any industry in this country has ever embarked upon. Furthermore, as hon. members are aware, the statutory price of sugar was fixed in 1926 and it has remained at that statutory price ever since, in spite of the fact that many other agricultural products have increased by over 100 per cent. Scientific investigation has meant not only an increase in through-put, and a saving to the industry, but it has meant inevitably an increase in our efficiency, which is not only a great asset to the country but is one of the greatest assets which South Africa has today. I want to remind the House that this happy position has been attained solely by the efforts of the sugar industry itself. We did not receive a penny in assistance from the Government nor anybody outside. I shall give the House some idea of how that industry has been enabled at the expense of…13 per cent. of the total output of that industry to gam its present position. We started our research station in 1925. At that time the total output of the industry was obtained from a variety called uba cane, which became diseased. We have since that date imported thousands of seedlings from all over the world, and out of the thousands upon thousands of seedlings which we dealt with we have discovered only three commercial varieties, one of which has saved the industry. I should like to mention that the Government used our scientific laboratories during this war to investigate many things including the greases in wool, a matter which probably people do not appreciate the significance of. At that station, apart from a director, we have an entomologist, a botanist and three research chemists and an analyst, and about three B.Sc. girls to do the work, and the work is of a particularly high standard. In 1934 we were crushing 97 per cent. of uba cane. In 1943 that had dropped down to 7 per cent. In 1936, after the first new varieties were released, we crushed 2 per cent of Co281. In 1943 that variety had increased to 64 per cent. as compared to 2 per cent. in 1936. The scientific investigations we have made have revolutionised not only the agronomic side of the industry, but also the factory side. We have practically replaced our original type of cane by new canes, which have evolved through the work carried out at our research station. We evolved two varieties which have not proved too successful but we have a new one on the stocks coming on now. In other countries, like Louisiana, canes have been replaced 12 to 16 times. The question of disease plays a very important part in the propogation of cane. Mosiac disease is rigidly controlled in this country not only by the Government but by our own station. We do not release anything which is detrimental to the huge industry which turns over £9,000,000 per annum. We have heard a lot of criticism about this industry, but our scientific work has brought up our efficiency to such an extent that we compare very favourably with any other country in the world both from an agronomic point of view and from the factory point of view. I want to give you figures in connection with research. I am bringing up these points to impress upon the country the necessity for private enterprise doing something towards our own country, and spending a little of their money, and to show what can be done with a very small expenditure. In 1935, ten years after we opened our station, our average yield per acre was 20 tons. In 1943 that average production had increased to 30 tons per acre. Our tonnage of sucrose per acre in 1935 was 2.74 tons. In 1943 we had increased that to 3.96 tons. In terms of sugar per acre of production we increased from 2.24 to 3.45 tons an acre. In other words, on every acre of land which is under cultivation we have increased the tonnage of sugar by 50 per cent. That has all been done by research. In other words, as compared with the standard figure of 100 per cent. in 1935, we have increased that index figure to 154 per cent. Now, how do these figures compare with the figures of other countries? I think the House will be anxious to know these figures. In Louisiana, which is one of the biggest sugar producing areas the tonnage per acre is 17.5. In Natal it is 27.2. Take Queensland, with its 20.1 tons as compared with our 27.2 in Natal. Cuba is only 16.7. So we can be very proud of what the sugar industry has done in this country as far as research on the agronomical side is concerned. The point I made first was the question of the quality of raw material entering the factory and what effect that raw material has on factory efficiency, which is a very important point, because that factory efficiency eventually designates the cost of production and therefore the ultimate price to the consumer. In 1923 our milling efficiency was 73.28 per cent. We have increased that milling efficiency in 1943 to 83.52 per cent. which is an increase of 10 per cent. over a period of twenty years. I want to give you some idea of how that milling efficiency compares with milling efficiencies in other countries. In Queensland milling efficiency is 86.88 per cent. Our efficiency is 83.52 per cent. Therefore there is a difference of 3.36 per cent. between us and one of the best milling areas in the world. Louisiana has a milling efficiency of 79.42 per cent. as compared with our 83.52. And so it goes on, right through the picture. It is only Queensland and Porto Rico which have a higher efficiency than Natal. What has made that possible? It was made possible by scientific research on our part by getting a better product into the factory and in the filtering process, carried out at the mills and at the station. It has made possible the continuous filtration process by which, instead of only using 24 per cent. masuration water in our first masurations we have been able to increase that to 35 per cent. which means that with continuous masuration and filtration we can today extract more from our residues than we have been able to extract in the past, and therefore our milling efficiency has gone up. I want to come back to the first point. All this has been made possible by an improvement in the raw material entering the factory. It is for that reason that I sincerely hope that this research council will take some cognisance of raw materials which enter a factory and which are manufactured into a product which finds its way to the consumer. It is a very vital point. Because if we are going to exploit our by-products, the better the raw material entering the factory the better the manufactured product will be and also the better the by-product, and you will thus cheapen the manufacture of the primary product and also that of your by-product. I said just now that in this particular industry probably we can do more. We recognised that fact to this extent that we are now passing our experimental station over purely to research in the agronomic field. We will probably later set up another research station in connection with the engineering side also. I have no doubt that hon. members recently read about a by-product in which we are interesting ourselves. The Government carried out quite a lot of work in connection with it at their low temperature laboratories in Cape Town. That is in connection with a food yeast made out of the by-products of molasses. Reports are that it is 100 per cent. better than any nutritional product they have handled so far, and we are hoping for big developments from its use, because one has to realise that if we are able to turn out 20,000 to 30,000 tons of this yeast per annum which is very high in proteins and in vitamin B, it may prove to be a national remedy for malnutrition, and if we legislate to put an admixture of this yeast in every bag of meal and flour and bran which goes to the lower economic groups, it will be the means of giving the necessary nutrition to the sub-economic groups without them knowing anything at all about it and I am therefore hopeful that this particular development is going to be of great value to the country. Furthermore, research at our station has recently revealed the fact —and my attention has been brought to it this last week—that pictures have been shown in the cinemas in connection with a new phase in our agronomic research. We have discovered in the planting of our sets of cane that invariably a fungoid disease gets into them due to soil conditions and retards germination by 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. We have now discovered that by dipping these sets into a compound of agrosan and another element, the name of which I forget for the moment, prior to planting, we can practically guarantee 100 per cent. germination. When you get approximately 100 per cent. germination in such a crop one can visualise that there is not only going to be an increase in production but another weapon for fighting soil erosion because you get better cover, and we are hoping that we will get great results out of the increased germination of these sets with this agrosan compound. I do not want to deal with this too long, but I thought I would take this opportunity of telling the House just a few facts of what can be done by private enterprise if they take their courage in their hands and spend a little money in order to make their contribution towards our new industrial progress which inevitably has to take place in this country if we really want to have a progressive South Africa. I sincerely hope that the Treasury, which is always the chief asset in these undertakings, will be generous to the research worker and give him every credit for what he is trying to do, and remunerate him adequately. Research is a long-term process it is not a thing like a sausage machine where you put meat in at one end and a sausage emerges at the other end in a few minutes. It is a long process and we have to encourage our universities and technical colleges and also private enterprise to do research work. Pay the men adequately, and get the best results. As far as the Bill is concerned, I have no comments to make. I have read it carefully and I think it is framed on very broad terms indeed. I think the objects which this council has to carry out are excellent. They cover as far as I can see practically every field of scientific research. The Acting Prime Minister told us that this council would primarily come under the Prime Minister’s Department, or the Department of External Affairs. I personally cannot see that it will remain there very long. Although we realise that the Prime Minister has research very much at heart I do think that with our ever increasing industrial expansion it is inevitable that this council must sooner or later come under the Minister ’of Economic Development. I notice that in paragraph 3 the council have to carry out any such work as may be assigned to it by the Minister, and in conclusion I wish to say that we hope the Minister will set the council to work at once and that he will give this council such autonomous power that they can get on with the job and go in for research work which is so necessary in all our factories, with a view to ensuring that we will play our part in the future of South Africa and make adequate provision for the industrialisation of this country.

I shall be very brief. Whilst welcoming the principle of this Bill we want to express the hope that this Bill will really usher in a new period of scientific research in South Africa, and not only a new period of scientific research but also a period of scientific appreciation. I believe that this is one of our great shortcomings in our country today. It is a fact that the road which a scientist has to travel very often is uphill, lonely and in many cases very thankless. I hope that this Bill will at the same time usher in a period of appreciation of science, and in that case we will no longer have occurrences such as we recently had in the case of Dr. Mönnig and Dr. Malan of Onderstepoort. If there is one thing which fills a person with grief then it is the lack of appreciation of the great part which science will have to play in the future of our national life. In many cases we look in vain for the beacon of science. In many cases we are merely groping in the dark. Furthermore I want to associate myself with the remarks of other hon. members in regard to an aspect which we always had trouble with in the past, namely a lack of funds for research work. I hope that such conditions will now come to an end in South Africa and that we will be able to obtain the necessary funds for proper research work. That is one of the great shortcomings which we are faced with today. What is more, I hope that scientists will receive proper remuneration not only for their inventions but also in regard to their salaries. I think the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) referred to the difficulty at present existing in this regard. It is a reflection on our conditions in South Africa that such a large number of our scientists have to find an existence abroad. That is a reflection on the policy of our country. Furthermore I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), namely that care will have to be taken that this body will remain in the hands of South Africans. We have sufficient scientists in our country and I hope that the Minister will carefully look after this aspect of the matter. You can only foster a feeling of confidence in the future among your young scientists if they can feel that the leadership is in the hands of our own scientists. We cannot entirely divorce science from the subjective aspect. There must also be a South African outlook and I hope that very close and very conscientious attention will be given to that aspect. The actual reason why I got up was that I wanted to suggest that the following be added to the objects of the Bill: The publication of and support to and encouragement of publication of works of a scientific nature. I would like to suggest that the Minister insert this as one of the objects of the Bill. This is one of the things which give us much difficulty today. We know that the market for scientific works in South Africa is very limited today, and especially the market for scientific works in the Afrikaans language. I hope that this House Will give the necessary encouragement and will make thé necessary money available for the publication of such works

I welcome the introduction of this Bill, but instead of going into the advantages of the Bill which everyone agrees on. I want to state some of the objections I have against this Bill. The hon. Minister when introducing the Bill said that the Council would not interfere with research work carried out at Onderstepoort and the Agricultural Department. T want to deal with that not as a scientist but purely as a practical farmer. There are many reasons why this Bill and the Council should function also in regard to research by the Agricultural Department at Onderstepoort. Much has been said today about Onderstepoort, and we all agree that it is one of the most wonderful institutions in the world and has done most valuable work for agriculture, but the fact remains that much of the valuable work done there cannot be passed on to the farming industry in this country. The scientists there cannot visit our farms and when there is a problem with which we are faced there has been no-one who has been able to absorb and make use of the knowledge gained and research work done there, and to let the farmers as a whole have the benefit of it. We have had a great deal of criticism of the farming industry in this country, that we are inefficient, that our costs of production are too high and that we cannot compete with production in other countries. Well, in a very large measure that is due to lack of research knowledge in our problems. Just to illustrate it I would like to explain to the Minister some of our problems in the dairy industry. Due to our not being able to make use to the full of the discoveries made and knowledge gained at Onderstepoort, the cost of production of our milk has been raised by 4d. a gallon, due to certain diseases and other problems from which our dairy herds suffer from time to time. Onderstepoort has been able to carry out research in this respect. Dr. Quinlan, who is the scientist there who has this knowledge, if he could have visited some of the farmers, he would have been; able to cure animals of such things as mastitis, contagious abortion and vaginitis and many other diseases which make our cows sterile. But there is no way of his imparting that knowledge to our veterinary officers who have to assist us in this matter. Many of the veterinary officers have said to me that if Onderstepoort could only have short courses for them, to impart to them the knowledge that has been gained at Onderstepoort, they could help us very much, but under present conditions they are forced to try out all sorts of cures and treatments of their own without being able to make use of the valuable information they have at Onderstepoort. That is the unfortunate position, that that valuable information is bottled up and throtted in Onderstepoort, which is run by the Agricultural Department. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to do what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has pleaded for, namely that Onderstepoort should be taken out of the control of the Agricultural Department. Let it function as a research institute in the interests of the agricultural industry of this country and educated officials with their knowledge gained by research. To illustrate to the Minister how serious this matter is, even at one of the Government agricultural colleges—I will not mention its name here—90 per cent. of their dairy cows were infected with mastitis at one time. If that is the position at an agricultural college, what is the position of the ordinary farmer, when such a state of affairs can pertain at a Government institute which has the assistance of the Agricultural Department at its disposal, what must the farmer do? I know of a good farmer in my constituency, a young man with intelligence and energy. He has a valuable dairy herd and for two years he has been struggling with an infection in his dairy cows which the local veterinary officer cannot diagnose or successfully treat, and he cannot get assistance from Onderstepoort. That unfortunate man has already had to send 50 per cent. of his cows to the abattoir, and many of the others he cannot get into calf. Onderstepoort has all that knowledge and should help by imparting the knowledge to our local Government vets. He has applied to Dr. Quinlan to visit his herd and to give his veterinary officer the necessary advice, but without success. That is due to the control of the Agricultural Department. If Onderstepoort were free from the control of that department it could hold courses and instruct and educate the veterinary surgeons, who are Government men, with the knowledge that is necessary to deal with our problems. But now the farmer has to struggle with his problems alone and the veterinary officers we have know very little about the diseases and troubles the farmers have to struggle with; they have become purely office men. Onderstepoort has done a lot of good service in supplying farmers with virus for certain diseases and giving us locust poison, etc., etc., but these are things which Onderstepoort should not manufacture. It should be done by other institutions and Onderstepoort should concentrate purely on research work. They should impart their knowledge to other officers of the department who can make use of it for the benefit of agriculture as a whole. The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) in a very interesting speech has been able to show what private research has done for the sugar industry, which research has been functioning only under that industry itself. I am quite sure that if that institution were under Government control it would never have done what it did. My plea is that Onderstepoort should be freed from the Agricultural Department and should work out various problems by research and instruct others about their research so that the country can have the full benefit of it. I hope the Minister will consider this plea. I know that many of our officials take the’ same view as we do. Dr. Du Toit is too valuable a man to be bound by red tape and civil service regulations. He should have a free hand atOnderstepoort like Dr. Koch had in his time, and then by educating Government officials the agricultural industry will get the full benefit of all their research and achievements. As soon as you get the throttling influence of the department—the red tape and civil service regulations, we don’t get the results we should expect from Onderstepoort—I am not saying it is only the Agricultural Department, it applies to other departments too, so much of the valuable work done in research institutions like this does not become available to the people who require it most. I hope, Mr. Speaker the Minister will seriously consider these representations we made. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has pressed it too, and I hope hon. members on the Opposition benches will also help us to press for this plea we have put for the agricultural industry as a whole, and especially for the Veterinary Division that should not be a part of Onderstepoort, but should be able to get the benefit of its valuable research work.

I must admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the introduction of this Scientific Research Council Bill, For our farmers and the farming industry it will certainly be of inestimable value and in this respect I want to emphasise a few points. I do not want to keep the House very long, but when talking of research work you are dealing with a subject which is of the greatest importance to our farmers. To them it is of very great interest because the farmers today are dealing with many agricultural articles which they produce and in connection with which the production costs have not even been determined. On the other hand you have your consumer who is dissatisfied because he has to pay a certain price for the farmers’ produce and consequently you hear the assertion that the farmer is asking too much. If the Research Council were to investigate what the actual production costs of each product are, the consumer will also be able to realise what is a fair price and the friction between producer and consumer will diminish. This will moreover lead to a stabilisation of the farming industry, for every farmer will then know whether it will pay him to produce a certain thing or not. Furthermore much can be done to investigate the best methods for producing an article as cheaply as possible so that the consumer will be able to buy it at the cheapest price and so that it may be able to compete against products of other countries. In the past we exported thousands of bags of mealies and we exported cheese and butter whereas a section of our population were in want of those products. If this matter is properly investigated, then I am convinced that we will no longer export mealies overseas to feed cows and pigs and poultry in other countries which will in turn produce dairy products and eggs to compete against the products of our own country. We can process and use our products for the benefit of our own country, and in the interests of producers and consumers. Take for instance our dairy industry. For nearly. 18 months we have been trying to determine what it actually costs to produce a gallon of milk. On a previous occasion I got up in this House to point to the unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to our dairy industry. The dairy industry is going to rack and ruin whilst the investigation is taking place. They cannot determine the price. The Department of Agriculture does not know what the production price is. There is laxity and neglect on their part as far as the agricultural industry is concerned. In connection with this research council I furthermore want to stress the importance of the cultivation of the right types of grass. How can we improve our veld so that its carrying capacity may increase and we may be able to keep more animals on one morgen? The cultivation of grasses is of the utmost importance. Furthermore there is the question of the cultivation of grasses and other plants for the combating of soil erosion. Lately we have heard much about the combating of erosion and that steps will be taken in this connection but I am convinced that if the experts would give more attention to the question of what kind of vegetation should be encouraged in order to stop soil erosion, we would obtain excellent results and it would be a much cheaper method. Another aspect is the eradication of noxious weeds. I want to put special emphasis on this point and I hope that the Acting Prime Minister will not lose sight of this aspect when he appoints the Council, namely the eradication of noxious weeds. I just want to mention one, viz. the with-weed. Our agricultural schools have for many years devoted their attention to it, but up till now they shrug their shoulders and can do nothing about it, they can give no advice. In my constituency several thousand morgen of the best land have already been spoiled by weeds. The position is particularly bad in the native > areas. As a coloured man told me once, the less you touch it the less it spreads. Every root which is draggedaround when you work the land by meansof the harrow or plough, spreads it. Nothingwe have tried so far helps to eradicate it.To the farmers this is a nightmare, forit even spreads through the wheat seed.Up till now there has been no restrictionon or no prohibition of the sale of seedwhich may spread this dangerous weed andonce it has taken root on your farm itgoes down into the soil as much as fouror five feet and it is impossible to eradicateit if we cannot make use of certainchemicals. We do not know what to doabout it. Then I want to mention thedestructive insects which our farmers haveto deal with. I mention as instances thecalander, the “ertvlooi” and the wheat bug.Those insects cause damage to our agricul-tural industry amounting to millions ofpounds. Last year in the Free State alone£2,000,000 of damage was suffered becausethe entire wheat crop was destroyed bythose insects and especially by the wheatbug. The Department of Agriculture can-not tell us what to do in order to combatthis pest. We have to sit there with foldedhands and see how our crops are beingdestroyed. If only a solution could befound for that problem, the agriculturalindustry would benefit tremendously andmillions of pounds would be saved. FinallyI want to say that research work should alsobe undertaken by means of research stations.I do not say so because it happens to bemy constituency but we for instance havean agricultural school, a domestic scienceschool and a technical college and it isof the utmost importance that we shouldalso have a research station there so thatthese matters can be investigated. I hopethat research will not be limited to industriesbut will also be extended to agriculture.The farmers are faced with droughts anddisasters and they should be assisted intheir fight against those pests in order tomake agriculture a better paying proposition.

I must congratulate theMinister in bringing in this Bill. I cannothelp but think it will have far-reachingconsequences, because once research is takenup seriously there are so many differentpoints of view that can be thought out, so many different things can be discoveredand so many disqualifications, you mightcall them, in the country may be removed.One point I should like to bring up thatI do not think has been mentioned so farin this debate is in regard to weatherresearch. I do not think this country hasgone far enough in regard to that matter, although it has vast implications. Some25 years ago this question was raised promi-nently in the Press, but then it was allowedto drop. At that time we felt that ifmeteorological stations could be establishedsomewhere near the Antarctic Continent very great results might ensue. We felt, for instance, that our winds and our weather generally might then be investigated in such a way that we would be enabled to foretell many months ahead what was likely to happen in the future. We found, for instance, that our prevailing south-east winds were connected in some way with the monsoons in India and also with the prevailing winds in Western Australia. We found too our Cape coast current varies somewhat; sometimes it strikes as far east as Knysna Heads, and at other times it strikes far to the west and comes past the Cape of Good Hope. We find that current has a great bearing on the weather round about the Cape Peninsula and also in other parts of the country. We find, for instance, that if that current is cold in rhe early stages of the year, in very early spring it betokens that icebergs may have been set adrift from the ice-pack, and this creates very cold and possibly dry weather here. Some years ago a plant was put on Tristan da Cunha, which I do not think was sufficiently far to the south for proper investigation, but a man was put there who was not sufficiently conversant with what he should have done, and after a couple of years the data he collected was found to be of little value. After that faith in this idea has continued, and people have considered Kerguelen Island and even the South Shetlands, while the Antarctic Continent itself has been spoken of as a site for a station. Data from all these places if collected over a period of some years might prove of inestimable value. It has been found, for instance, that icebergs have a great bearing on climatic conditions in South Africa. In the Antarctic volcanic disturbances very often cause these icebergs to be set adrift before they might normally be separated from the ice-pack, before the weather warms up enough to set them afloat. When this occurs you get this very cold weather. If this information could be correlated in some way it might be possible to predict probable weather conditions throughout the continent. Besides that we feel these icebergs may have some bearing on the sand found in such volumes around the coast. It is a singular thing that when there are extra high tides we have these sand deposits around the coast, though not always at the same place, and sometimes along parts of the coast where these sand deposits are least expected. Some people think some action may be going on far away to the south, and this rapid Cape coast current may cause the sand to remain in precipitation and be brought to our coast. Ten years ago when the Woodstock Municipality was still in being one of their principal sources of revenue was the sale of sand from the beach. Many thousands of loads of sand were sent to buildings in the Cape Peninsula, and yet during every spring tide the sand which had been removed was replaced and the holes were refilled by fresh sand deposited by the current. We cannot quite understand the process, and yet marine engineers have told me that this sand deposit is a great source of worry to them in connection with the dockyards.

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

As I was saying before the adjournment, the peculiar thing about that is that I was told by the late Colonel Nicol who was the Harbour Engineer that he noticed that when the docks at Simonstown was constructed there was sand on the beach near what is known as Fisheries Bay, near Kalk Bay, but it began to disappear. On another occasion, when the railways made a concrete abutment near Muizenburg station to protect the permanent way, rocks which had not appeared before suddenly appeared through the sand.

Did the rocks come up or did the sand go down?

Naturally the sand disappeared. One could not possibly control the movements of sand. I do not suggest that any amount of research could do anything of that kind, but if one knows the reason why certain things happen the harbours and other things might be so constructed that there would be no detrimental effect due to sand. With regard to weather, if these meteorological stations could be so arranged that there could be co-ordination between Australia, India and South Africa, it may be possible to foretell weather for quite a considerable period beforehand, which would be of inestimable value to farmers, to the railways, to travellers, etc., and it might also help us very considerably with regard to the migratory habits of birds and fishes, because there seems to be no doubt that the weather, currents and winds are all related in some fashion, and if one is able to understand the reason why, it might assist this country very considerably indeed.

I associate myself with this Bill. I am glad about the prospect of us obtaining a Scientific Research Council and I realise that under modern conditions it is practically impossible for any country to compete with other countries unless it possesses such a Scientific Research Council which can go into all the aspects of our vital problems. I want to confine my remarks to the farming industry. Our great difficulty in South Africa is that our agricultural production is so variable—one year there is an over-production and the next year there is a shortage. If we have such a council which can investigate these problems and can to some extent eliminate this uncertainty it will not only benefit the farmers but also the consumers. Before the war we had a surplus of products such as mealies and a subsidy had to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers in order to dump mealies on the overseas markets. At the moment there is actually a shortage and we have to import mealies. If the causes which make production so variable can to a large extent be neutralised and if pests such as caterpillars which bring down the production, can be combated efficiently, the position can be much improved. On the 2nd of February I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture—

I said already that before the war we had to export mealies to the European market with a subsidy coming out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer. Owing to the war there is now a shortage of mealies and the Government therefore does not possess the necessary opportunity to have investigations made of how we should handle our mealies so that there will not be another surplus, by means of processing it in by-products. What was, however, the reply of the Government—

1. (2) I learn from the Board that the reply is in the negative, since no maize can, under the present condition of short supplies, be made available for new industries and new uses. The matter is however being kept in mind by the Board.

Just imagine, the reply by the Government why no tests are being conducted was that at present there are no surplus mealies. I think that this is a very serious mistake, for that is exactly the time when investigations should be made. I hope that the proposed council will now conduct these investigations, for the aim should be to prevent a surplus. The other question was whether the Minister would encourage such tests and the reply thereto was—

The reason mentioned under (2) was that at present there is a shortage of mealies and that therefore mealies cannot be made available for new industries at the present moment, as I mentioned before. I hope that once this scientific research council has been established, it will not follow such a shortsighted policy but that its chief aim will be to protect us against a possible overproduction. Mealies are one of our most important products, at least as far as the Free State is concerned, but not only the Free State, for our native population of approximately eight millions is also dependent on mealies. There are several pests such as caterpillars and similar things which hamper our mealie production and all these things should be investigated by the Mealie Control Board. I also want to express the hope that this council will apply itself more especially to research in connection with our indigenous plants, especially as far as fodder plants are concerned. We have quite a number of plants which are used for fodder purposes but I hope that this council will see fit to investigate our own indigenous plants and to promote their cultivation so that we will be able to use them for fodder. Every area has its own particular vegetation. As far as the North-Western Free State, which I represent, and the sandy areas around it are concerned we find there a certain kind of grass possessing useful qualities which might be investigated in order to make it a valuable product. The grass I have in mind is quick grass. In some parts it may be considered a weed, especially as far as mealie production is concerned. Where mealies are grown on a large scale the quick grass has to be exterminated. Because it is such a hardy grass and grows so well, I consider it to possess valuable properties. It is a grass which may be very suitable for our country’s varying conditions, our different climatical conditions, a grass which can maintain itself especially in those parts where considerable ploughing takes place and where the ordinary “rooigras” (Themeda Forskalii) and other grasses have practically disappeared. What did survive is the quick grass. It is a creeping grass, grows quickly and has a tremendous root system, thick roots which penetrate the soil and develop an enormous quantity of roots. In those roots the necessary water and nourishment are absorbed and stored during the rainy season and then after the winter when the time arrives for ploughing to take place in those parts that grass is of great value. During summer we usually have good rains but during the first few months after the winter the other grasses do not grow, and then we have our quick grass on which the cattle can thrive because by its enormous root system it has absorbed the necessary nourishment during summer to enable it to sprout when we have no rains and to provide food for animals. When the veld is lying fallow for a few years the grass grows enormously and spreads remarkably and forms humus by its root system with the result that if you then plant mealies there a little bit of manure makes the mealies grow very well. Its main property is that it does not grow above the soil but under the soil so that it cannot wash away, and the roots remain in the soil and can serve as mnaure. I also think that that grass might be used to combat soil erosion and especially in the areas to which I refer it can form a natural protection against soil erosion. If it were not for the quick grass those parts might to a large extent have become a desert already. As far as its root system is concerned, it grows especially well in sandy parts and it binds the soil in a very short time. In my opinion, however, its most important quality is that it might be called hunger grass. What I mean by that is that it has the property after receiving a little fertiliser which the farmer may plough in when he wants to cultivate the soil, to improve tremendously in value in a very short time. Before large-scale ploughing took place in those parts we had a lot of splenic fever but since we have had large-scale ploughing there splenic fever has practically disappeared. One of the reasons to which I ascribe that is that the farmers in recent years have applied superphosphate to the soil with the result that this hunger grass has absorbed the phosphate and that its quality has improved as a result. Now that grass is a protection for the animals against starvation. I think research is necessary to find out whether there is any truth in the claims the farmers there make for it and to see whether quick grass may not be improved to such an extent that one day it may achieve the reputation, at least in those sandy parts, of being one of the best fodder crops. It might even be cultivated and the question might be investigated whether it is not possible to develop it further into a grass growing strongly above the soil so that it might produce large quantities of hay. From experience I can state that in 1933 during the severe drought which then attacked our country I myself and many other farmers, when there was no grass left for the animals to eat, took a single furrow plough and inspanned 18 oxen and ploughed and harrowed out the roots of the quick grass; we then took a number of natives to beat the sand off those roots and thereafter the cattle lived on the lands from those roots. This shows the excellent qualities of this tremendous root system and its capacity to store a great deal of nourishment and its extensive possibilities. I am convinced that if this research council were to investigate the quick grass, in future it might possibly prove to be a particularly valuable grass in South Africa and might be cultivated on a large scale.

I wish to support what has been said by the hon. members for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and Berea (Mr. Sullivan) as to the importance of developing that aspect of social economic study that bears most upon the portion of the human family we have in South Africa. It seems to me we have a very wide sphere in many branches of study pertaining to that subject. Let me mention one branch that of native philology which has been sadly neglected. For many years I have been interested in the progress of the study of the languages of the native people, and probably the most devoted student we ever had was Dr. Bleek, who worked in this city as far back as 1869. He wrote a comparative grammar of the African Bantu languages, which opens up a greater knowledge and a greater field of study than has been comprehended in that sphere by any student since that time. One might almost say that subsequent students have failed very largely to follow in his footsteps. But I want to mention that his work was greatly appreciated far beyond the confines of South Africa. When many years later his daughter was found to be in straitened circumstances the then government of the United Kingdom decided to award her a pension from the civil list in recognition of the work that had been carried out by her distinguished father in this country. We, I think, would be almost incapable of that spirit of appreciation. The whole of our policy towards scientific knowledge is coming perilously near to the attitude that brains exist in South Africa only. We seem disposed to put a ring fence round this country and say, “No interlopers permitted”. But I venture to hope the distinguished scholar who is at the head of the Government at the present moment will entirely dissent from such a view as that, that he will in any case endeavour to break down any such barrier. I devoutly hope the new development that seems to be connoted by this Bill, the appointment of a scientific research council, will not be confined to civil servants who have lived three years in South Africa, because then you automatically reject everybody from outside. I hope a wiser policy will be followed and advantage taken of the provision in the Public Service Act for the appointment, if necessary, of men with special qualifications not bound by that restriction. I want to refer briefly to the great value of the study of languages in so far as the development of our native people are concerned. Nothing so far as I am able to tell has ever been done by the Union Government itself to promote or encourage such studies. The universities have made some effort. Neighbouring governments have done quite a good deal. The Southern Rhodesia Government have over a long course of years stimulated study and encouraged those who have devoted time and money to the study of native languages, to the comparison of one dialect with another and generally to interest the public in an intelligent and humane attitude towards the native people. As I have said, quite a fair amount of work has been done in Rhodesia to encourage these studies. There is a man today from Rhodesia who is probably as well equipped as any man in South Africa to deal with the orderly research of questions of this kind. He has written several books bearing on language study, and, having earned his pension, he is at this moment working in a temporary position under one of the Protectorate administrations. I hope it will be the function of our new scientific research council to seek out such men and make use of their services in a way which will be lasting and permanent, so that those who come after them may have the advantage of what they have learnt. I hope we shall not have any niggardly policy in regard to men of that kind. I trust that the reward of their years of study will be a sufficient one, and that some effort will be made to note the presence of these men still amongst us, and that their abilities will be duly recognised and rewarded by this council.

Natives as well.

I think there are a large number of people amongst the native population coming on and whose attainments are considerable not only in the study of languages but who are developing as students in other branches, and they should be encouraged. They work amongst people who are very poor and who have not got much with which to reward anybody. I hope the presence of these students will be made known to the council which is to be set up. A great deal has been said during this debate about the position of veterinary science in this country and a great deal of eulogium has been expended on Onderstepoort. I think Onderstepoort has suffered in recent years in being subordinated very largely to the Department of Agriculture. I look upon Dr. Du Toit as one who in his own right should have been given a wider control over the future of Onderstepoort than he has today because of the autocracy of the Secretary for Agriculture. If I understand the position correctly he has been largely subordinated to the official who holds the position of Secretary for Agriculture, even in his professional capacity, and his professional capacity is very great. I do not go as far as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) (Dr. L. P. Bosman) in acclaiming the talents of Dr. Du Toit almost with bated breath. I do not think Dr. Du Toit, or his greatest admirers, could enumerate any considerable number of discoveries he has made that rank as discoveries of the highest grade in the field of scientific veterinary knowledge. On the other hand, there are more humble workers, scientific research men, who have made outstanding discoveries and who have been ignored by the Union authorities for the best part of 20 or 30 years. I speak of men like Colonel Watkins Pitchford C.M.G. who, for many years, was in charge of the research work at Allerton, a modest place which in the thirteen years of its life only cost the then government a sum which did not exceed £50,000, though as the income realised was about £1,500 a year at the end the nett cost was something like £30,000 for the thirteen years. I wish to enumerate some of the discoveries that were made during that period, and they are discoveries that will be recognised among the best ever made in this country in relation to the salvation of the cattle and horses and other animals affected.

It always has been the Cinderella.

The hon. member says the province will always be the Cinderella That probably is the role it is condemned to. But compared with the amount of £30,000 over a period of 13 years we find that the sum of £7,058,000 has been spent on Onderstepoort since Union. I have been in a position to visit some other schools of veterinary science and I venture to say that at Lahore in India you will find a school that will compare favourably with Onderstepoort. When you come to consider the very high claims made for Onderstepoort one would like to know upon what they are founded. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), when he was Minister of Agriculture, for instance, said—

I think that somewhat overstates the case. Onderstepoort has magnificent buildings which together with staff and maintenance have cost South Africa, as I have said some £7,000,000. It was given a grant by the Empire Marketing Board to establish a library, and the first grant of £10,000 was followed by a further grant of £11,000. These were friendly gestures made whilst the Empire Marketing Board was functioning. Unfortunately, owing to the failure of the Dominions to support it, that board died a natural death. Let us examine the relative records of Allerton, the modest research station we have in the province of Natal, and Onderstepoort. When rinderpest broke out, a scourge that decimated something like 200,000,000 head of cattle in Europe, largely in Russia, a scourge that was so devastating that the then Czar’s government offered a reward of many thousands of roubles to the discoverer of a remedy, Prof. Koch was brought from Germany at a fee of £10,000 to study the disease in this country. He evolved a system of inoculation that was by no means a perfect remedy, and it was left in time for Col. Watkins Pitchford to discover, at Allerton, a preventive inoculation by a serum discovered by himself which became completely effective in stopping the further spread of the disease. Had that discovery not been barred by the effluxion of time he would, by every specification that was given in the offer of the Russian Government, have earned the reward which had been offered for an effective cure. There were discoveries at Allerton, too, in regard to inoculation for pleuro-pneumonia, or lung sickness, at that time a very devastating disease; in the days of my childhood it certainly was a dread disease. There were discoveries made by Col. Watkins Pitchford in connection with a preventive inoculation against that devastating disease. At Allerton too Col. Pitchford made discoveries for the treatment of horse sickness and glanders, and further discoveries for the inoculation ’of red water and blue tongue. All those discoveries were the work at that early stage of the Allerton research station, at that time under the direction of Col. Pitchford. Subsequently, Sir, Col. Pitchford evolved a system of’ preparing nutritious meat foods during the first Great War. He was at that time Director of Food Production at the War Office, and the process he evolved was entirely successful. Had it been adopted when it was brought before this House in 1925 it would have gone very far indeed by now to have helped to solve the problem of soil erosion in the native areas and of providing soluble and nourishing foods for famine countries. It aimed at making use in a beneficial and payable way of the large herds that the natives had, and which they still have, and we should today have been in a position to have relieved a tremendous amount of starvation in famine stricken countries with the nutritious foods that would have been produced. Dr. Juritz whose lamented death was only recorded a few days ago, reported on the process evolved by Col. Pitchford in enthusiastic terms. He said he had tested the products sent for his examination and, as Sir Thomas Smartt on his behalf said in this House, his report was entirely in favour of the adoption of the Pitchford process. There were members on both sides of the House who were strong supporters of the process being adopted by the Government as a means of helping to solve the difficulty of the over-stocking of native areas with stock of an inferior kind. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was one who spoke enthusiastically when that matter was introduced in the House. Other hon. members, who unfortunately are no longer with us, were equally enthusiastic as to the possibilities of such a magnificent discovery. I hope whatever is to be done will in no way discourage but will promote the adoption of discoveries of that kind in this country, and their application to the use for which they are intended. I believe a great deal of harm has been done by the insular attitude which public servants in this country have adopted towards men who have not been produced by their own methods or their own schools, men who are nevertheless exceedingly able and well qualified for the work they have been able to do. I believe we should do well not to give tremendously autocratic powers to this council but to equip it for the work which is intended to be done, and we should see to it we do not set up in this country the idea that brains only exist amongst South Africans. I think a needed corrective to that sort of idea was given on one occasion by a Scotsman who came to this country. He was a barrister and he was speaking of the attitude which was evinced towards anything that came from overseas, and he said in his broad dialect: “Colonials are the most ignorant folk alive and they have enough brass to start a foundry.” It may have been a very crude remark but it had a tonic effect, and I think it is a remark that all South Africans—and I am one of them—would do well to remember from time to time. There is altogether too much autocracy in the public service, and the public servant has come to be feared. The whole of his record during this war has been one which made people shudder at his getting unlimited power in this country. I hope, whatever the intention of the Minister or the Prime Minister may be in regard to this matter, we shall find ourselves in regard to the scientific future of this country not completely in the hands of the public servants we have now. We should fear for the future of the work they are going to perform if we give them full rein and no sort of restriction or limitation of the autocratic powers they enjoy in connection with departmental and public questions.

Today food is one of the articles for which there is the greatest demand in the whole world and South Africa, if care is taken in the production of its food, is in the fortunate position that it is able to improve its food supply and can contribute in the feeding of starving peoples and at the same time make proper provision for its own population. In connection with this Bill I want to confine myself to a few matters which are of interest to the farming industry. First of all I want to say how disappointed we all and especially the cattle farmers were that capable officials were dismissed although they could have done much for this research work and were already busy with it. I want to mention foot and mouth disease. Who can tell us how many animals die every year as a result of this disease? There are many theories in connection with it; some people say it is transmitted by game whereas others maintain that this is not the case. Nothing definite is known about it. Much research work is still required to find an effective means of exterminating foot and mouth disease. Now I come to a second disease, namely East Coast fever. We cannot imagine how many animals have already been shot and how many have died from the disease itself, and neither can we realise how much it costs the country to employ all these dipping inspectors. In spite of that we must at this stage come to the conclusion that dipping has not given the results which were expected from it. Then there is another problem, the blowfly pest. Nobody realises how much damage farmers suffer from it as large numbers of sheep are killed by it. That means a great loss in wool. Even today no efficient remedy against the blowfly has yet been detected. Those sheep give us meat and we use their skins and their wool. It is absolutely essential that we should devote more attention to research work without delay in order to combat these diseases and pests. One could mention a large number of other problems, for instance the mealie stalk borer. It is impossible to calculate how much money is wasted in valuable seed and fertiliser and labour by the replanting of our lands time and again because the borers have destroyed the mealies. Serious attention should be given to this matter. The farmers become discouraged and find it impossible to replant their lands three or four times and to pay for the expensive fertiliser—and still, after all these years, an effective remedy for the combating of these pests has not yet been found. We have other pests too, such as the tick pest which is increasing year by year. If we were to go through a list of the cattle diseases in our country we would find out that instead of the number of those diseases decreasing it is increasing. For that reason it is essential that research work should be undertaken to fight those diseases. I now come to another point I want to mention, namely weeds. Nobody can estimate how much damage is done by weeds, how much cattle and labour is wasted on account of it and in spite of that it is increasing every year. For that reason I want to stress that if a scheme is devised for doing research work account should be taken of the various areas. I consider that Frankfort is pre-eminently a place where an experimental farm might be established to do research work. In the future there will be a large settlement at the Vaaldam and it will be necessary to have ah experimental farm there in order to train men there for settlement work, and to conduct research work in connection with the pests and difficulties of that particular area. We owemuch to a man like Dr. Douw Steyn for the valuable research work he did in connection with the poisonous algae and the means of combating it. We know what that has meant to our farmers. They suffered tremendous damage as the result of that poisonous plant and Dr. Steyn’s research work has brought relief and has now enabled us to combat that pest. For that reason I want to give the Minister the assurance that any research done along those lines will be heartily welcomed by us.

I would not have taken part in this debate but for a few points which I would like to bring to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister. A very wide field has been covered by this discussion, from native languages to anything under the sun. I just want to say that we are very proud of an institution like Onderstepoort where very valuable discoveries have already been made. We are very proud to know that we possess such an institution and when the farmer makes a discovery during his practical farming operations, he can always send it to Onderstepoort so that it may be further investigated by the scientists there. We are reminded of certain remedies discovered by the farmers themselves and which were sent to Onderste-poort where they improved on it. Very good remedies have been detected to fight diseases and other things. This morning we heard what already has been achieved, for instance in regard to the sugar industry. We are very proud of that. There is, however, one matter which we want to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is that our wool farmers have for years been voluntarily contributing a certain amount for research work. The wool industry no doubt is the largest industry in our country. I understand that wool farmers are contributing 1s. per bale, and when I heard about it last the amount was already standing at £70,000 or £80,000. We should like to hear from the Minister what the amount now is and what they intend doing with.it. Is any research work being done in connection therewith? We consider the wool industry to be our largest industry. It is an industry which can do an immeasurable amount of good for the country if we have proper research, and we should like to know whether matters have now come to a stop and whether this money is still being collected.

That is a question which you should put to the Minister of Agriculture and not to me.

But it concerns research work.

Yes, but we are not at present discussing the Agricultural Vote.

But that fund was established for research work. The Minister cannot deny that. On another occasion I may perhaps be able to hear what the amount is and what the intention is to do with the money. Furthermore I want to stress also what was said by the last speaker in connection with the blowfly. If there is anything causing a great amount of damage in this country then it is the blowfly, and I am afraid that it is not receiving sufficient attention. I am afraid that investigations are not carried out far enough to find an effective remedy to combat that pest. Various remedies have already been invented by the farmers themselves and I am afraid that on the part of the Government not sufficient attention was given to some of these remedies. We want to ask the Government to try all those remedies which have already been invented by farmers in their practical farming activities. Our experts should find out whether they cannot improve on those methods so that our farming difficulties may be solved.

In the first place, I want to express my thanks for the good reception this Bill has had in all parts of the House. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has described it as one of the most fruitful Bills of the Session. I think he is right, and I believe the future will prove he is right. He also said this Bill does not leave any room for Party differences. I believe the debate was conducted in that spirit. It is true indeed that a few members endeavoured even in this Bill to put Party profit ….

You mean Party prejudice.

No, I mean that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) tried perhaps to put Party profit in the foreground, but I do not think he really meant it and I shall leave the matter there. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) emphasised four points, and I want briefly to refer to those points. In the first place he expressed the hope that the body we shall establish will be a genuine Afrikaans national institution. I would rather put it as the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) put it—a genuine South African institution. If the hon. member will accept that description I am in agreement with him. I have already, in my introductory speech, referred to the necessity for a South African spirit in research work in our country, and I emphasised what has already been done during the past 30 or 40 years to allow a South African outlook to permeate our research work. I also referred to South African research problems, and everything is moving in the direction to which the hon. member for Wonderboom referred. I also empha sised this point, that although we regard this matter in the first place from the South African point of view we do not forget that here in South Africa we can make a contribution of considerable value to the outside world, and, moreover, we want to do so, just as we shall derive benefit from research carried out in other countries, and the work of scientists of those countries will also be to the advantage of our country. There are many matters in regard to which South Africa has really an excellent jumping off place for research, and one of them is research in connection with anthropology. Much light has already been thrown on this department of research by South Africa. Then my hon. friend mentioned a second point. He asked whether this body would in the first place be co-ordinating. Yes, that is perfectly correct. I also emphasised that in my inductory remarks. Considerable research work is being performed in this country and that work should be coordinated; and also as far as the future is concerned., seeing we anticipate an expansion of research work, we would like to have the assurance there will be no dissipation of forces, but that there will be co-operation as the result of which the best work may be done. That projected body will however not only be co-ordinating and stimulating in its work but it will play an active part. It will itself institute research activities. We expect that from them. Then he expressed the hope that this body would not degenerate into a routine organisation. The best reply to that is the fact that at the head of this organisation will be Dr. Schonland, who is already the founder of the Geophysical Institute in Johannesburg, which far from being a routine institution is an institution permeated with the true spirit of research. That will also apply to this institution.

I mean that the hands of the research workers should not be tied.

My hon. friend will appreciate that is just the direction in which we are working. We are not making this institution a department of the State, but we are establishing it as a special body. We will accord it the greatest measure of freedom, the desirability of which I myself emphasised in my introductory speech. He further asked what will be the basis of our financial support of the institution. I cannot at present indicate a permanent basis. Funds, at the commencement at any rate, will principally come from the State. We cannot calculate the State’s subsidy, as is done at the moment in the case of the universities, on a basis of what the institution receives from other bodies. At the commencement it will probably receive little, although we hope later it will receive a considerable amount. We cannot lay down any fixed basis at the moment and we shall make provision according to the needs and the development of those needs. I want to give the assurance that we are in real earnest with this organisation and that we shall make the fullest possible use of this step, and my hon. friend need not be worried over the financial provision that will be made. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) also touched on that aspect of the matter, and he mentioned figures regarding the financial provision that is made by other countries. I find it difficult to gain a proper realisation of the value of figures of that nature, because usually provision is made for research under various heads and not under one head. I have already referred to the tendency that always exists to refer only to the provision that is made on the estimates under the Union Education Vote, and then to say: Look, this is all that South Africa is doing for research work, and look at what is being done by other countries. That, of course, is entirely wrong. Provision is made in our country as well under various other heads.

In Canada everything is not provided by the State.

The hon. member apparently did not refer only to State expenditure. That alters the matter. We must, however, be careful when we draw conclusions from figures that appear on the estimates of a particular country. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) referred to the question of publication. I can give him the assurance that this will be one of the purposes of the institution. It is obvious that research is incomplete until the reports of it are made properly available to the public. It will be part of the activities of this institution to make provision for that.

†I refer now to one or two other points which were made. I will not attempt to cover the whole field of the debate. We have had a large number of very interesting and if I may say so very useful speeches, but sometimes the debate seemed to be taking the character of a scientific encyclopaedia. I am not encyclopaedic enough to be able to follow it into all its nooks and crannies, but I would express appreciation of the nature of the contributions made, and the fact that I do not reply to them all does not mean that they are not appreciated. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) referred to the question of possible overlapping between the work of the council we propose to set up here and the Standards Council set up under the Standards Bill. I think the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) also referred to that. In fact, I can assure him that there will be no overlapping. The two Bills were carefully considered in that respect. Clause 4 (d) will make the Research Council responsible for the provision of facilities for testing and calibrating instruments. The Standards Bill makes the Standards Council responsible for arranging for these facilities. If they are not specially provided, it must also provide them. That means in effect, that these two bodies will have to decide between themselves which types of testing should be undertaken by which. In actual practice it means that testing of a bulk or routine nature will be undertaken by the Standards Bureau. Testing which is of a special nature will be undertaken by the body which has more to do with research. So in that and in other respects there is dovetailing of activities and any overlapping there may have been has been fully safeguarded by the fact that the provisions of this Bill will be dealt with by the Prime Minister and a sub-committee of the Cabinet of which the Minister of Economic Development will be a member. There will therefore be little danger of overlapping, and indeed, the two Bills have been so drafted as to ensure that such overlapping will be avoided. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) also referred to the question of medical research. May I just say briefly, as they are not here, that medical research will quite definitely fall within the scope of this Research Council. It will be, indeed, an important field of its activities. It may be that eventually in this country, as in other countries, there will eventuate a special Medical Research Council, but the time for that has not yet come and in the meantime medical research will be a function of this Council. An important point was raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), followed by the members for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan), Zululand (Mr. Morris) and Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in regard to the limitation of the scope of the proposed council so as to exclude social and economic research. The hon. member for Cape Eastern said she was disappointed with that exclusion. Quite frankly, so was I, in the first instance. I also originally hoped that within the scope of this machinery would be set up some provision for social and economic research, but it became clear to me, when I went into the matter, that if we make the field as comprehensive as that, it would become too big to be attended to by one directing official and by one council. Actually, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer) pointed out, the success of the new organisation will depend primarily on the one directing officer. If he is overburdened the whole thing will fail, and I think therefore we should be careful lest we put upon him functions which carry with them the danger of his being so overburdened. Obviously you cannot find any one man whose knowledge or interest covers the whole field of human activity, and therefore it seems to me that we must face that position and regard this as an organisation for scientific and industrial research and in respect of social and economic research continue to make use of those facilities which we have, the Bureau of Educational and Social Research in the Education Department, the Social and Planning Council and the contracted Research Grant Board, and make use of these, while at the same time exploring the possibility of making another approach. Indeed, we are already going into the question of the possibility of such an approach. I have realised its importance. At the same time it should be noted that in this Bill we do not exclude the human aspects of industrial research. They were referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern and others and they will fall to be dealt with as part of industrial research and are already being so dealt with by the Health Research Institute at the Rhodes University College. In that connection I want to refer to what the hon. member for Pinetown said about research in the native languages and to say that we in fact have done and still do quite a good deal in that direction. He referred to Dr. Bleek, a very eminent student. There are studies carried on in native languages by the universities today by men like Professor Doake in Johannesburg and Professor Lestrade in Cape Town, men who may be described as having international reputations, who have done much in this field, and quite á lot has been done to help by the Research Grant Board with Government money. I think my hon. friend may be assured that that aspect is not being overlooked. Some hon. members, more especially for Durban (Berea) (Mr. J. R. Sullivan) and Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) referred to the position of the universities in relation to research. May I point out—I think both tended to overlook this point—that the universities’ function in relation to research is twofold. It not merely has to set in motion research but it also has to train research workers who will be able to go out and carry on their functions outside the university; and while perhaps for the reasons given the universities do not do as much as they might have in the actual output of research done within their own walls they have not been entirely unsuccessful, indeed, they have obtained a considerable measure of success in the training of research workers. They should get all the credit for that. There were some points raised by hon. members which were covered by my introductory speech. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) spoke about housing. In introducing the Bill I referred to the steps taken to set up a Housing Research Institute. The hon. member for Berea referred to the relationship between research and industry. I refer him to my introductory remarks on the desirability of industry being permeated with the spirit of research. The hon. member for Zululand referred to the part played by private enterprise in research. I am glad he has emphasised what the sugar industry has done. That is also a matter to which although only in passing I referred in my introductory remarks. Then the hon. members for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) and Newcastle dealt with the position of veterinary and agricultural research. This Bill leaves the matter entirely open. It indicates that the council will deal with such research matters as the Minister may assign to it. I did, however, indicate in my introductory remarks that in the first instance at least, it was not our intention that the Research Council should take over the institutions of the Department of Agriculture. But that does not mean that there will not be close co-operation and co-ordination of activities. Actually it seemed to me that the points that the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) emphasised were mainly points in regard to departmental machinery—the bringing of the results of research from the Research Institute to the farmer. That is a departmental matter rather than a matter for a Research Council, and it does not seem to me that that particular aspect of the matter would be helped very much by those activities being taken over right from the start by this particular council. Then just one more point. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) was afraid that the activities of this organisation might be hamstrung by civil servants. May I repeat again that we are here creating a body corporate, not a public service department, and we are appointing at the head of this institution someone who has hitherto had no connection with the public service. I think therefore that my hon. friend’s fears can be allayed on this point. As I said earlier on, I cannot follow all the speeches that have been made in this debate and refer to every point that has been mentioned, but that does not mean a lack of appreciation on my part. I would like again to say how pleased I am that this Bill has had the reception which it has, in fact, enjoyed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 22nd May.

With leave I want to move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

A few questions arise in reference to the clause as it stands, first inreference to the control that can be exercised to ensure that customs due that otherwise would have been payable are not evaded under the proposed amendment. Under Item 325 of Act No. 35 of 1944 certain articles may be imported by the State to meet State requirements, with the following proviso—

In this case the Director-General of Supplies has the right to import certain articles on behalf of the State. There can consequently be no objection to this. He, however, went further and disposed of to certain private contractors some of the articles that were imported free of duty for the purpose of being manufactured. So the question arises what supervision will be exercised over the articles that pass from the ‘hands of the Director-General of Supplies until they are again taken over by him in the interests presumably of the army. It is a question or what control is exercised, so that none of these goods will pass into the hands of private individuals or into the hands of consumers without the payment of customs dues. That is one aspect. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-clause (1) deal with the administrative aspect of the same question. Now sub-clause (2) goes further. Sub-clause (2) allows that surplus stores, that were issued or sold by the Director-General of Supplies to private manufacturers to be manufactured for the requirments specified by the Director-General of Supplies, may now be sold or disposed of without payment of customs dues. Apparently there is now a surplus of these; these goods were sold or disposed of—and consequently the clause reads—

In other words, the House must now accept that in respect of some of the original goods that were imported a surplus has possibly remained over.

Subclause (2) deals only with the Director-General of Supplies.

No it is now a question of goods that were sold. Sub-clause (b) deals with surplus piecegoods. It deals with fabricated as well as unfabricated goods that are sold to private individuals, but which have not been taken back by the State and are now available for use. The presumption now is that all these goods shall be taken over again by the War Stores Disposal Board to be disposed of by them. The question is now what control existed in connection with the distribution and manufacture of goods and the acceptance of goods in order to ensure that this surplus of goods now available represents everything that was not taken over by the State and consequently could have been handed over free of customs duty. Then there is the question of control in order to ensure that when goods are disposed of they shall not be disposed of by firms or persons who receive or manufacture them, but only by the Disposal Board. Then there is the further question broached the other day by the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) that these goods now being made available to the public should not be sold at improper prices. I assume these goods are now going to be made available for further distribution, and I should like to know whether steps will be taken that these distributors will not be placed in a position to make unwarranted profits to the detriment of the State. I think the Minister said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Gezina that the State will fix the prices in such a way that there will be no chance of private distributors deriving an advantage from the exempted customs dues. I should like to have a statement on this point from the Minister; and finally, I shall be glad if the Minister will give us a statement in regard to the dates mentioned in Clause 19, sub-clause (3).

When we last discussed this Bill we spoke about imported meat that competed with our own meat. I pointed out that the meat without import duties costs 1s. a lb. But with the import duties it costs 1s. 1½d. We feel that we cannot approve of the clause because it is something that runs absolutely counter to the interests of the farmer himself.

Order, order. I think the hon. member is dealing with a wrong section. Clause 18 has already been passed.

I am referring to the schedule, to Clause 19.

The schedule refers to Clause 18.

We are dealing now with the refund of the 1½d. customs duties.

No, that clause has already been passed.

May I just reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). There were really four points. In the first place, in regard to sub-clause (1). Here we are dealing with goods imported by the Director-General of Supplies and eventually used by other persons.

Sold and disposed of.

And eventually they come into the hands of another Government department. What we seek to prevent is one department having to pay customs duties to another department.

How?

My hon. friend asks what control there is. The control is exercised by the Director-General of Supplies. He has full information in connection with all the goods and he knows what becomes of them. If it is necessary the Commissioner of Customs can examine it as far as he is concerned, but we are here dealing with goods that come into the hands of Government departments. Then in the second instance he referred to sub-clause (2). There we deal with goods that are sold by the Disposals Board to the public. Control is exercised by that Board itself.

They are not sold before theBoard sells them.

No, they are handed over to that Board for sale. They cannot be sold before the Board deals with them.

Then this is in order.

What we principally have to deal with is not goods that pass through the hands of the Director-General of Supplies. What we are concerned with here is mainly war supplies in the hands of the Defence Department. These are issued for disposal to the Disposals Board which then has the control of them. My hon. friend has asked whether there is any danger of unfair competition arising, of unreasonable profits being made. The answer is no. These goods are sold by tender, or if they are not sold by tender, the Disposals Board will, in fixing the prices, take into account the customs dues that would otherwise have been levied ….

The prices between the seller and the Control Board are controlled.

Only by the Price Controller. But the person who buys from the Disposals Board derives no benefit because no customs duties are paid on the goods. He either buys under tender or in accordance with the prices fixed after the customs dues have been taken into consideration. Consequently there is no danger. In regard to sub-clause (3) the first date is the date when the Director-General of Supplies began to dispose of goods in this way to persons who were to manufacture them, and the second date is the date on which the Disposals Board commenced to function.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the Schedule,

I am not quite clear on this point. Can I not discuss the meat question under the schedule?

No, the hon. member cannot do that. Clause 18 has already been passed.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 22nd May.

I have already once referred to the matter in connection with Act No. 8 of 1912. It was in connection with another matter and it was not necessary for the Minister to reply. I should like to know whether some plan does not exist to go into Act No. 8 of 1912 and to see whether improvements cannot be introduced, especially in regard to the section dealing with irrigation boards. Irrigation boards were new concerns in those days, the thing really began in 1912. These boards have had to contend with many difficulties which, in my opinion, ought to be cleared up. As I say, the Act is old. I think it is time the amendments that have already been made should be contained in one Act so that they may be able to trace these things more easily. Many amendments have been made under other Acts, and people who have no special knowledge of the subject are not in a position to get them all.

The hon. member cannot argue a matter that requires legislation.

I only want to say in this connection that I feel provision ought to be made for furrows, as at the moment no provision is made for them. I am thinking, for instance of the cleaning of furrows at Kakamas. There are thousands of furrows falling into the same category and provision should be made for them where there are communal furrows not falling under boards, so that they should actually fall under boards, even boards that will not have money for the maintenance of those furrows. The Minister knows that all the owners must be in agreement in connection with such a furrow. Every man has his rights, and if there is an irrigation board improvements can be effected by a majority of votes on the board.

I wish to compliment the Minister on his irrigation policy. His has been a bold policy and a policy full of courage, and I say this because we know that he may divert the Orange River into the Eastern Province. A few days ago the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked whether he could get the water from the Orange River. The Minister has a plan to divert the Orange River to the Eastern Province. I maintain it is a bold policy. The Americans, as we know, do things quickly and they do big things. We are too slow. Take, for instance, the Vaal-Hartz scheme. The Vaal-Hartz scheme was under contemplation from 1888; for 40 years we dawdled and we only completed it 10 years ago. The Minister will one of these days be diverting the Orange River into the Eastern Province.

Order, order. I must rule that irrigation schemes fall under the loan estimates. The hon. member cannot discuss it under this vote.

I only want to say that I approve the Minister’s policy. The Minister is now occupied in having a new furrow taken from the Vaal-Hartz.

I think that also falls under the loan vote.

I shall mention it then under those estimates. Then I should like to know this. The Rietrivier scheme is now finished. I should like to know from the Minister what is being done; when will the returned soldiers occupy that scheme. I believe the scheme has been completed, and I should like to know what is now being done there. Has the land been cleared? I should like to know what is going on there. Then I should also like to learn about the Modder River scheme. Near the Rietrivier scheme is the Modder River—a small but old scheme, and it is peculiar that big developments have occurred recently on the Rietrivier. Development has hitherto been in connection with the Modder River. The farmers along the Modder River have no diversion dam. I should like to learn from the Minister what he is going to do in connection with this dam for the Modder River farmers. Years ago there was talk of the construction of such a dam near Celerayspoort. Those people cannot do anything unless they have a dam. There have been big developments along the Modder River. Finally, I want to ask what does the Minister intend to do in connection with the coloured population of the country? Is he going to construct an irrigation secheme for them as well? In this country not only Europeans but natives as well have irrigation lands. The native is also a farmer and an irrigator. There are about 8,000 morgen under irrigation at Vaal-Hartz belonging to the natives, but the coloured person has no irrigation works; he possesses no land. I should like to learn from the Minister what the position is, because this is an important matter. We shall haveto hand over one of the irrigation works to the coloureds. The coloureds are almost a million in number and they live in our cities. They live in three or four of our cities. We see today what is occurring in the Cape and things cannot go on like this. The coloured man himself wants to be an irrigator, and I think the time has now arrived when the Minister should think about these people, and he should either build a new scheme for them or give them one of the schemes at present under construction. In the interests of the country we must devote our attention to these people.

I should like to give a slogan to the Minister for an immediate policy, and it is “Boreholes for farmers” (bore vir boere). In recent years during the war our country has suffered on account of the Government not being able to provide the farmers with sufficient boreholes, though they need them in all parts of the country. The Minister has advanced as än excuse that the drills were required in connection with the war and he also stated that there was insufficient manpower to operate them. We hope that that time has now passed and that the Minister will now see to it that the farmers are assisted in this respect. Other members, as well as I, have in recent years had numbers of requests for boreholes which we have brought to the notice of the Minister and the reply has invariably been: We are sorry but nothing can be done during the war. The need in many areas is very urgent. Last year, for instance, I asked for boreholes on behalf of my constituency, Winburg, but the department could not give them. Now I have had a letter from another part of my constituency, Senekal. I should like to read that letter to the Minister. It comes from the District Agricultural Union. They held a meeting; the farmers submitted their complaints and it was stated that a water famine threatened the farms—

These are good parts of the country where there has been a serious drought. I have just come from the Free State. I was in touch there with parts of my constituency. I was there recently and I saw myself that the dams were simply empty, although the veld was in parts passably good. Dams are dry because in recent months only soft rains have fallen, which have indeed enabled the grass to grow but which have left the dams empty. If the farmers are not able to get boreholes soon in order to be provided with water for the livestock during the approaching winter things will go very badly for them, as the Minister himself knows, or ought to know. If the farmers can get boreholes now for the approaching winter it will be of great assistance. During winter the need is especially serious when there is a shortage of water, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give the assurance to the Committee, when he replies, that the Government will take immediate steps to make Government drills available for the farmers in all parts of the country, and that the Government will do everything to obtain more drills to relieve the need that exists. The position appears to be serious in all parts of the country, and I hope the Minister will give serious attention to this and that his motto will be “bore vir boere”.

One wonders whether the Committee fully appreciates the significance of the Minister’s statement made at the close of the last Session when he oulined his gigantic scheme for the diversion of the Orange River waters to serve those fertile areas of the Fish River and the Sundays River. I think that we all agree that should that scheme be brought to fruition it will stand as a monument to the dynamic energy, foresight and ability of our present Minister of Irrigation. I think it might be opportune for the Minister to give the Committee some indication as to whether the preliminary survey of that scheme has come up to expectation, whether his department is quite convinced as to the feasibility of that scheme, and whether his department is in a position now to give some approximate estimate of the cost and possibly the time that will be required to complete the scheme. I, Sir, am naturally interested in the matter by virtue of the fact that the Sundays River valley falls in my consituency. That valley as the Committee knows, is served by Lake Mentz dam and unfortuntely, and very unhappily the dam itself, due to siltation, will not be in a position to serve the whole of the Sundays River valley for many years. At the present rate it is estimated that what is known as the critical level in storage will be reached in a year or perhaps two years’ time. That being the case it is essential some steps should be taken immediately in order that the farming community in that area should be protected, as least for a period of years. I think the Minister, when he made his statement, mentioned that it was hoped to complete the Orange River scheme in about eight years’ time. Records show that at the present rate of siltation, as far as the Lake Mentz dam is concerned, even if the dam was heightened to its full capacity— a further five or ten feet—that the period the dam will serve, as far as the water supply is concerned 4s at the uttermost eight or nine years. It is essential therefore that work should be undertaken in anticipation of the big Orange River scheme. It might be argued by some that money spent today on Lake Mentz would, in view of the fact that the big Orange River scheme is to be brought about, be money wasted. I am quite certain that the Department of Irrigation will find it possible, in connection with the bigger scheme, to utilise the Lake Mentz dam as a silt-trap, and so protect any other conservation dams lower down the valley. Another objection that has been advanced to the heightening of the Lake Mentz dam at this stage is that it should be possible to dredge the dam as it is today. Expert advice, I understand, is definitely against this. Therefore the only step that can be taken today to save the whole of the Sundays River valley is the heightening of the Lake Mentz dam. I know the Minister is most sympathetic as regards existing irrigation schemes, and as this is one of them I would appreciate it, and I am sure the Committee would appreciate a statement from the Minister in this connection.

I should like to endorse what the previous speaker has stated in connection with the schemes in our constituencies. I know that the Minister is very sympathetically inclined and recently he paid a visit to us for the first time and he could see for himself what has already been done. In the Great Fish River valley and the Sundays River valley the farmers have invested probably more than all the irrigation works have cost. Millions have been poured into them and unless rescue is at hand these people have the prospect staring them in the face that they will eventually have to give up. Unfortunately the dams have already been silted to such an extent that in one instance the capacity of the dam is only 60 per cent. of what it was originally and in theother case the position is perhaps even worse. Bearing in mind the great schemes which are envisaged I want to express the definite hope that these schemes will eventually be prepared. I fear, however, that we shall not be able to wait so long because otherwise the people may succumb to their distress. Consequently I want earnestly to urge on the Government to take immediate steps at least to see the people through in the interim, until eventually further and more comprehensive provision can be made.

I shall confine myself to a matter of extreme importance to the Western Province. I refer especially to the area known as the winter rainfall region, including the districts Paarl, Malmesbury, Wellington and Worcester, and I should like to say something about the public rivers in those districts, such as the Great Berg River, the Breede River and the tributaries such as the Wemmershoek River. Dwars River and Witrivier at Wellington. The Berg River rises in the mountains of Franschhoek, flows through Groot Drakenstein, then through the municipality of Paarl, and also through a part of the municipality of Wellington and enters Saldanha Bay (in connection with which we recently had a Bill under discussion). Then there is the Groot Breërivier. The position on the banks of that river is fairly serious. As the Minister knows, every winter the river comes down in flood, and sometimes more than once during the year it overflows its banks. Every year floods cause much erosion and that creates islands, and in some cases year after year the water runs over the land of riparian owners and even of municipalities. In order to protect themselves they must embark on great expense and launch big projects, and the owners have found that these are not matters for individual action. Every year they spend hundreds of pounds, they endeavour to remove islands that have suddenly appeared, but hardly are they finished before a new island may appealor other damage be wrought. It has also been found that where a farmer has been active in protecting his land perhaps near his boundary, he has thereby created a danger for the man just below him. He may remove an island and then the flood comes and washes the heap of soil lower down against the bank, or over a bank, entailing great damage. I want to pay tribute to the Minister for what has been done. Recently his irrigation engineers were at the Breërivier, and they even came to the Paarl district and studied the Berg River there, and I had the opportunity to see their report, and I was pleased to find that the engineer himself feels it is no longer a matter for individual farmers but that it is a matter of extreme importance and that joint efforts must be exerted to prevent the damage that is being occasioned there. It is a work for experts and the farmers as individuals cannot tackle it. There is a chance of co-operation between municipalities, the divisional councils and the riparian owners, but in many instances the problems are so great that the State must address itself to the task. I feel the time has come for the State to intervene, either by legislation or otherwise, and to take control of public streams, to preserve them and to carry out the necessary works.

I do not think there will be any objection from the riparian owners when expenditure has to be incurred to protect their own properties; and that they will be prepared to contribute. In the Paarl district we have the Wemmershoek River. A few years ago this river went over its banks at a bend and about two-thirds of a farm was washed away. The unfortunate owner sustained several thousand pounds damage. We then tried to persuade the Government to assist and we tried to invoke the assistance of the divisional council, but they were afraid to do anything; the reply was that if they attempted that work and there should again be floods they might be sued for having occasioned thé damage. They told us we must approach the Government. The man who suffered so much damage has in the last few years spent thousands of pounds in restoring his farm. But it was beyond his powers; he is unable to improve the position, and I hope the Minister will now come to their aid in the districts I have mentioned. There are a few other points I should like to mention. We have observed, and we have no objection to offer to it; that in the Karoo, in the Transvaal, and in the Free State and elsewhere thousands of pounds are expended from time to time in the catchment of water, in damming up rivers and in constructing huge irrigation schemes. But nothing in this line has been done for us in the Western Province, though we have the Wemmershoek River, which offers an excellent opportunity for a large catchment dam. The lie of the land there is extraordinarily suitable and an enormous quantity of land could be brought under irrigation. The river comes down from the mountains through a great kloof until it reaches a fairly narrow opening on the face of the mountain before it enters the Berg River, and if the water can be caught there—naturally it will have to be a State scheme—the quantity of water available will be adequate for domestic and irrigation purposes in the whole of the Paarl, Wellington and Malmesbury districts, and it will also be valuable in strengthening the water supply in Saldaha Bay, a matter we discussed the other day. I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister without going into it any further. I know, of course, the municipality of Cape Town have an interest in that. Years ago when the Cape Town Municipality required more water they had the choice of two alternative schemes, Steenbras and Wemmershoek. They adopted Steenbras. They hold certain rights on Wemmershoek, but I do not think there is any doubt that if the Government tackles the matter this difficulty can be overcome. The districts there and the divisional council have for long given attention to the matter, but public bodies such as municipalities and even the divisional council cannot take it on. It is a State scheme, and I hope I have convinced the Minister it is necessary to send officials to examine the whole matter and to make a survey and see whether the Wemmershoek River can be dammed up to provide a supply of water that would be, to use an anglicism, “second to none”. I hope the hon. Minister will see a further opportunity to come to our assistance in connection with the Berg River and the Breede River, because the damage being done there when the rivers are in flood and wash over their banks is great, and individual farmers cannot cope with it. I believe if the Government is of opinion it is a State matter to maintain the big public rivers that the rivers should then be divided into areas, taking for instance an area from the point where the Berg River issues from the mountains to the other side of Wellington. An able official Or officials, should then be appointed who from time to time would make inspections and when floods take place, or if islands are washed up or places washed away these experts should see what action should be taken. Of course, much plant is required in connection with such work, bulldosers etc., and if the Minister feels he can give his attention to this—which I certainly hope will be the case—this is the time to obtain plant from the defence force. I understand that the Defence Department has on its hands a great quantity of such plant and other plant excellently adapted for the work, and there is a chance of obtaining it; otherwise very high prices may have to be paid for the purchase of this plant. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to avail himself of this opportunity. If the Government does not see its way open to take up the matter at once let the plant be made available for the riparian owners. I hope plans can be laid to secure the plant for this purpose. I leave the matter now in the hands of the Minister.

I think there is no matter to which the farmers have been looking forward with so much eagerness as an announcement: by the Minister of Lands in reference to his policy regarding the provision of drilling plant. During the war we continually learnt not only that drilling machines were not available but there was not even the staff available for such plant as was there. Now I should like the Minister to make a clear statement regarding what will happen within the next few years. Let me say at once that during the last few years many farmers have no longer taken the trouble even to make application. Consequently the Minister must not imagine that it is just a matter of so many applications that he has having to be disposed of. I believe, if I may make the suggestion, that a request should now be made in every district for applications to be submitted so that the Minister may know how many boreholes will have to be drilled, and so that he can draw up a policy for a number of years and will know precisely how much time it will take to provide the boreholes so urgently necessary. We have again undergone the experience and it is not the first time, of learning how urgently necessary it is that we should have more boreholes in the Northern Transvaal. We have seen Dr. Bennett’s report about soil erosion, but there is nothing more conducive to soil erosion as the lack of boreholes, which on account of lack of watering places are trampled down by animals. Recently we have found that the round Van Heerden dam does, to a certain extent prevent soil erosion, but it does not help building a dam if there is no water, and if there is no borehole, and until such time as we know what the policy of the department is in connection with the provision of boreholes no dams can be built, and you will be faced with the unfortunate position that now prevails in the Northern Transvaal, where at a number of places there is still a little grazing but there are no watering places, so that the grazing is also valueless, because if there is no water you cannot utilise the land for grazing. If we could have boreholes hundreds of animals could find grazing there. The lack of boreholes has also had the sequel that where there is a borehole hundreds of animals come to drink and they trample out paths which, in turn, bring about soil erosion. It is presumably not necessary to tell the hon. Minister that the number of drills his department has is inadequate. We were glad to learn that drilling plant can now be manufactured in our country, but I do not think that will be sufficient, but drills should also be imported so that the great leeway that has arisen may be made up. Now I want to turn to a second difficulty. If drilling plant is available there is still the question of staff, because it can be understood that men working drills require a certain degree of training. I want to ask the Minister to commence at once with the training of the necessary staff so that later when we have drills we shall not hear that there is a shortage of the staff required to attend to the plant. I notice on the estimates—I presume it is the type of man who is required in connection with this work—that provision is being made for 16 drill inspectors. The number appears to be totally inadequate and I hope the Minister will make timely provision for a much larger number of drilling inspectors because now the war is over the matter must be attended to as soon as possible. We have already experienced the difficulty that in the native reserves where the natives will be settled and where the land must be developed, boreholes will also have to be sunk. Water must be provided before the natives can be established there. One of the great difficulties at present being experienced is that some of the private drilling machines still capable of drilling are being utilised in the native areas. It is a matter of payment, and they have permanent contracts to drill there. The result is that many private drills have gone to the native reserves. The danger exists that this will happen again and we shall have to keep that point in mind. While I am on the subject of private drilling plant I want to make an appeal to the Minister to alter the policy of subsidisation as far as private drilling contractors are concerned. I believe that the highest amount a contractor may receive in respect of a single borehole is only £20.

That is the maximum subsidy he can get.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister to increase the amount. They have to go deeper and deeper and I should like to urge on the Minister that no fixed amount should be determined but that a certain percentage should be granted. If a borehole costs so much and goes down to such a depth, let a percentage be calculated. But it is not right to limit it to £20, especially bearing in mind the fact that the costs in connection with drills have risen appreciably. The drills are much more expensive while the running expenses are also higher. Consequently what may have proved adequate in the past is today certainly no longer an adequate amount. Today people are not disposed to make use of private drills but would rather wait for years until a Government drill becomes available and as I have said, we have already had the experience in the Northern Transvaal of how necessary it is that more boreholes should be sunk as quickly as possible. I want to appeal to the Minister to give preference if possible to those areas where drought prevails and where the people on account of lack of water have to throw up the sponge if immediate provision is not made. I therefore hope preference will be given to those areas suffering from drought.

I further hope that there will also be an alteration made in the policy—a decision may already have been arrived at—that drills must be allotted in the order in which applications were made. In this way it happens that a farm may be 50 miles distant from another farm where drilling is being done and the drilling plant has to be transported 50 miles to the next place that made application, while at the same time the adjoining farm may also have made an application, though perhaps a little later than the farm that is 50 miles distant. I realise that a certain measure of dissatisfaction will be awakened if a man gets the drilling plant later than a neighbour who made application subsequent to him. But if an extensive programme is taken in hand it will be possible not to stick strictly to the rotation in which applications have been submitted, and it will also result in a measure of economy, while not so much time will be lost. Another point in connection with the transportation of drilling plant is this. I hope provision will be made for the Government to have one or two motor vehicles available for transporting the plant. This is one of the big difficulties. You have, for instance, a man in the bushveld who has one span of oxen, or possibly two, but which are inadequate to transport the amazing amount of plant that accompanies the drill. When you see a drill convoy it looks like Pagels Circus. Five or six different waggons are necessary for transporting the plant from one farm to the other, entailing the use of 50 or 60 oxen. If the man requiring the plant has not the necessary oxen he may have to hire them at a great sacrifice. I hope the Minister will make provision that motor vehicles may be available, although it my increase the cost somewhat. The farmers would rather pay the increased costs than have to run around to hire oxen for the transport of the drilling plant.

Much has been said already about the need for boreholes, and it is not necessary for me to labour that point any further. I should like to draw attention specially to the remote northern area of the Cape Province that I represent. I think I may claim the position there is more serious than in any other part of the country. This is largely a new area which only came under the attention of the Government a few years ago and which in respect of development is still very backward. There you have to contend with the fact that the water is found at depth and the difficulties are very great. In regard to the number of boreholes that are required—referred to by the pevious speaker—the magistrate is now declining to accept applications, because I understand that my district alone has 3,000 boreholes in arrears. Last year the Minister gave us the promise that he would lay down special conditions for the northern areas, and I think that is very desirable. A man bores a hole there and frequently he is faced with the question, when he commences drilling, of whether when it has been finished he will still be the owner of that piece of land, because a borehole may easily cost £300 or £400 or even £600, and on top of that he may be so unfortunate as to find the hole is dry. Another aspect of the matter is that although the water level is very steady it is certainly dropping, and I think an enquiry should be instituted in regard to the underground water and into their origin. This is very necessary, becouse if there is any possible chance to strengthening subterranean water sources steps should be taken in that direction. Let us take Kuruman, for example. There a stream of water, with a volume of 1,000,000 gallons a day, issues from a rock. It hardly varies at all; and the question arises where does the water come from? In my opinion the water comes to the surface there after it has travelled a long distance underground by water Courses which are fed by one source or another. We should like to know whether water flows possibly from the Zambesi or from the Drakensburg, and if it flows from the Zambesi how it may be strengthened. In the past we read what Prof. Schwartz wrote about the Dorsland, and we also heard that an investigation was being instituted by engineers concerning the desirability of that scheme, and that in most cases they disapproved of it. I think the late Col. Reitz’ book also mentions the investigation, but I think the advantage of such a scheme would be that the underground waters would be strengthened in the northern areas, and I should at least like to know whether further investigation may not be instituted. I should also like to know what the Minister’s policy is in connection with drilling in the northern regions, it being as necessary there as in any other part of the country. I should like to know whether he can see any prospect of making an early start with work in that connection. I should welcome from the Minister a broad statement in connection with drilling in the northern areas where irrigation works are impossible.

The Minister was in my constituency last year, and apart from the question which really came to be discussed a request was directed to him for an investigation into certain matters in Langkloof and other valleys, and I was asked by the farmers’ associations to thank his Department through him for the immediate action taken. We hope that it will have good results. Another matter I should like to raise is in connection with the Olifants River scheme at Van Rhynsdorp. We want the Minister to have it investigated because two things happened which caused the farmers much damage. There is no Irrigation Board. The scheme is controlled by the Government. Last year in May, the main canal broke and the farmers were without water for six weeks. It is a very dry area which only gets a few inches of rain and there are between 30,000 and 50,000 morgen under irrigation, so the Minister can realise what great damage is caused when the farmers are without water.

When the canal breaks?

Yes. It can of course always happen and we cannot really blame the Department for it. But what causes a large measure of anxiety is that the canal again broke in another spot four months later, so that the people were again without water for six to seven weeks. I know of many farmers who suffered severe damage as a result of these two periods in which they were waterless. In such cases there are all sorts of rumours about the canal, to the effect that it is not in good condition. Several smaller breaks also happened which caused a delay of only a week or a fortnight. It is an enormous irrigation district and the Minister can realise how difficult the position of these people becomes if the canal is without water for six or seven weeks. This canal does not go over level ground, as is usually the case. For about 20 miles it goes through a mountainous area which is very difficult territory and where the danger of a break is much greater. It is therefore necessary to maintain the canal in a much better condition than is usually the case, and I hope that the Minister will institute an investigation to see whether an improvement cannot be made. I then want to come to another matter, and I hope that the Chairman will allow me to raise it here. In the course of a previous debate I stated that when the Minister received the report of the Kakamas Commission he sent it back to the Commission. The Minister will admit that the discussion that day was very hot and that one did not express oneself as well as one would have liked to. I had a letter from a great friend of mine who was the Chairman of the Commission, in which he referred to this matter, and he states that there is not the least ground for such a statement. The Chairman of the Commission is not only a friend of mine but a very prominent person, and any reflection I made was in no way meant as a reflection on him, and I accept his word unconditionally in conection with the matter.

I just briefly want to refer to the condition in which irrigators at Lake Arthur find themselves. It is only natural that these people should find themselves in a very difficult position indeed, and I would like briefly to read some of the reasons as given to me in a memorandum recently supplied. It says—

I might also, at this stage point out that the area served by Lake Arthur is held in small farms, by approximately 225 owners, supports a population of approximately 1,200 Europeans and 6,000 coloureds and natives. It will, therefore, be readily appreciated that so large a number of people cannot be allowed to sink into ruin without some real effert to save them. I am pleased to say that the irrigators recognise that the Minister and Director of Irrigation are very sympathetic towards them in their plight and I am assured that notwithstanding all the difficulties which have delayed matters, the completion of the work whereby Lake Arthur will be raised by three feet can be confidently looked forward to during the course of the coming few months. But, Mr. Chairman this raising of Lake Arthur by a further three feet will only be of temporary assistance as the capacity of Lake Arthur, even after this raising, is already inadequate, and unless further storage is made available in the near future it will then be too late to save the majority of the irrigators. The question then arises: What, therefore, must be done to avoid what will, undoubtedly, amount to almost a national disaster? The Minister, in his extensive survey last year, has indicated that he proposes to divert water from the Orange River near Bethulie, by canal, part of which will consist of a 49-mile canal through a mountain range, and such water will then be poured into the Fish River in order to feed the whole Fish River valley. This scheme which has still to be surveyed and thereafter considered by the Cabinet, if agreed to, will take possibly up to 10 years to complete. I may at once say that this ambitious scheme, when completed, it is confidently anticipated, will solve the irrigators’ water supply difficulties and the whole country and posterity will acclaim the Minister for his foresight, but, Mr. Chairman, what is worrying these irrigators is the fact that they cannot wait for the completion of this scheme as their existing water supply is fast approaching the stage when the storage dam will be inadequate or be completely silted up. I desire therefore, very focibly to impress upon the Minister the seriousness of this fast-approaching calamity of these irrigators and to ask him “what about it?” Because definitely something will have to be done about further storage in the near future until his Orange River canal scheme can be completed and brought into operation. Even, therefore, if a considerable amount will have to be spent on a temporary scheme it will most definitely have to be done and at this stage I feel justified in asking the Minister to fully investigate without delay and as soon as his staff is available now that the war is over, what his Department already knows as the Commando Drift site. In this connection I quote a telegram received by me from the Great Fish River Irrigation Board reading—

It is felt that this site will be most suitable for a reservoir, because a dam on that site will not only supply additional storage, whilst a dam across Vlekpoort will act as an effective silt-trap for Lake Arthur. I strongly commend this to the Minister. I am satisfied that he realises the seriousness of the position and that we have his sympathy, and I will, therefore, be grateful if he will give me a definite assurance of his willing ness to immediately investigate this suggestion and thereafter give early effect thereto.

I wish to concur with what the last speaker just said. Those dams lie in my area. Much money was spent on those dams and in those valleys we find some of the best people who came here from Europe and India to start farms there. They now have difficulty with the water because the dams silt up fast. As the hon. member said, the danger can be warded off temporarily by building a dam at Vlekpoort to divert the silt from Lake Arthur. We are glad to hear that the wall will be raised three feet. It will of course help for a few years until the Minister’s scheme can come into operation. If the Minister can bring that scheme into operation it will be an ornament for South Africa, and I can give him the assurance that that water will be used to good advantage. We know that at present much ground lies vacant owing to lack of water, and it will again be able to be cultivated. Approximately 50,000 morgen will be added to the irrigation area. It will then be one of South Africa’s largest irrigation works. Then I wish to draw the Minister’s attention further to the difficulty in connection with boring machines in the Cradock area. It is a mountainous area with ironstone and the ordinary bore is no good. For that reason bores have now been booked up for 10 years, and it means that many of these people will not have the opportunity to bore. I want to ask the Minister to do everything in his power to send five or six bores there, because the people cannot wait for 10 years. Farmers find themselves in a very difficult position in times of drought like the present, because they must have water for their animals. I hope that the Minister will se to it that those people speedily obtain bores, because it is very essential. Then I still want to say something in connection with a scheme mentioned by the Minister, on which I want to congratulate him. It will also put the old Thebus scheme under water. I would like to know whether the Minister is going to give out that ground just as at other places, or whether the Government is going to take over the ground. The Minister stated that he would be able to irrigate approximately 40,000 morgen. If he gives each farmer 50 morgen there will of course be much water left over, and I should like to know whether the Government will take over the ground or whether they will only give each farmer 50 morgen of ground for irrigation.

Last year I asked the Minister to try to meet the farmers living along the Breërivier, and the supplementary streams which are subject to floods, by trying to keep the river within its banks. Breërivier and the other streams are inclined to silt up and to be affected by driftwood with the result that Valuable plantations and lands run the danger of being carried away. The Minister sent the Irrigation Commission there and I know they did a very thorough job. I was with them. They brought out an encouraging report, and I should like to know from the Minister whether I can tell the farmers that he will put the work in hand as quickly as possible. I should’ like to learn from the Minister whether it is his intention to help the farmers in that connection. Then I come to the fact that so much water is still running into the sea. That is a deplorable state of affairs. The Americans cannot understand that while our rivers are emptying themselves into the sea we are complaining about droughts along those rivers. At Worcester engineers were at great pains to select a site for a dam. Hitherto they have not been able to discover a suitable spot, and I want to ask the Minister whether as soon as those engineers are available he will send some of them to investigate whether there is not a suitable place for a large dam …

The hon. member should discuss that matter under the Loan Estimates.

Then I hope to discuss this matter at a later opportunity.

A year or two ago this side of the House proposed, by way of a motion, that the time had arrived when the State should utilise subterranean waters on a national basis. At that time the Minister of Lands voted against it. But fortunately he has improved in the course of years. We understand that in Another Place he made the statement that he has in mind carrying out a big scheme to provide the dry areas of the country with underground water, by making boreholes available under a definite scheme. We will greatly appreciate it if the Minister will explain that scheme to the House. People in the dry areas of the country, like my constituency, are very anxious to learn about this and to know precisely what the Minister envisages with this scheme of his. We wish to congratulate him in advance on being the first Minister who has got to the pitch—if he really can bring this scheme into effect in the near future—to contribute something practical to social security in the country. Because with such a scheme he will be making provision for what is perhaps the greatest need in South Africa, namely the provision of water in what is perhaps the driest region of our country. But it does not assist us merely to talk of these things. We should like to know from the Minister what his scheme is, and we should also like to learn from him whether he intends to make a start with such a scheme. We know that at the commencement of the war in 1939 there were about 100 drills in the country. We do not know how many of these drills were sent north and how many were returned. I believe the farmers will appreciate it if the Minister takes the country into his confidence and informs us how many drills he has and how many will again be put into operation. I want to urge on the Minister that he should scrap the old drills as soon as possible, and that he should only use the new drills which we have made in the country ourselves. He should approach the Minister of Finance for the necessary funds because it is clear that only that type of drill is really useful in areas such as in the North-West where transport is the big problem. As I have said, we shall appreciate it greatly if the Minister will take the House into his confidence and tell us something more about his scheme and the date on which it is going to be put into operation. Then there is another matter, and that is, what is his policy as Minister of Irrigation? I fear when we look at the report of the Auditor-General we must come to the conclusion that there is a very unhealthy position in South Africa. We have the position that the Minister of Irrigation is also Minister of Lands. But in the past there was not the slightest co-ordination between Irrigation and Lands, with what result? It was that we had many schemes constructed in South Africa where there was no co-operation between Irrigation and Lands with the result that the State wasted thousands of pounds unnecessarily. I should like to know from the Minister whether he will now decide once and for all that irrigation schemes should also be taken in hand on a sound business foundation. When a scheme is surveyed we should know exactly how many morgen of land it can bring under irrigation, what volume of water the dam can contain, and if a decision is taken regarding a scheme the Department should forthwith secure the options on the farms. At the moment the procedure is that the Irrigation Department starts boring to ascertain whether it can get the foundations for a dam. Immediately that is bruited abroad, and the result is that the farms in the immediate neighbourhood, whether they will be served by the dam or not, rise in value by a couple of hundred per cent. This has happened in respect to the most recent schemes that have been constructed. Accordingly we should like to learn from the Minister, seeing he is both Minister of Irrigation and Minister of Lands, whether he will ensure that there will be a discontinuance of that sort of miserable policy that was followed in the past, of undertaking a scheme without first going fully into it, or ascertaining whether it will be supported by the Department of Lands, or without consulting the Department of Lands, or without knowing whether the Department of Lands will use such a scheme for settlement. I think the time is long overdue when matters of that sort should be put on a better business footing so that we shall not squander as much money in connection with these schemes, as has been the case in the past. Then I should like to return to the first point I mentioned, namely boring. I notice on the estimates the amount set down for salaries and wages is only £50 more than last year, namely £13,250 as compared with £13,200. Subsistence stands at the same figure and travelling expenses are £500 less than last year. Those figures are very disquieting not only to me but to all those people in the North. We appreciate what the difficulties were in the past. The Minister has told us that he has the drills but not the staff. The war is now over, and I think that qualified drillers are now available. Why then has the Minister made such meagre provision, or did the Minister not know that the war would soon be over when he drew up the estimates?

We were still in the war.

I understand that. Seeing the circumstances have changed we hope that the Minister will make proper provision for these necessary services in those parts of the country.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give the House some information with regard to the position of the Mentz Dam and the Sundays River valley irrigation scheme. I understand, from information supplied by the Sundays River Irrigation Board, that the dam has silted up 60 per cent. of its capacity. I understand that in 1935 to 1936 works were undertaken there which increased the capacity of storage some 25,400 feet, but the position today is that the dam, due to silt, can only supply a nett duty of 28 inches to 64,800 morgen, or only 60 per cent. of the total scheduled area. The point I want to deal with is this question of siltation. Can nothing be done to carry off the silt as it enters the dam or, alternatively, can nothing be done to remove the silt after it enters the dam? I am told that the engineer on the Lake Mentz irrigation scheme says that that silt cannot be removed because of its solidification. Though in those things I am only a layman, it has seemed to me it should be possible to remove the silt, that it would be possible to excavate the silt after it has entered the dam. One understands there are dredging firms overseas who would undertake to remove Table Mountain provided the funds were there to pay for it. I am told even if it were possible to remove the silt from this particular dam, and also from Lake Arthur, the cost would be so great that it would not be economical. I do not know what constitutes an economical proposition in dealing with water that is absolutely essential as the lifeblood of a large community. To my mind it would be very difficult to assess the economic value of that in £ s. d. and I contend if it is possible to remove that silt it should be done. I would like to ask the Minister, whether any of these large firms overseas have ever been asked to send an expert out to consider the possibilities of the removal of silt in these dams, and to give an estimate of the cost.

Why overseas?

I do not think anyone in this country is in a sufficiently large way of business to handle a scheme of this nature, although I do think that firms responsilbe for the reclamation of land in the harbour area might have been consulted in the matter, seeing that they are capable of handling very large jobs in different parts of the world. One would have thought that they might have an expert capable of giving advice and also possibly of giving some idea of what their charges would be. Then I am told it would necessitate the use of a large quantity of the water that is in the dam and which cannot possibly be spared. That may be so. But in my opinion if the silt cannot be removed, if that silt as it enters the dam cannot be carried off, it brings us back to our old national bogey of soil erosion— it must be prevented from entering these dams, otherwise we are merely spending tremendous amounts of money on temporary schemes which are of no real value to the country, because it is useless building up an area under cultivation, such as the Sundays River settlement, costing goodness knows how many thousands of pounds, placing people in a position where they feel they are established for life, only to find they merely have a temporary’ tenure and that in the final position they are worse off than when they first settled in the valley. We cannot as a responsible Government face up to a position of that kind. Then, if we cannot handle the silt in the dam, we have to take measures to prevent the silt going into the dam, and that can only be done by proclaiming the water shed areas and setting about a comprehensive scheme of soil erosion prevention. If we are to continue allowing the dams to silt up, condemning a large area of cultivated lands upon which the livelihood of so many people depends, it seems to me we as a government, will be in a parlous condition indeed, and I think that failing the removal of the silt, the only alternative, as I said before, is to prevent the silt entering these dams, and I consider that the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Agriculture should put their heads together and consider taking immediate steps for a comprehensive soil erosion scheme to prevent the silt from entering the dams. I do not know what the agricultural community feel about these matters, I am a townsman. I am concerned because the Sundays River valley is of great importance to the livelihood of the people of Port. Elizabeth, and they feel concerned because every year a certain number of holdings in the Sundays River are allowed to revert to their original state, and fruit trees die or fail to come to fruition because of lack of water; and the position gets worse every year. The Sundays River Irrigation Board says that in a very short period of years, unless further works are constructed at Lake Mentz, the valley is doomed. Those are their words, “the valley is doomed”. I do not feel I can look upon a state of affairs like that with any degree of equanimity. I feel it behoves the responsible Minister to take the necessary steps without further delay. We cannot sit down and allow these huge schemes to become useless without doing something to prevent it. I know it is intended eventually to establish this new scheme of the Minister’s and to supply the water needs of these people in both the Sundays River valley and in the area that was mentioned by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon). [Time limit.]

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), but I would also like to ask the Minister if the time has not arrived to make fresh investigations in connection with the Schwartz scheme. Years ago, investigations were made and I think that since then science has changed considerably, and it is felt more particularly in the north-west that a more thorough investigation into the Schwartz scheme should be undertaken, particularly with a view to improving the water resources in those parts. There is however another matter I want to deal with and I hope the Minister will explain the position to us. It is the case of Dr. Mes. He has ’two farms, “Grootklipput” and “Elandskrans”. They fall under a State irrigation scheme, that is to say, the Loskop Dam in the district of Groblersdal. Dr. Mes has to farms there and in respect of each one he would be entitled to 50 morgen under irrigation and a water supply from the dam. On the 5th November, 1943, this matter was regulated under the Act. On that date the first regulation was promulgated in connection with the scheme. The position is that originally Dr. Mes was receiving water to irrigate his land, but it was discontinued after the promulgation of the regulation, which was promulgated under the Irrigation Act. He then approached the Department of Irrigation to find out the reason why his land had not been scheduled. I think he approached the Department on the 4th February, 1944. He received a reply from the Director of Irrigation on the 9th March, 1944, to the effect that as his land was not scheduled, he could not be provided with water. Now it appears that the Department of Lands is anxious to buy that land and the Department of Lands entered into negotiations with Dr. Mes concerning his property. These negotiations failed. The department and Dr. Mes could not’ arrive at an agreement, and now, in my opinion, the Department is compelled by law to schedule his farms. Apparently there is a conflict between the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation. The Department of Lands is anxious to get possession of the farms.

Irrigation has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

But at the moment I am concerned with irrigation, because the negotiations between the Department of Lands and Dr. Mes broke down, and now Dr. Mes is without water. The Department of Lands addressed a letter to Dr. Mes informing him that he would get 30 morgen under irrigation provided he sells his farms to the Department of Lands. That letter was addressed to him on the 18th January, and in that letter they state that “as regards this department, no portion of the ground of Dr. Mes was placed on the schedule of irrigable ground”, but “if he accepts the Government’s offer, the Department of Irrigation will be asked to place about 30 morgen of ‘Grootklipput’ on the schedule of irrigable areas”. There is therefore a clash here in the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation, and I take it that the Department of Lands as a result of the failure of the negotiations for the purchase of the ground, has disappeared from the scene, and the only two persons who are now in the field are Dr. Mes and the Director of Irrigation. This ground of Dr. Mes is under the irrigation scheme. He formerly had water for irrigation, before the negotiations took place, although the ground was not in the schedule, but now that the Department of Lands cannot buy the ground from him it seems as if the Department of Lands told the Irrigation Department: You cannot include this ground of Dr. Mes in the schedule, because I want to buy it. I am willing to give him only 30 morgen and for that water can be given. That is unjust. That is not the object of the Act. I will perhaps leave tonight, and if I am not here I hope that the Minister will explain the matter. Dr. Mes feels that a pistol is being held at his head because they want to buy the ground from him. He feels that the time has arrived to develop the ground, but now it must be taken away from him. On 5th February, 1945, he wrote a letter to the Department through his attorney, which indicated how far the matter has developed. It is stated in the letter that their client feels “that pressure is being exercised to induce his selling the ground to the Department”, and they mention that if no satisfactory reply is received within 14 days, action will be taken against the Department to compel the Department to schedule the ground and to make water available. There is another difficulty in connection with the matter. Last year, that is in 1944, we adopted an Act which provides that in’ future in irrigation areas only 50 morgen of irrigable land per farm will be allotted.

This provision about 50 morgen is applicable to only one scheme, namely Rietrivier.

But the Act provides in general, Act No. 30 of 1944 ….

If you read the Act you will see that the Minister can do it.

The Act provides that the Minister can determine in what areas each owner will be able to receive 50 morgen under irrigation.

I will make that clear.

But in the Act 50 morgen is stipulated as the area of irrigable land which can be allotted. That is the other difficulty facing Dr. Mes. The whole matter is of great importance as a principle, and when the Minister makes a statement, I hope that he will be as clear as possible on the point. The principle involved there is that it seems that the Department of Lands can dictate to the Irrigation Department: “You cannot include that land in the schedule because we want it for our purposes”, and when the department cannot come to an agreement with the owner of the ground, the Irrigation Department are told not to include the ground in the schedule, and the provision in regard to the right of an owner to have his ground included in the schedule is not taken into consideration. I shall be glad if we can get an explanation about the matter, because as I read the Act, Dr. Mes, who has two deeds of transfer, can claim twice 50 morgen of irrigable land, and his ground must be included in the schedule.

I think I ought to reply to the questions that have been put, and I should like first to reply to the question of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with the case of Dr. Mes. Let me just say that as far as my personal knowledge of the matter goes the case is still sub judice.

No, I can give the Minister the assurance that is not so.

Has the procedure of expropriation not yet begun?

No.

So far as I know they are occupied with that. The hon. member is under a misapprehension in connection with the position there. The provision of 50 morgen each owner is entitled to there has reference to the Rietrivier scheme and nowhere else. It has been so laid down in respect of the Rietrivier scheme, and the servitude which he mentioned—that the land may not be subdivided or sold—has relation to Rietrivier.

The Act does not say that.

Is that done byway of regulation?

As far as Rietrivier is concerned the section has been inserted. Let me clarify the position in connection with Loskop. When I took over in 1939 the Loskop scheme had not yet been completed. A small number of holdings had been allotted; land had been granted I think, at Witpenskloof. When I took over, the general law applied in connection with irrigation under which Vaal-Hartz was established, that where ground is expropriated for settlement the owner whose farm is being expropriated may retain 100 morgen, and it was not even stated where he could take it or that he could not take it in various areas. That created an impossible position. When I had to commence purchasing land at Loskop with the provision that an owner had the right to select 100 morgen the position was an impossible one. The experience I had at Vaal-Hartz indicated to me the impracticability of that provision. A man had perhaps only a small piece of land, hardly 100 morgen, and when his ground was expropriated he remained there with all the irrigable land. What is to become of settlement in the face of such a provision? Apart from that it makes for speculation. At Vaal-Hartz we tried to expropriate but there are still certain pieces in the settlement, and the private owners who have those pieces of land began to sell them and to cut them up into plots of five morgen and sometimes one morgen, and we could not prevent it. In that way businesses were brought in. Someone spoke about Indians. As a result of that law Indians have already penetrated at Vaal-Hartz. Let me take another case. At Vaal-Hartz an owner who had this right to 100 morgen took it around the Border station, with the result that the Government was totally cut off from the station.

He could not close the public roads.

No, but we could not get to the station because it was all his land.

Will you be so good as to confine yourself as to this one case.

I am talking about the difficulties we experienced at Loskop. We were obliged to build another station at Border, 1½ miles from the other station, in order to have access. The position at Vaal-Hartz is that some of the private land is being sold at £200 and more a morgen. The position makes administration very difficult for us. When I was faced with the position of having to expropriate land at Vaal-Hartz I did not want to do so until such time as I had the right to expropriate under the law, and until such time that the provision no longer existed that a man who was expropriated should have the right to retain 100 morgen. I was not prepared to expropriate on that basis. I am speaking under correction, but I believe the 30 morgen the hon. member referred to is in accordance with the provision that the Minister may grant 30 morgen.

It is the amended Act.

The section applies to Loskop.

I thought you said it only applied at Rietrivier.

No, you spoke there about 50 morgen. The 30 morgen to which you referred applies to Loskop and other settlements that will be established in the future, but before I put this section through I had not the right to expropriate and, if I wanted to expropriate, the Act that applied was the Act that had applied at Vaal-Hartz, which gave a man the right to retain 100 morgen. Consequently we did hot expropriate that land nor have we, as far as Loskop is concerned, yet expropriated an inch of land. But we were fortunate there. I went to. Loskop and told the people that we wanted their land, and Dr. Mes was one of them. I said that we required their farms. Dr. Mes also received notice that we needed his land. He refused to sell his farm and we could not compel him to unless we gave him the benefit of the 100 morgen. What we did was this. I went to Loskop and told the landowners there that this section about the 100 morgen existed, namely that we could expropriate them but we would have to allow them 100 morgen. But I said we could not do that. Then the people voluntarily agreed to negotiate with us and the Land Board negotiated, and I am certain that 95 per cent. of the land we had from the people at Loskop is now in our possession. Those were voluntary transactions, but Dr. Mes refused to agree. The water he had and that the hon. member referred to was given to him by us all these years, but he was not scheduled.

I said so.

He paid nothing during all that period.

He was prepared to pay.

I did not want to take his money. I wanted his farm, because as soon as we gave him water he could turn round and say that he demanded we should schedule his land for so many morgen. We could not do so. It was not his water. We gave it to him as a present until such time as we could expropriate the land under the new Act.

The idea was to expropriate the land.

We bought 98 per cent. of the land on a voluntary basis, but we had to expropriate Dr. Mes.

Had you necessarily to have all the land, or could these people retain a portion?

In the Act there is provision that the Minister may grant 30 morgen of irrigable land. That explains the 30 morgen the hon. member spoke about.

Thirty morgen in one portion.

Yes, we could not cut up the land right and left.

Thirty morgen in its entirety.

It had to be as a whole. We could not do it in bits and pieces. We could not cut it up into pieces.

Will you give him water for his 30 morgen?

Yes, of course. He will then get water for his 30 morgen. We gave them 30 morgen more or less on principle, and that is what we offered Dr. Mes. He can have his 30 morgen but he will not agree to it. The result is that we have already begun, so I believe, to take steps to expropriate. He now demands that we should schedule him. All these years we have given him and the other people the water for nothing, and now we need it and we want to have it. I have just got a small note to the effect that the Central Land Board again visited Dr. Mes to ascertain whether they could not come to an agreement to buy the land from him without our having to go to the Water Court. While I am on my feet I shall also reply to the other question brought up by the hon. member, and that is whether an enquiry has been’ made in connection with the Schwarz scheme. I only want to say that I am in perfect agreement with the hon. member that if we can again bring to the south the water that is running in these rivers, the Nossop and the Molopo rivers, which have been larger than the Orange River, if we can take that water back it will strengthen the subterranean waters, especially in those dry north-west regions of the Cape and even in the Western Transvaal; and it will be for the benefit of South Africa if that can be done. I intend to leave on a visit to that part of the country on the 5th June, to the Okavango and round about there, and I am taking the Director of Irrigation and two other engineers with me. Three ëngineers will thus be going together, and we shall go through th whole area and see whether there is any possibility of the waters being brought back. The waters of the Okavango lose themselves in the marshes and you do not know where the waters enter. Mr. Kokot was there last year and he brought out a report. He says the Okavango alone has enough water to irrigate more than 1,000,000 morgen. I am not perfectly certain of the figure, but I believe it is over 1,000,000. Okavango is much larger than the Vaal or the Orange Rivers and its water disappears in the marshes. The idea has always been that if you can lead off those waters you could later fill up the Ngami Lake and then the rainfall here in South Africa would be improved.

Is that the scheme known as the Schwarz scheme?

Yes. The expert advice is that it will not improve the rainfall in South Africa. It will not in the first place improve the rainfall because the prevailing wind blows everything to the north. If it should be the case that this scheme would bring moisture and improve the rainfall the rain would be blown to the north, because the wind blows in a northward direction. But the proof that will not improve the rainfall is this. There are parts in the constituency of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) where the farms border on the sea, and yet we have a great drought there. But I agree that if we can bring down the waters of those rivers it will be a tremendous advantage in the way of increasing our subterranean water supply.

Will you read Schwarz’ book again before you go up?

His widow heard that I intended to go and she sent me one of his books, and I shall read it.

Are you going by air?

I have now dealt with the case of Dr. Mes. The hon. member for Swellendam asked me whether it was not possible to introduce an amendment in the law of 1912 in connection with irrigation boards. I think that if you wantto make alterations in the irrigation law it will first be necessary to introduce a consolidating Act on irrigation, and not only to smooth out all the knotty points, we should effect general alterations based on our experience. It was impossible to do so during the war years. There was such a great shortage of staff that it was quite impossible to think of consolidation. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) asked me what the plan is in connection with irrigation schemes along the Modder River. Various irrigation schemes along the Modder have already been investigated, and it has been stated that these will be good schemes. We have much information in connection with the various schemes along the Modder River, but our difficulty was this. I am referring to the difficulties I encountered in the last six years—that we shall have to take into consideration the needs of large communities. Bloemfontein is a large community; the town is expanding and their needs in the future will be greater. Their water supply at Bloemfontein has now reached the point where they have to make provision for increasing it.

They are going to raise the wall by 10 ft.

Yes, they are going to increase the height of the wall by 10 ft., but the Bloemfontein Municipality came to see me and said: Before you build a scheme on that river in the neighbourhood of Bloemfontein give us time to ascertain what plans we can make to ensure our water supplies and to increase it for the future; and I gave the undertaking, because I think the Government will, in the first instance, give priority to great communities like Bloemfontein or Johannesburg or other large towns. They must have priority over ordinary irrigation. I think Bloemfontein has now come to a decision as to their plans for the near future.

The Water Court has given them the right to heighten the wall by 10 ft

They have been given the right to heighten the wall by 10 ft. at Maselspoort. But that will not be enough. They may have to build another dam at some other spot on the Modder River. I think they have now come to a conclusion in regard to their long term plans. [Interruptions.] We cannot build a dam for surplus water. When we build a dam it is to ensure that there is adequate water to provide the needs of a certain number of farms. We cannot build a dam for surplus water. When we biuld a dam we must have the assurance from the experts that there will be enough water to fill up the dam and keep it full.

There is much water running away in the Modder River.

Yes, I know there is a great deal of water flowing off in the Modder River. The intention is that during the recess the Director of Irrigation shall make enquiries in regard to future schemes on the Modder River. After we know what the long-term plans of Bloemfontein are we shall see whether it is possible to go on with any scheme there. The hon. member also asked what provision we are making for coloured people in regard to irrigation. I want to say this in that connection. A scheme has been surveyed on the Orange River, the other side of the waterfall, on the other side of Kakamas, above Goodhouse. When I took over there was money on the estimates for that scheme to be proceeded with. I withdrew it from the estimates because at that time it was intended for Europeans, and my attitude was that we could not put white people on that island. It is an excellent scheme. We are engaged in making investigations with a view to establishing a scheme which will irrigate 1,500 morgen, and which we shall utilise exclusively for coloured settlers in the future. We are engaged in investigating that question and I hope that we shall be able in the near future to report to the House. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) gave me a plan; he said I should adopt as my slogan “bore vir boere”. This is the first time that we have been so absolutely in accord. I shall accept that. It has always been my motto, and as a farmer who grew up in dry parts and who still farms in those dry parts I know that if we can carry out that motto we shall get absolutely different results.

So far it has only been a motto.

It has only been a motto as far as I am concerned. I came in 1939. We had the war years, and hon. members know that a very large’ number of drills were sent out of the country to be used by the army, and it was impossible for us to carry out that motto in practice.

Can you tell us what you are going to do in the near future?

I am coming to that. I shall explain our scheme in a moment in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock) in connection with drills for certain sections in the country. At the moment we have 68 drills which are being employed and which are still in use. I have explained that the drills we had in 1938 were old fashioned drills. As my hon. friend says you require five or six spans of draft animals to transport the drills. Some of them were also obsolete. A great number of them were sent to the north. A large proportion of our staff joined the army, and we had to lock up the drills. We are now endeavouring to get as many of them in use as possible.

How many drills is the Minister of Mines using?

I cannot say, but the Department of Mines is not using very many. We also have to see to the needs of the Mines Department.

That is for water; I am now referring to drills for mineral purposes.

The Minister of Mines has three.

Let him get his own.

No, we are co-operating. It is under my department. The hon. member has asked that we should send drills to the drought-stricken areas. That policy has been adopted by us in recent years. I have even gone so far as to give instructions to the director to send the drills to the dry areas, to Vryburg and Zoutpansberg, for instance, and not to areas where the rainfall is adequate and where there is at least sufficient water for primary consumption. The hon. member for Swellendam has stated that those people have no water. We are sending the drills away to help them. We are short of drills but we shall do our best. Seeing there is such a big shortage of drills and bearing in mind the big scheme that we shall carry out, I want to put this question to my hon. friends: We give a subsidy of 50 per cent. to private farmers to drill, to a maximum of £20.

It is too little.

My hon. friend says it is too little.

Is it £20 per borehole?

Yes. We give a maximum of £70 to private people in respect of holes that prove dry, where there is no water, apart from the subsidy on the hole.

These are Government boreholes are they not?

Yes, but we also give a subsidy to the private farmers. The £70 is not for the private farmer with a maximum of £20. The hon. member says that £20 is not enough. The subsidies we paid out last year average £12 per borehole. If that is too small we shall go into the matter, but I think the amount is satisfactory. There may be a few cases where it runs to more than £20.

If I get a private drill and I drill a dry hole, do I also get £20?

No, there must be water, and you must put in a pump. We must make more use of the private drills in the country.

Yes, but they cannot drill through ironstone. That is the difficulty.

With the machinery that is now there?

Yes, they make no headway with the ironstone.

It is such a worry that I cannot recommend that we should sell the drills to the farmers.

But the new ones?

It will take a couple of years to fulfil all the requirements of the farmers.

I did not grasp your meaning, what is it you cannot recommend?

I cannot recommend the sale to the farmers of the drills we have at present. In Vryburg we recommended that if there were ten or twelve farmers, or if there were farmers’ associations, in want of a drilling machine, we would lease it to them. It would have to be sent under our supervision, I do not know whether they have made use of that.

We bought one from the Government.

I think you can still get it today. We can sell it to you and you ’can pay so much a year for depreciation and eventually it can become your drill.

How are we going to meet those people who drill but strike no water?

I shall tell you presently how we can meet those people. It is under another scheme, but it will apply in the dry areas. It is in connection with the questions put by the hon. member for Winburg. He asked that we should send drills to those parts. He asked what we were doing to increase the number of our drills. I have already told the House, and I want to repeat again, that we are making drills in our own workshops. In the first place there is a shortage of employees, and in the second place we had difficulty in obtaining the iron and steel that was needed and consequently we could make no progress. We have now begun and ten drills have already been completed. They are now being tested, and so far as the tests are concerned they have given excellent results and we are continuing to make them as quickly as we can.

How quickly is that?

We have made those ten drills in the last two years, but I say we were short of steel and short of workmen and we could not make rapid progress. We hall now be able to make them at a quicker rate. We hope that we shall now proceed in full swing.

Are you going to help the people in the Free State who have no water?

Why do I recommend private drills in the Free State? They can drill at almost every place in the Free State. The drills we are now manufacturing will be used in the first instance in the dry areas. At the moment we have more than 3,000 applications. We cannot respond to all the applications because we have too few drills and too few workmen. I want therefore to tell hon. members that they must try to get private drills. They get a subsidy on them, and I recommend that they should rely on those. Not only are we trying to increase the number of drills we are manufacturing, but we shall import drills if they will make them for us in America and elsewhere according to our specifications. But the difficulty today is that we cannot get them. America will not do the job and we shall have to wait until such time as it is possible to import the drills.

†Now I come to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley), the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson), the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) and the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). They all asked me to give some indication of the possibilities of the Sundays River valley scheme and asked me what I intended doing in regard to Sundays River valley and Lake Arthur which have apparently been silted up. The postion there is very precarious at the moment. As far as the Sundays River valley is concerned, about nine years ago five feet were put on to the wall of the Sundays River valley and today we are exactly where we were nine years ago. It has silted up to that again, and in the Sundays River valley the position is becoming very serious and very precarious indeed. There are no less than 600,000 citrus trees in full bearing, and they are threatened with the shortage of water. In case they were to have a shortage of water, and a short drought the position is that incalculable harm would be done to those trees. Even though you may be able to save the trees, later, they will never recover fully, and we are going to do all we possibly can to help the Sundays River valley people to tide them over the short period until such time as provision will be made to ensure their water supply for a very long period of years. We have made provision to’ raise the Sundays River valley (Lake Mentz) weir as soon as possible. We hope to start doing it this year, but to raise the wall a few feet is not sufficient. We shall have to erect other subsidiary works. We shall have to erect another weir below the present wall. That will be something of a temporary nature, but we hope at any rate that that will see them through until such time as we can come with a bigger scheme which I shall deal with in a moment.

Is it intended to raise the wall five feet?

It is proposed to put it up several feet, but also to erect another weir below the dam. Lake Arthur, is in exactly the same position. I was asked what I was going to do about Lake Arthur. There we have the same precarious position. We are going to raise Lake Arthur three feet, and the position there is so precarious that I hope we shall be able to make a start there within three months. That will be temporary only. You can do no more than do a little patchwork. The hon. member asked me to give some indication of the possibility of the Bethulie-Fish River scheme. Last year I gave the House a very comprehensive indication in regard to the Bethulie-Fish River scheme, i.e. to take water out of the Orange River at Bethulie and to throw it into the Brak River, then take it down the Fish River and then into the Sundays River valley. Let me begin by saying that originally when these dams were built they were scheduled to irrigate 21,000 morgen in the Fish River valley. At the present moment there is only water available for 13,000 morgen, and it is very precarious at that. Most of the time the people are just living from hand to mouth and one… might say below the bread line. There is not enough water to irrigate properly. The Sundays River valley was originally calculated to irrigate 17,000 morgen. At the present time they have enough water for 6,000 morgen only. The dam has been silted. I have given hon. members an idea of what happened to the Mentz Dam. We are now doing a little patch work. If we do not do that, within a very few years, the people will be back in the same position where they were before the dam was built.’ They will just peter out, and the same applies to the Fish River valley. Lake Arthur and those dams are silting at a tremendous rate, and unless we make provision to tide the people over a number of years, they will peter out and you will have that huge valley with millions of pounds invested there and with a large population supplying an immense amount of foodstuffs, practically lying useless. 38,000 morgen were originally scheduled in those two valleys, and as the present moment they have 19,000 morgen and the position there is very precarious indeed, 50 per cent. has gone. Hon. members have asked whether this Bethulie-Fish River scheme is a feasible proposition, and they asked what I intended doing about it. I am glad to say that I have got my department to make surveys and investigations in regard to this scheme. It has to be of a very cursory nature. It is physically possible to take a canal out of the weir at Bethulie through a tunnel which will be 45 miles in length. I would ask hon. members not to whistle so soon. Let me give them the results. It is then proposed to put water into the Brank River. That scheme, from the cursory survey that had been made, will cost round about £8,000,000. It is the biggest scheme that has ever been attempted in this country. If we were to build the Sundays River Dam higher now and then build another dam later on and if we were to raise Lake Arthur and the Fish River Dam and then have to raise them again a few feet when they are silted, it would cost us £5,750,000 to do that patchwork on these three dams; that is, to raise, as we have already done, and to raise it again and to build another dam in the Fish River, which in so many years will also be silted, will cost a huge sum. That will cost £5¾ million, and when we come to the end of that we will have to face a period when we cannot raise it any more and no other dams can be built, and the whole of that money will be wasted. What do we propose to do? We propose to spend £8,000,000 and even if necessary £10,000,000 in taking the water from Bethulie, instead of doing the patchwork first and then doing it all over, which will cost £13,000,000.

Is there enough water in the Orange River?

There is enough water in the Orange River to irrigate 1,000,000 morgen.

That is what they said about the Fish River.

Is that without any dam?

There is always water, not counting flood water, which you can use throughout the year. My engineers do not take into consideration any flood water. They measured the water and say that there is enough water for the permanent irrigation of 1,000,000 morgen.

Is that after you have completed the Caledon River scheme?

Yes. Let me give you these figures. Instead of spending £5¾ million on patchwork we could spend £8,000,000 to have enough water to irrigate 80,000 morgen. That is to say, these areas which were originally scheduled at Fish River, 21,000 morgen, and at Sundays River, 17,000 morgen, can be rescheduled and we can bring in the old schedule of 38,000 morgen and have another 40,000 in addition.

It is not yet time for an election speech.

This is not politics. Is your mind to small to grasp it? It is a serious matter in which the whole country is interested.

Do we need a dam in the Orange River?

No, only a weir. You cannot build a dam there. It silts up. We will build a trap for the silt and take away only clean water.

Will the dams below not catch silt?

Let them catch it. We are only using flowing water. My hon. friend the member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has asked me whether when the water comes to Thebus, where it emerges from the tunnel, we will buy up land for settlement purposes. We shall give water to the farmers, as many as we can reach along that valley, until where it gets to the Fish River.

Will the ….

I do not hear that hon. member. I say our new policy is to give water to the farmers and so help to increase the national income of this country to an extent never dreamt of before. It will eliminate speculation. There can be no speculation because we will give it to the farmers on condition, that they use it on their farms and that they will not cut up their soil. Now, the Government is in no way committed to this Fish River scheme, but my department is busy at present and they have instructions to make a thorough and comprehensive survey of that canal and the tunnel and to give us absolute costs and full particulars of the scheme. They tell me it will take them anything up to two years to bring out all these details. At present we are short staffed and cannot send a big survey party out there, but they are busy there now and will continue until they can put before the Government a complete survey of costs.

It sounds to me like the Aspoort scheme.

I sent the commission to Aspoort and they reported against it and the scheme is now being discarded.

What will the raising of the walls of the Mentz Dam and Lake Arthur cost?

I do not know. The amounts are on the Estimates. I do not think I need spend more time on that.

The Aspoort scheme was promised for years and years.

It has been discarded now.

Bed-time stories.

Yes and it is time you went to bed. That is where you belong, or else on the muck-heap. I now come to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure).

†*Then I come to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). He mentioned the Berg River. Other hon. members such as the hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned other rivers where in the last few years the banks have been hollowed out on a large scale and valuable land has been washed away. I do not need to mention all those rivers—there is for instance the Breede Fiver and its tributaries—but I can assure the House that this is something that is enjoying the attention of the Irrigation Department. There is also the Gamtoos River.

And the Gouritz.

Yes, there are a lot of them. I do not need to mention them all now. But it is the policy of the department to investigate these matters and to see what steps we can take to prevent the washing away of land in the future. Then the hon. member for Paarl asked whether we had succeeded in obtaining machinery and other things we shall need for irrigation projects that we may adopt shortly. We have already obtained machinery from Defence, and we shall see that nothing we require passes into the hands of others. Provision has been made for that. During the last few years we have tried to secure priority in respect of machinery and implements but we have not yet succeeded in that. We hope we shall succeed in obtaining the requisite machinery. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) spoke about drills, and I think I have already replied adequately to that. The 16 persons referred to are drill inspectors and not men who actually work the drilling machines. He asked us whether we are extending the policy about the £20. I have also disposed of that. He further asked whether we are giving preference to people in the dry areas. We have already taken away drills from areas where private drills can be worked, or where the rainfall is sufficient, despite the fact that people in those areas are dissatisfied because we are according preference to the dry areas. Then we are also going to abandon the policy of dealing with the applications in rotation according to how they are received, because it means that drills have to be transported here and there over great distances, and that is involving the State in expenditure of thousands and tens of thousands of pounds. We are not inviting any more applications. We can begin drilling and continue from the one quarter. We are going to make drills as quickly as we can and we are going to import them as quickly as we can, but it will take a little time before we are able to satisfy all our needs. Then I come to the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. De Kock) who asked what scheme we are instituting for the special circumstances existing in the dry areas of the Union. I have previously stated that those areas have not had the privilege of big irrigation dams on which millions of pounds have been written off. All the benefit we can give those people is to provide them with drills at a cheaper rate.

Especially along the Molopo.

That is also a scheme which has been ridiculed. It was said when I announced it that it was only meant for the election period. I now announce that that scheme may immediately be brought into effect. I shall mention the external line of this area that falls specially within the Cape Province. It is Marico, Mafeking, Beaufort West, Hay, Prieska, Carnarvon, Williston, Calvinia, Van Rhynsdorp and the whole of Namaqualand to the Molopo. And then in the Transvaal behind the Zdutpansberg. The whole of that area will be proclaimed. An expert staff of geologists will indicate the sites st which we shall drill and we shall not drill at any other places. We shall endeavour to sink boreholes on a basis of two boreholes to a farm of 4,000 morgen. I, as a practical farmer, know that with one source of water a farmer cannot farm more than 2,000 morgen. Even if he has 10,000 morgen it is of no benefit to him. We shall not immediately put down the two boreholes on such a farm, but first the one, and then we shall hope to return later to make a second. The basis of payment in such an area will be that no payment will be required in respect of dry holes—“no water, no pay.”

How deep will they drill?.

To the depth that is necessary.

The Government boreholes go no deeper than 400 feet.

That is deep enough. If it is deeper then it is not economical. They may go deeper but we are not going tö make these tremendously deep holes. I should like to explain the scheme further. The basis of the payment is that no payment will be required in respect of a dry hole. Further, we shall send the drills along with their own transport so that the farmers will have nothing to do with that. All the farmer will have to attend to is the provision of water where it is required to drill. When the drilling has been completed if the farmer has not the money to pay he will be allowed ten years in which to make payment, the first instalment being due after twelve months. In the second place, money will be advanced to him for the windmill, the engine or other equipment that is necessary. That money will be advanced to him in connection wth the borehole. Then he will get money for a concrete dam and a cement trough. We will not allow him to pump into a soil dam because we know that the windmill will run night and day in that case thus wasting the underground water, while the farmer’s livestock would be infected by the water in such a dam. He will also get a loan in respect of this, and on that loan and on the cost of the borehole he will have to pay 4 per cent. That will have to be paid off in a period of ten years. The condition is that the water may not be used for irrigation. I am speaking of personal experience in Namaqualand, Kuruman, Vryburg and other parts. There you have some of the best grazing country in the Union. The carrying capacity is not high, but if there is adequate water the farmer can produce two dr three times as much.

It is almost as good as Dongola.

Do not play the fool. I am presenting an important scheme, one of the most important schemes in the countrý, and then members bring up this tomfoolery. It is one of the most important things we can adopt, and then they try to make fun of it. I said that payment will not be required in respect of dry holes, and a hole of less than 60 gallons of water an hour is regarded as a dry hole. The maximum payment will be 20s. per ft. and the basic scale will be a sliding scale on both sides which will work as follows: The deeper the hole the less the payment, and the more the water the higher becomes the payment. A hole that yields 100 gallons of water at a depth of 50 ft. will cost 11s. per ft. If the same hole goes to the depth of 150 ft. it will be 9s. 4d. I think I have now satisfactorily explained this scheme. The idea is to carry it out as quickly as possible. We shall adhere to the proposed scale for at least twelve months, until it has been tried out, and then we shall enquire whether it is possible to reduce it. Then I come to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). Let me say at once that I appreciate his attitude. It is the attitude of a gentleman. He is convinced that he accused me wrongly and he is man enough to say that and withdraw. I greatly appreciate that. In connection with the Langkloof rivers I want to say that that whole area will be included in the investigation that will be instituted by the Irrigation Commission. They will report, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that my department will undertake the task as soon as possible. We shall not allow the rich earth to be washed away and we shall see what we can do to prevent that.

†I have answered the question of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Mr. V. G. F. Solomon) about Lake Arthur. He wanted to know when we will start raising the dam wall there. I think I told him it will be within three months.

†*The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) put a question to me in connection with heightening the dam wall at Lake Arthur. I have already replied to that. I have also replied to the questions put by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). He said that previously I voted against something of the sort.

I said that the scheme you are now announcing was proposed by this side two years ago, and you voted against it.

I do not know anything about that. It is my scheme and no one else’s.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) asked whether it is not possible to remove silt from these dams that have silted up and whether we have consulted foreign experts to give us an estimate of whether it is possible and what it will cost. No, we have not. We have experts in this country on that subject who are as good as anyone else in the world. I want to tell the hon. member that to remove silt from these dams is practically impossible. The cost is far above the cost of building a dam. Once a big dam has silted up it has to be abandoned. He asked whether preventive measures can be taken. Yes, that can be done, and that is what we are doing above Lake Arthur today and at Vlekpoort, but unfortunately we only woke up to that fact after the dam was silted up.

†*The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) wanted to know whether there was co-ordination between the Department of Lands and the Department of Irrigation. I want to give him the assurance that there is the best spirit of co-operation and the best co-ordination between these two departments. I do not know what the position was in the past, but the co-operation is now as good as it can be. He stated that in the past speculation occurred at sites where dams were to be built. I know that happened, but it cannot happen under the system we now have. People saw drilling going on for foundations and then speculation occurred. At the moment that could only happen in reference to land on which we have to get servitudes, where the water is, because we provide the water to the farmers. Within a short while we shall be proceeding with schemes, and before I say where these are we shall buy the necessary land. If the land is too expensive we shall not proceed with the scheme. I think I have now answered all the questions.

Notwithstanding the Minister being so sensitive about Dongola I want to say that his statement regarding the drilling scheme is important, not only for the country as a whole but especially for those areas where it will be applied. We want to accord the idea and the policy our entire support. It is a policy we on this side announced many years ago. Now I should just like to have information from the Minister about the policy as he wishes to carry it out. He mentioned areas where he wishes to make a start, amongst others Marico and the area behind the Zoutpansberg. How far will that area behind the Zoutpansberg extend to the east and to the west?

The whole area of the Transvaal behind the Zoutpansberg range.

Will it only extend to the Molopo or right through to the Crocodile River? As far as the Transvaal is concerned the Soutpansberg only extends a certain distance and then breaks off.

All the country behind the Zoutpansberg. I shall show you the map. The whole area to the north of the mountain range.

But it breaks off, and then you get the Blouberge.

To the Limpopo.

Then it will include a part of Potgieteisrust, the northern part.

Yes, if it falls in that it will be included.

I hope so, but I should like to know from the Minister whether he intends to apply the scheme later to other dry areas in the Transvaal. Now he has included Marico in the South-West, and part of Zoutpansberg and a part of Potgietersrust in the North. In between lies the district of Rustenburg and Waterberg, and a part of Pietersburg, where the position is virtually the same. That portion is situated between the two other parts where the Minister is going to apply the scheme. I should like to know whether he eventually will also apply it to the part sandwiched between, because there appears to be no reason why it should be applied to the one part, the area in the South-West and the area in the North, while the intervening area is excluded. The rainfall is much the same there and the need for water is just as great. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister can give a little more information on that. As far as drills are concerned, the scheme will be a concession to people’ who utilise Government drills. Under the existing regulations where Government drills are used if the first hole is a dry hole payment is not made.

To an amount of £70 if a Government drill is used.

That undoubtedly helps. But now we come to people who want to utilise private drills. A man does this not from free choice but because he has no alternative. The Minister has now told us there is a great shortage of Government drills and that there are about 3,000 applications on the waiting list. It will probably be a couple of years before that list has been dealt with. The people who are not on the waiting list have to resort to private drills. Now you have the farms that are adjacent between A. and B. A. is on the waiting list and may perhaps get the Government drill and get it on favourable conditions. B is at the end of the list, or he has not yet made application. He can get no assistance for the next few years; but he needs water. So he has to utilise a private drill. Why should such a difference be made between A and B as far as State assistance is concerned, because if B utilises a private drill he has not in the first place the advantage of being exempted to the extent of £70 in respect of a dry hole, and as far as the subsidy is concerned it can only reach a maximum of £20. A difference is made here between one farmer and the other, between the one who can get a Government drill and the other who is obliged, in present circumstances to make use of a private drill. A distinction is drawn in the degree of State assistance which is not justified, because if the State, and rightly, adopts the attitude that the providing of water by means of boreholes has really become a national matter, in the same way as the construction of irrigation schemes, the Minister cannot justify assisting one farmer under such favourable conditions and not assisting the other farmer at all purely and simply because he is unable to make use of Government drills owing to the shortage. I want to ask the hon. Minister to take into consideration whether he cannot draw up regulations that help is accorded them of the same nature. Apart from the subsidy the Minister has stated he admits that the farmers, under the circumstances, will not only be obliged to utilise private drills but that the State drills will encourage them to use private drills because the Government has not enough to go round. Now the Minister stated further that the Government is itself making drilling machines, and now I should like to draw attention further to a point I have already brought to the notice of the Minister’s Department in correspondence, namely that a number of private drilling machines have been put out of commission because they could not get the necessary parts. Some have been worn out and they are unable to get the parts needed to repair the machines. As the Minister is now manufacturing drilling machines I want to ask whether the Department will not assist in this connection and make parts, so that these drilling machines will no longer stand idle. If the parts can be provided to the private drill owners not only will the owners of the machines be assisted but the farmers who are dependent on these private drills will be helped as well. I hope the Minister will be in a position to come to their assistance in this connection. It will help appreciably to relieve the position. I should like to speak further on this subject, and accordingly I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 22nd May.

I wish to move the amendment as printed on page 764 of the Votes and Proceedings—

1. (b) by the omission, in Paragraph (g) of Sub-Section (1), of all the words after “are copyright” to the end of that Paragraph and the substitution therefor of the words, “in any country with the government of which the government of the Union has concluded a reciprocal agreement for the protection of copyright”.

I want to add a few remarks in explanation of the amendment. On a previous occasion I pointed out that the Bill as it now reads makes provision in regard to Section 21 (1) (g) of the Act for the prohibition into certain areas of the importation of printed matter on which the copyright has been reserved. Section 21 deals with the prohibition of importation into the Union of printed matter the copyright of which has been reserved and as the Clause now reads that prohibition only applies to printed matter originating from any part of the King’s dominiums or from any territory which is under the King’s protection or in respect of mandated territories under the King. As the provision in the Act now reads, apparently there is no reciprocal protection for South African authors and composers. Apparently there is no prohibition on the reproducing of such works within the areas mentioned in the sub-section. As everybody will admit it is a serious defect, if that is the case, and apparently this defect does exist as the Act now reads. Secondly, the status of the Union is being prejudiced by the Act as it now reads, because the Union undertakes to prohibit the reproduction of certain works whereas no reciprocal right is being given to the Union as such, and it is now the opportunemoment to remove this defect in the Act. The amendment to the Act as proposed by the Minister and appearing in Sub-Section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill means the acceptance of the sound proposals put forward last year. It incorporates all that is desired on the part of the State as well as on the part of authors and composers in the Union. It gives the State power to enter into agreements with other countries, and if a country enters into such an agreement with another country, then they are protected. As this is in principle a very sound proposal I suggest that the amendment of the Minister in fact replaces the sub-section in the Act and we then create a position which satisfies the status of the country and also the rights of authors and composers who are thus being protected. It seems to me that in principle there can be no objection and because it only affects the status of the Union and the rights of authors and composers, I want to move my amendment.

I second the amendment.

I have given consideration to the amendment and I have to discuss it with the law advisers. The position is slightly more complicated than the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) represented it here. There does exist a reciprocal arrangement with the various parts of the British Commonwealth as far as the protection of copyright is concerned. It is not based on an agreement but on legislation. In our case we passed in 1916 the Patents and Copyright Act—an Act which does not come under my department—in which the provisions of the British Act on Copyright were taken over and as a result our copyright is acknowledged in Great Britain and in the British Colonies on the basis of legislation. In consequence of legislation it is also acknowledged by other British Dominiums which, just as we did, took over the British Act on Copyright. Those who did not take it over acknowledged it by way of legislation of their own. At the moment therefore there is a reciprocal arrangement which is not based on an agreement but on legislation. In the second place I want to point out that if this amendment were agreed to it would mean that that existing reciprocal protection would fall away until such time as reciprocal agreements would be entered into, which might take some time. In the third place the acceptance of this amendment would have the effect that the Act of 1916, which deals with this question would in this regard be made ineffective. I want to point out that the Customs Act is, as far as this matter is concerned, only of a subsidiary nature. It only lays down the procedure which has to be followed in order to give effect to the existing legislation and I do not think it is right to change that position by means of the Customs Act. This is something which should be raised in connection with the Act on Copyright and Patents which falls under the Minister of Justice and I believe it would be wrong to put such an amendment in this Bill. For those reasons and because reciprocal protection does in fact exist I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—30.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—53.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Davis A.

De Kock P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp. L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Van deh Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 1 (Afrikaans) and 17 (Afrikaans) put and agreed to, and the Bill as amended, adopted.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I find it necessary to make certain comments on this Bill, and to make certain suggestions which I hope the Minister will take into consideration during the recess. I was glad to see that the Minister has introduced certain safeguards for the protection of secondary industry in this Bill, and that is by allowing the importation of war stores, or what will be defined, as war stores by the Minister, under a permit only by the Board of Trade; and then, again that the Minister has removed the limitations under sub-paragraph (2) of Section 82 of the principal Act which only allowed him to impose dumping duties to the extent of half the value of the goods. Those are all to the good, but I think the Minister has not gone quite far enough in the amendments in the principal Act he has made in this Bill, and I should like to refer the House to Clause 82 of the principal Act, which contains a proviso that the Minister is not entitled to impose dumping duties on goods which have already been shipped or otherwise despatched to the Union. On no goods therefore which are actually in transit to the Union can the Minister impose dumping duties. If it were possible for me to have done so I would have moved an amendment accordingly to enable the Minister ‘to do so, that, however, is not possible as it affects taxation, but I hope the Minister will take the matter into consideration during the recess. I cannot conceive why that particular sub-section was retained when the Bill was amended in 1944. I understand it was retained on the recommendation of some committee which was appointed to investigate the position, but I would ask the Minister whether he could tell the House the grounds on which that provision was retained, because it is difficult for one to see what the reason was for the retention of that subsection in the principal Act. It is somewhat refreshing to find that the Minister will retain a provision in an Act which limits his powers. Under the new despotism a Minister usually takes the widest possible power. But this is an instance where I think the Minister should have it. May I explain to the House that under the present Act before dumping duties can be imposed the Minister has to publish a notice in the Government Gazette, and I believe in the ordinary course the Minister will not publish that notice until he has consulted the Board of Trade. I pointed out on a previous occasion that that machinery is most cumbersome and that in the interim after the publication of the notice large quantities of goods already in transit may come into South Africa on which no dumping duties can be imposed, and the dumping of which may very seriously jeopardize certain industries in this country, particularly new industries. It has happened in the past where dumping duties had to be imposed that large quantities of goods were actually in the country or in transit and certain industries were seriously affected. It is therefore a matter of surprise that that provision was retained in the Act. We must remember that the machinery is still much to cumbersome. In the old Act repealed last year the machinery for the imposition of dumping duties was in the ox-wagon stage, but I think we have only reached the Cape cart stage in the existing Act. We must remember that in the new world transport will be much faster. Goods will be sent to the Union by air as well as by much faster shipping lines and in the interim therefore before the publication of the necessary notice in the Gazette imposing dumping duties, vast quantities of goods may be transported to the Union from highly industrialised countries. We must also remember that it is generally those countries which control shipping too. We are therefore very much in the hands of large industrial countries which control shipping and we may find goods in transit from countries where sweated labour is employed, coming to the Union, and our industries jeopardised thereby. The Government has assured us that its policy is to do everything possible to protect secondary industry, and therefore this House will agree with me that we may look to the Government to remove every possibility of any disrupted influence which may upset our industries here. I make a strong appeal to the Minister during the recess to consider the matter which I have now put before the House. I have tried to find out why that particular sub-clause was retained, and I understand that it was for the protection of the importer, people who entered into contracts before they were aware that dumping duties would be imposed. Now, I say this, that the test here is whether it is in the national interest to protect secondary industry in this country, or to protect the importer who deliberately enters into contracts well realising when he enters into those contracts he is doing so with the intention of selling cheaper than the locally manufactured article can be sold for, the price of which is known to him. If he therefore chooses to enter into contracts to buy end-of-season and other goods cheaply in other countries or in countries where sweated labour is employed I say there can be no possible injustice to him if he finds that when these goods arrive here there is a dumping duty imposed. He requires neither sympathy nor protection, and I submit that the bona fide importer is already amply protected, because the Minister will not impose any dumping duties until he has consulted the Board of Trade and if the Minister is satisfied that there may be an injustice to anyone he will give that person such protection as is warranted in the circumstances. There may however be unfair discrimination between goods ordered under contract before the imposition of dumping duties in as much as the goods in transit will not be subject to dumping duties whilst those not in transit will be subject to such duties. I submit therefore that there can be no risk of any kind of injustice and I do not see why the proviso I have referred to should not be removed from the principal Act. It is accepted that industry will be expected in this brave new world of ours to make a very much lrager contribution tó the national income, and it is therefore up to the Government to see that there is no possibility of industry being disrupted in this country by dumping, which must dislocate production programmes of manufacturers thereby causing unemployment. It is imperative for the Government to do everything possible to safeguard industry from disruptive influences. I hope the Minister will take what I have said into careful consideration during the recess.

We do not want to keep up this Bill. I should like to see it disposed of at this stage of the Session. I just want to add to what I have said before that in general we welcome the amendments which are now being moved in the Bill because they mean improvements and a better safeguard for the improvement of the Act and to a certain extent also a better protection for our own industry. I deplore the fact that an amendment which I proposed was not accepted. I take it that in future we all will seriously consider these mattters. We have in view the equality of all nationalities in the Union, but the matter has now been disposed of and I do not want to go into it any further. But the matter raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen), the matter which he recommends to the attention of the Minister, demands consideration. In any case I must admit that to a certain extent I am co-responsible for the decision which now forms part of the Act and although we on this side sympathise with the recommendation of the hon. member, to obtain as far as possible protection for our own industries, there is also on the other hand the aspect of fair treatment. On the one hand, it is the Government’s duty to protect as far as possible our own industrialists, but owing to the shrinking of distances, the knowledge which is mutually obtained as far as trade is concerned, and the opportunities which are being created for the financing of imports, it is very difficult to imagine that any large-scale importation can… take place before the dumping duties have been proclaimed. As a matter of fact, as the hon. member already indicated, this exception, namely that no dumping duties are to be levied on goods which have already been shipped from the countries of origin, will only apply to three out of the six or seven dumping duties which can be levied. In view of the information which may be obtained in regard to transport and the channels through which the imports have to be financed, the Government or the department concerned will always be able to know in time when undesirable importations will take place. It is possible to know about it fairly well in advance and for that reason the Department can make timely recommendations and take steps. I therefore feel that the danger is not very great. On the contrary it seemed to us and it still seems to me that it will be most unfair towards importers who have imported in good faith to tax them now by making the duties of retrospective effect. I think the evil which will come out of that will be greater than the advantages which may be obtained from it. I felt that I should make clear my point of view as far as this matter is concerned, but for the rest we do not want to oppose the Bill at all.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has in effect replied to the point which was raised by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen). The point raised was the question of the present terms of the law, as a result of which certain types of dumping duty cannot be made applicable to goods which have been despatched to the Union prior to the date on which the proclamation is issued. This point has been considered very carefully for a very long time by the Government, as the hon. member pointed out. We must be fair to both sides and avoid doing an unfair act in relation to the importer who, without any knowledge of the dumping duty, has entered into a contract, and so doing an injustice to that importer and possibly also to the consumer. The matter has been fully considered. It was referred last year to a special committee appointed by the Minister of Economic Development and myself to go into the question of the adequacy of the anti-dumping legislation. The whole point at issue was to see whether the legislation was adequate or not and the committee specifically recommended that the present law must not be changed in this respect. I therefore fear that I cannot agree that a change should be made such as the hon. member advocates.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I have an amendment which appears on the Order Paper at page 670. I move—

If we refer to the principal Act which we are amending by this Bill, we shall be struck by the fact that this Bill sets out to deal with men who relinquished their appointments in the public service to go on active service and I think, viewed in that light, we should be careful not to impose any sort of penalty of victimisation on these men in consequence of offences which they may have committed under the Military Discipline Code, or absence on unpaid leave. I think those are among the matters in respect of which a deduction is proposed to be made from their pensionable service when they come back to the public service. I think that these proposals savour of carrying into a man’s public service life the penalties that he thought were behind him when he had finished with active service. It cannot be denied that the Military Discipline Code is a very severe code. It is necessarily severe and no one will in wartime complain of its severity, but if the man has expiated his offence under that code we surely do not want to carry into his civil life not only the recollection of this offence, but its perpetuation in a reduction of his pensionable service which up to now was due to be increased by the length of his active service. I feel that this is in the nature of visiting upon a man who is a returned soldier, with all the rights which we seek to confer upon him by the Act of 1944, these unexpected and unforeseen disabilities. The title to the 1944 Act made special provision for the re-appointment to the service of the Government of persons who resigned from or otherwise relinquished their service with the Government for the purpose of rendering military or other war service during the present war, for the appointment to the said service of such persons who have so rendered war service or military service, and in addition for the re-appointment of such persons. I hope that if the Minister has been led to embody this provision in the Act he will, on re-consideration, decide not to enshrine in this Act the punishments that in ordinary circumstances are regarded as things of the past. In the army these punishments are only brought up against a man when he is being charged with an offence and is convicted, and where previous convictions have to be proved. The wide range of the amending Bill, the scope which is embraced by the wording of this Bill, would make it a very severe punishment to be applied to every returned soldier who left his employment in the public service in the circumstances mentioned in the Act, namely: that the call to fight for his country was more compelling than his security in employment, and who, from that point of view, should surely be regarded as a man whose patriotism is of the very first order. He decided, although he could not be allowed togo in the ordinary way that the civil service authorities decided upon, to relinquish his service rather than be regarded as one who was unwilling to fight for his country in time of war. I feel we should be very lenient in regard to men whose actions were prompted by a spirit of that rare quality, and I have, considered this matter very carefully. I have taken counsel from other people interested in the matter, and I find that almost unanimously the view is held that to carry these punishments, to carry the period of a man’s unpaid leave into his public service record, and to deduct those periods from his pensionable service, would be an act of great unfairness. I appeal to the Minister to agree to the amendment.

I may say that we are all anxious to deal fairly and generously with the men who were on active service, but I do not see anything unreasonable in the proposal as set forth in this clause of the Bill. Let me in the first place make it clear that we are not dealing here with people who went on military service as public servants. We are dealing here, as in the principal Act, with people who are appointed for the first time in the public service or with those who resigned and who may be re-appointed, so that in effect we are dealing with the position of a man who takes up a new appointment. Now, the law as it stands deals with the recognition of military service in such cases for purposes of pension and increment and status. The law as it stands provides that military service should be recognised for this purpose. The law as it stands lays it down that the Public Service Commission should indicate in such cases on what terms and conditions the appointment should take place, and what this Bill contains is simply the procedure which the commission has in fact been following. Now, I do not think that anyone would for one moment suggest a lack of generosity on the part of the commission towards the ex-soldier. The commission has in fact been following this procedure, and we are not taking away anything which has hitherto been enjoyed. But there has been some question raised about the legal position,’ and to put that question beyond doubt this proposal is made in the law today. Let me give some instances of the kind of case which arises. There have been instances of people who have been out of military service for a long time. I am only giving cases of people who have already been appointed to the service after the completion of military service. I have a case of one man who had 907 days of military service, but only 581 of those 907 days were passed on military service. The others were days on which he had unpaid leave or days which would fall within the scope of the rest of this motion. I have another case where the military service was 404 days, of which only 100 were actually spent on military service. I have another case where 46 out of 106 days were spent on military service. I think the House will agree that it cannot be expected that periods of that kind should in the case of fresh appointments be regarded as counting for the purpose of pension or of status or for determination of remuneration.

Are not those exceptions?

No, there are quite a number of them. The hon. member must not forget that the Defence Department was very generous in giving unpaid leave for specific purposes, for example agricultural leave and leave for domestic purposes. There are many cases of that kind. These are not exceptions. Actually the number of people concerned falling within the scope of this law is not very great. We are only dealing here with fresh appointments; we are not dealing with the men who went on military service as public servants. I do think we would be going much too far if we accept this amendment the hon. member asked for, and I hope he will not press it.

I feel that this matter is one where the Government should be generous. The mere fact that the man is released for a time for agricultural work is just as much work for the promotion of the war as actual service in the front line. The man in the front line must be fed, and these men are also doing military service. And these periods should count for pension purposes. At one time I made a study of the Military Discipline Code and from my perusal of that Code it seemed to me that it was a code which aimed at punshing a man upon the slightest provocation, and what in civil life would be called a venal offence, under the military code would be described as a heinous offence. As the hon. member föl’ Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has stated, in cases where privileges and pensions are involved, the penalty has been paid, and I thnk that this House would be wise and generous to put all that behind the man when his military service is taken into his private life. In the case of those men who were released temporarily for agricultural or domestic reasons, I still feel that they are still enlisted soldiers. They are liable to be called up at any moment and they are so called back. I do feel that men who resigned from the public service to take up military service, with all its risks and danger, should be given the greatest consideration by the Government. I feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown is a wise one and that this House and the Government should adopt it.

I am surprised to hear the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) following up this amendment of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I feel confident that the hon. member for Pinetown was quite prepared to accept the withdrawal of that amendment after the explanation of the Minister, particularly seeing that it applies to new appointments, men and women, who are coming to join the service. The Minister has explained that it does not apply to those who joined up but who are still in the public service now. Particularly when the Minister gave the astounding figures of a man who had 907 days on military service of which 581 days were spent on leave, one can understand why the clause is drawn as it is. The ’Minister happened to mention some of these men were on agricultural leave and the hon. member for South Coast implied most of them are; it is ridiculous to say that. An examination of the crime sheet might show that the Minister had been very generous; it might be found that a man was absent without leave for that period. Are you going to treat that man in the same way as a soldier who has done his job properly and earned that extra promotion? I put this to the hon. member that if a man was allowed three months’ leave without pay to return to his farm he might have made £1,000 in that period and the profit would go into his own pocket. Are you going to penalise a man who was prepared to serve at a few shillings a day and continue serving while the other man was on agricultural leave? I do not think the hon. members over there are sincere when they plead on behalf of these men in order to penalise the man who had done a really good job of work.

My reply to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) when he speaks of a man who was absent without leave is that a man is adequately punished by the military authorities for his offence. Are you going to pursue him with this all his life? This is a case when the Government might be generous and when a man’s military service should be credited for pension purposes.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) has suggested that after the Minister’s explanation I might be prepared to withdraw my amendment. Far from that being the case the Minister’s explanation makes it all the more necessary that my amendment should be pressed. A point of great importance is that these people resigned from the service to serve their country, but let me refer to another type of person who was taken away from his duties in the service and interned. Was he interned for wishing to serve his country? Not by any means. Whatever offences he may have committed in the internment camp have not been resurrected to be debited against him under this Act or any other. There is no provision whatever for such penalties committed by an internee to be made continuing penalties and to reduce the period of his pensionable service. The hon. member spoke as if the active service men were to have money put into their hands, as though they were to be paid in respect of the shortage of their service at the front. But most of these cases are of men who were temporarily absent from their duties at the front with the concurrence or by order of the people set over them in the army. The cases are few. I am speaking of servicemen who resigned from ths service, who did all the things mentioned in the title to the 1944 Act in order to go to the front, I say those are not the men who disappeared and who are heaven knows where when they should be at their duty in the front line. I have had to deal with a considerable number of men in my widespread constituency who wished to get leave because of the situation on their own farm, and I must say the Adjutant-General has always been commendably considerate… in his attitude in these cases. These men owe a great deal to the attitude of the Adjutant-General. Are we to believe that these people who were absent under these conditions, or who were absent under any of the other conditions in the passage I seek to delete are now to have carried to their debit in respect of pensionable service every day on which they were absent. I wish to correct the impression that any money is being paid. It is that pensionable service which to the end of their days is to be taken into account.

It also affects their salaries.

And so their salaries should be increased by the period of their service at the front. The Minister has said because they resigned we must regard these as new appointments, that we must so regard these men who had not reported for duty when the war broke out and who were mobilised into their regiments. I have assured some of these entrants of the conditions under which they will start in the service. They have shown me their letters of appointment, and I made enquiries of the Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission gave them a clean bill of health at this stage, before any Act was put on the Statute Book, that men of that kind would come back and start level; that whatever service they rendered at the front would be accumulated in their favour and recorded as service in the public service. Now we find that promise is being whittled away. It is important that the public outside take a comparative view of these things. They say: Yes, what about the other men, the men who did no public service and whose whole effort was to sabotage military service who lived for that very purpose, and who probably suffered sentences of solitary confinement, or whatever other form of punishment the authorities in the internment camps may have imposed? Those penalties are not resurrected and debited to the internees’ pensionable service. I noticed during question time today the case of a man, a prominent public servant at Onderstepoort, who was put into the internment camp not once but twice. He was let out and had to be put back for a very good reason. But he suffers no penalty as a public servant. These young men who resigned their jobs and said: I am off to the front, I shall be misunderstood if I at my age do not answer the call to fight for my country. These men were young and patriotic. We accepted their resignations, and now we meet them with a Bill which is full of penalties and which is going to say: We cannot do anything else than take away a portion of your pensionable service. I consider this is completely wrong. I cannot think of anything more gratuitous than the portion of the Bill I have sought to delete.

I should like to appeal to the Minister on the ground that we should avoid even the appearance of evil. These men are all volunteers, that is the exceptional feature of our service, and I do not think it is wise lightly to penalise a volunteer. Had there been conscription there would of necessity have been hard and fast definitions as to who should go and who should not. But when you call on men to volunteer you create a response in the mind of the invididual and you challenge his sense of responsibility. When he has answered the call and given his services ungrudgingly to the country it is niggling for the State to say that little things will be held against him, some peccadillo that has caused a break in his service. I appeal to the Minister to take this into consideration. To say the least, the Government cannot afford to create the impression that after praising these men for what they have done it proceeds to pare away some little benefits that might have accrued to them.

In regard to what has been said by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) I consider this one of the most serious questions that has been put before the House during the present Session.

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

When we reached the midday interval I was in the course of explaining what privileges attached to men who had thrown up their appointment in the Service for the purpose of going to fight, and I want to read a paragraph that appears in the pamphlet “Back to Civilian Life” which is distributed by the office of the Director-General of Demobilisation, and that will show you what the intention of the 1944 Act was and how it has now been documented as an assurance of good faith towards those singularly good men and women who went because the call of duty appealed to them more than the seductive appeal of comfort. The pamphlet says—

Yes, “approved”.

I say that the “approved” purposes are such as were contemplated in the Act of 1944 which has a totally different content from the ungenerous terms of the present amendment. It goes on to say—

Now the present Bill, if it is passed today, will falsify that assurance. This Bill will introduce a provision under which the Government can say: Notwithstanding the assurances we conveyed to you in the Act of 1944, this is now 1945, and in this year of grace we have decided to pass an Act which contradicts and falsifies the assurances we gave you in 1944. We are now going to point to a number of offences and a number of absences, even absences which were approved of and granted by way of unpaid leave, which will be debited against you and taken off your pensionable service. Now, I maintain that is morally wrong. From my point of view it is an action which no Government should be associated with in regard to the men now returning. I know of men who are in Italy today to whom this new amendment will apply with all its severity, and we are by this amendment treating these men with greater severity than the men who were doing everything they could to sabotage the war effort, the men who were doing their best to sabotage every effort, blowing up buildings, cutting telegraph wires and derailing trains. Those men have been receiving not only the privileges which we propose to give to these men who put every effort into the war, but more. I maintain that my amendment should be accepted, so that the penalties imposed should be eliminated, as it is an amendment which every man associated with the Government should be prepared to vote for. I am not going to quarrel with those who believe that the voice of the Minister is the voice of God.

I hope his voice is not coming from the other end.

Those hon. members may have no option today but to support the Minister but I am bound by my promises. I stood at the General Eelection primarily for the war effort and will spare no effort to protect the returned soldier.

I think I should explain the position again for the benefit of those who were not here when I spoke this morning. Let me say at once that there can be no question of challenging the sincerity of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I merely say he has overstated the case.

Somehow I seem to be in agreement with you.

I am glad to hear that. That means that sometimes my hon. friend is right. We are merely concerned with what is a reasonable provision to make. We are dealing here with an amendment of an Act passed last year. That Act dealt primarily with new appointments to the Public Service of ex-volunteers, but also with certain people who have been in the Public Service and had resigned for military service but wanted to be appointed again. That Act provided for the recognition of then military service for purposes of pension, salary, grading and status in the Service. But primarily we are dealing with new appointees. Now, it is a question of taking into account their whole-time military service for the purposes I have mentioned, and it was made clear in that Act that what was to be taken into account was “approved” military service. The wording of the present law is that they may be taken back on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Treasury has in fact approved of the recommendations of the Commission, and the Commission has throughout been acting on the lines of this proposal, as now before the House. We do not propose any change. We are now purely putting it into the law so to avoid any possibility of the legality of the position being challenged. But we are riot taking away anything which has been given to these people. We are merely proposing to treat them in exactly the same way as they have have been treated all along. The basis on which they have been treated all along has been the same basis as applies in the case of gratuities. When gratuities are calculated these periods are not taken into account. No one has questioned that and it has been accepted as fair and reasonable. I do not see how we can accept for Public Service purposes periods which are not accepted for gratuity purposes. The proposal here is fully endorsed by the Difector general of Demobilisation who is naturally very much interested in these people. It is also endorsed by the Minister and it merely gives legal effect to the procedure followed all along. All we say here is that where there are substantial absences from duty or substantial offences — not just a peccadillo — punished by detention for more than 21 days, those periods shall not be brought into account for the purpose I have mentioned. I gave instances this morning of cases where men have more than half their period of military service accounted for by periods of absence of this kind, and I think that on consideration the House will realise that what we are doing here is simply the fair and reasonable thing, treating men in the same way as they are treated in respect of gratuities and as the Director-General of Demobilisation wishes them to be treated. We are not taking anything away.

At this stage I should like to ask the hon. Minister what has become of the point which I raised at the second reading stage and in connection with which the Minister promised to go into the matter and if necessary to have an amendment drafted. I spoke of the man who, for instance, took his discharge from the police force for health reasons but who, as soon as his health had been restored joined the army; he stayed in the army all the time. Now it is said that he cannot re-enlist in the police force. Can nothing be done in a case like that?

The Minister states that nothing has been taken away, but what we want is that the man has something more given to him. The man who resigned from the service to go on military service took his life in his hands and if he returns he will apply for reinstatement according to this law in the department he left. In this case I am afraid agricultural leave will not come into the picture, but I do envisage a case where a man has been guilty of some contravention of the Military Discipline Code—something which as I say would in civil life be trivial but in military life is looked upon as very serious—and I hope the Minister will take steps at some stage in the progress of this Bill to protect those men.

As far as the question of re-appointment is concerned, that is apparently a matter for the Minister of Justice and the Commissioner of Police. All we do in our legislation is to lay down the conditions in regard to re-appointment.

They maintain that they can do nothing about it.

The Act does not state that he should not be re-appointed. The principal Act only lays down the conditions for re-appointment and a case such as that mentioned by the hon. member does not come under the Act. That is all I can say. I cannot say that he should be re-appointed.

What can be done about it?

If the hon. member will come and see me in regard to this matter I may be able to discuss it with the Commissioner or the hon. member can raise it under the Justice Vote.

In a pamphlet issued by the Director of Demobilisation guarantees were given to these men. This pamphlet, an excellent publication, sets out to be a guide on demobilisation for the men. It gives a clear and concise statement of the law in relation to those men who broke their service for the express purpose of going to the front, not by any accident but who said that although they were not released by their departments they would go. In the eye of the Public Service Act they committed an offence and terminated their pension rights, but the restoration of those pension rights and the recognition of their increments were all recognised in the Act we passed last year. There was no indication that there was to follow a veritable calendar of offences which would serve to lessen their period of service, and I might say that this is a departure from the guarantees given these men when they were assured on this point by the Director-General of Demobilisation. The Director-General is a high ranking officer in the Defence Force and he had no knowledge of the intention on the part of the authorities to incorporate this provision in the present Bill.

Of course he had.

The Director-General was entitled to give the assurances embodied in his pamphlet in the full belief that he was recapitulating the state of the law, which it actually is if we do not pass this Bill. I maintain this will be regarded as hurtful to the good relations subsisting between the Government and these men who broke their service because they thought it was the right thing to do in that great crisis. On the other hand you have the appeals that were broadcast by the Prime Minister himself urging those who could to respond, and urging the employers as a whole to view their actions in a proper light and to do what was expected of them while their employees were away. To rake up every small offence at this stage when the men are coming home and to say that the penalties should be added together and deducted from a man’s pensionable service will really cause a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst these men and their dependants.

Question put: That the words, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause and a division was called.

As fewer than 10 members (viz., Messrs. Christopher, Goldberg, Marwick and Neate) voted against the Question, the Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 23rd May.

I move—

The object of the amendment is to alter the constitution of the board of seven members it is contemplated setting up. Clause 3 states that one shall be appointed by the Minister from the public service; one shall be a dental mechanician (other than an employee of a dentist or of a dental mechanician), two shall be dental mechanicians appointed by the Minister and three shall be appointed by the Dental Association. That will give a predominance on the board to the dental surgeons because undoubtedly the three nominees of the Dental Association provided for in this clause will be three dentists. This Bill purports to be a charter for the dental mechanics, and unfortunately there are two associations, one of which is registered as the Dental Mechanicians, and the other I understand call themselves the Dental Technicians. The dental technicians represent by far the largest number of these people; they are dental mechanics who either practise on their own or employ other dental mechanics, while the others are employees of dentists and also do contract work for dentists at presumably a laid down tariff. If this is a dental mechanicians board then certainly dental mechanicians should have the preponderating influence on it; but that is not so. The member of the public service who will be chairman will probably be a medical man and these dental technicians are to have only one representative, although they outnumber the dental mechanicians by three to one. Although these are employees of dentists they have two representatives. I contend if this is a dental mechanicians board one dental surgeon on that board is enough to guide the board its deliberations and adjudications on matters coming before it. Undoubtedly the board has very great power. Under the Bill every mechanician has to register within a certain period and only those who have registered will be allowed to practise their craft after the Bill has come into force. The board indeed already has powers which allows them to strike a dental mechanic off the register, to deprive him of his livelihood, and I say therefore the representation on the board should be more in accord with the association formed to look after the interests of the men themselves. I ask the Minister to extend full consideration to this amendment and to allow the mechanicians this representation on the board.

I formality second that amendment

I have given very careful consideration to the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. Neate). I have had representations made in regard to this matter outside the House, but I regret I am unable to accept the amendment, and I shall try to state very shortly my reasons for coming to that conclusion. First of all it would appear that the hon. member is under a misapprehension in regard to the position of this dental mechanicians board. The clause lays down it shall consist of seven members; one, the chairman, to be appointed by the Minister; then there will be three members of the Dental Association of South Africa, and it is clear from the provisions of SubSection (1) (b) and (c) that the other three members of the board will be dental mechanicians. In other words, it will be a board comprised of three dental mechanicians, three dental surgeons and an independent chairman. The hon. member seems to think a distinction has been drawn in this connection between the members of the Dental Technicians Association and members of the Dental Mechanicians Association. That is not so. What has been attempted in this connection is to have three representatives of dental surgeons; and three representatives of dental mechanics, and in arriving at the number of three in respect of dental mechanics to make provision for the representation not only of dental mechanics who work always as employees but also those dental mechanics who work as employers; there are some dental mechanics who work not solely for one dental surgeon but who are, as it were, independent contractors. They are employers of other dental mechanics; they work themselves and employ other mechanics to assist them in their work. There are other dental mechanics who are entirely employees and who do not engage these services of other dental mechanics. It will be seen from 3 (1) (b) that the dental mechanic to be there elected is a person who may be employing other dental mechanics but who is not an employee of a dental surgeon. Under 3 (1) (c) the two persons to be appointed are dental mechanics who are employees only. Under 3 (1) (d) three dental surgeons are to be appointed by the Dental Association. It is incorrect, therefore, to say there is a preponderance of dental surgeons on this board; there will be three dental surgeons, three dental mechanics and an independent surgeon. In Clause 22 of the Bill provision is made for a dental mechanicians’ labour committee which will have the powers of an industrial council, and there the representation is such that the dental mechanics will have six representatives to two of the déntal surgeons. This is the board however which has to regulate the relationship between dental surgeons and dental mechanics, and in view of that fact and in view of the desirability of bringing the representatives together it seems wise and proper that equal representation under an independent chairman should be given. It must not be forgotten there are 700 dental surgeons and 300 dental mechanics and that the dentists have agreed to have a compulsory contribution levied on them in respect of the expenses of this board. In all the circumstances it seems to me there is no question of any preponderance or unfairness, but that this board has been based on principles of equality.

I am sorry the Minister has not seen fit to accept the amendment that has been put forward, and whilst appreciating that there is equal representation and an independent chairman, I do feel that the hon. member who moved the amendment was actuated by the very definite statement put forward by the technicians or mechanicians. According to their booklet headed “Dentistry and the Public” this is what they say—

Someone here asks “Why?” It is because we know that there are certain dentists connected with the public service doing a tremendous amount of lobbying in connection with this Bill. What assurance have we that one of these individuals will not be appointed as chairman? I continue to read—

I quite understand the force of the argument that the mechanicians will be influenced by the dentists. We have had evidence of that during the last few weeks from mechanics who have been victimised and threatened that unless the leave the Technicians’ Association they will have to look for employment elsewhere. If that sort of thing is taking place now, I ask you what will happen to these technicians, 152 of whom are against the Bill and four an favour of it, when this Bill becomes law. Only this afternoon every member of the House received a copy of a circular issued by an ex-soldier to show to this House how the dentists are treating these individuals, and yet most members are pleased to believe that the Bill is a charter for the technician. I say that unless the Minister agrees to the amendment, I am afraid they will be the only section of working people in South Africa who are not allowed to be the master of their own craft.

Amendments put and negatived.

Amendments in Clauses 13 and 16 put and agreed to.

In Clause 17,

I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

17. After the expiration of six months from the fixed date—

1. (a) no person shall conduct a dental laboratory except under the continuous personal supervision of a dentist or registered dental mechanician; and
2. (b) no person who is not a dentist or registered dental mechanician shall supervise any dental laboratory.

The purpose of this amendment is to safeguard these dental mechanicians who may at present be conducting a dental laboratory under the personal supervision of a dentist. Clause 17 as it stands, provides that no person shall conduct a dental laboratory except under the continuous personal supervision of a dentist or a registered dental mechanician: It may be that there are dental mechanicians carrying on this type of work at present, but there are no registered mechanicians at present. In terms of the Bill the board will not be appointed until a date is fixed by the Minister, and dental mechanicians have an opportunity six months thereafter to apply for registration. It is quite obvious therefore that once this Bill becomes law a considerable time will elapse before mechanics are in a position to apply for registration or in fact be registered. If therefore this clause is not amended in terms of the amendment on the Order Paper, it will mean that any mechanic will in the interim be precluded from carrying on his business by reason of the fact that he is not registered. It is in order to protect the dental mechanic and to enable him to carry on during this period that I move this amendment.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 18,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The reasons are similar to those I have given under Clause 17.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment in Clause 18 put and agreed to.

In Clause 19,

I move—

19. After the expiration of six months from the fixed date—

1. (a) no person other than a dentist or a registered dental mechanician shall manufacture, import, buy or be in possession of any unmounted artificial teeth except under a permit issued in accordance with regulations; and
2. (b) no person shall supply any unmounted artificial teeth to any person who is not a dentist a registered dental mechanician or the holder of a permit issued under paragraph (a).

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

In Clause 20,

I move—

This amendment is consequential upon the amendment on Clause 19.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 22 put and agreed to.

In Clause 30,

I move the amendment to Clause 30 standing in my name on the Order Paper—

I move this amendment as the result of my attention being drawn by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) that the State may find itself in difficulties if this provision were not included. The amendment is necessary to enable the State to dispose of or use any unmounted artificial teeth which may be confiscated by an order of court. As the hon. member for South Coast pointed out in the Committee stage of the debate the amendment of another Act became necessary during this Session by reason of the fact that no such provision had been included, and I am indebted to the hon. member for drawing my attention to this.

I second.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Bill, as amendded, adopted.

I move, as an unopposed motion—

I second.

I understand that generally speaking when a Bill reaches the third reading it is allowed to pass into law without much discussion. I also understand that no objection can be raised if I make use of this opportunity to review shortly what has transpired during the passage of this extraordinary and unfair Bill. It is a very peculiar fact that only two men of the Opposition spoke on this Bill, and both were dentists. I do not believe that 5 per cent. of the Opposition read this Bill. They are a body of intelligent men and had they read the Bill they would not have been led like sheep to the slaughter. I want to tell our side of the House that if ever they were trapped in regard to a Bill, they have been trapped now, and the repercussions will fall on the United Party. We cannot get away from the fact that anyone who has the interest of the workers at heart could not possibly vote for this Bill. On our side of the House the member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer)—also a dentist—said in the beginning of the discussion “that if the Bill becomes law the dental mechanicians in South Africa will enjoy a charter of then own, a charter which is not enjoyed by mechanicians in any other part of the world.” There were never truer words spoken. I defy any dentist to find provisions in any workmen’s Bill which will take away their liberties as this oné does. Why did the hon. member for Durban (Point) make this statement? He said it because just before tips Bill was introduced members were served with a typed statement of the benefits which the mechanicians would receive from the proposed Bill. The first provision was a minimum wage of £35 a month. Just let us look at this for a moment. Today the mechanics get £2 10s. to £4 10s. for making a denture set and the dentist charges 16 to 25 guineas for the work the mechanics have done. In this Bill the mechanic will be paid £1 7s. to £1 10s. a day. The mechanic can make a dental set a day easily. He will get approximately £1 7s. from the dentist for doing this, and this Bill compels him to do this work through a dentist and the dentist will get anything from 16 to 25 guineas. For doing what? For taking an impression only. At that rate the dentist makes £540 a month for taking impressions only and the mechanic gets £35 a month for doing the work.

That is why they are all millionaires.

That is the wonderful charter which the hon. member for Durban (Point) speaks about. What we want to ask ourselves is who wanted this charter? The dentists were the only ones who wanted it. The dental mechanics voted on this matter and 152 voted against and four in favour of this Bill, yet the Minister has failed to bring forward a Bill presented to him by the technicians which details their point of view. A very peculiar thing has happened in regard to this Bill, something which certainly has not happened during my two sessions in this House. If ever there was a Bill which should have gone to a Select Committee this is it, and I will tell you why. The principal witness at the meeting which the Minister called for the purpose of placating those who were against the Bill—instead of having a Select Committee — was Professor Shaw, of Johannesburg. He used up almost all the time at that committee meeting and would not answer questions. I believe that if the Minister had had a Select Committee and the members of this House had read that man’s statement they would have voted against the Bill almost in a body. He made one statement, in explanation of a previous statement he made which I challenged at the second reading, to the effect that he said pre-cancerous cases and not three cases of cancer a week. I still challenge him to prove his latest statement and particularly that such cases arose through mechanics making dental sets. He knows full well that under this Bill the mechanics will still make the dentures. I have had a lot of experience in public life and I know that medical men, particularly Medical Officers of Health, when they want a reform in a city which Councils will not pass, they resort to a scare. On one occasion a medical officer of health said he had found a rat with bubonic plague. On that occasion the Council concerned had to spend £20,000 to clear up the place and businessmen had to instal special ratroofing on their premises. When that was done the medical officer was satisfied and thereafter found that the rat had not got bubonic plague. I say that Professor Shaw has been quite successful in scaring the members of this House.

Rats.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we know that the dentists today cannot do this mechanical work. They are too busy pulling teeth, but they want to control this work because it is the easiest way of making money. If the dentists had not entered into this field there would not be so many people with false teeth. The worst feature of this Bill is that the mechanic is allowed to repair teeth today, which work is to be taken from him. They do this mechanical work much better than any dentist can because their training is much longer and more severe. I say, therefore, that the Minister has been grossly unfair to the men who are fighting for our freedom by introducing a Bill which restricts their freedom. Here is a letter which just came to me today from an ex-sergeant from Durban. He sent it to the Minister also. It reads—

That is a very peculiar thing, the very fact that this man can do the work better and has served five years to become a criminal. He says—

He says further that they were victimised in the army by their superior officers, the dentists. He says that he fears what will happen later and he says that his livelihood has been taken away. That is a letter from a soldier who served five years for our freedom, and we are taking away his freedom. The dental technicians were so perturbed at the thought of the effect this Bill will have on their lives that they sent a cablegram to the Prime Minister in San Francisco. The cable is to this effect—

To whom?

To the Prime Minister. Yes, Mr. Speaker, £8,000 used by the dentists to push this iniquitous Dental Mechanicians Bill through Parliament …

Who got £8,000?

I am beginning to wonder now that you ask that. There are a number of people, and one of them is a civil servant, and he has been here for weeks and weeks to get this Bill through the House.

That is a dirty thing to say.

It is true as the member for Mossel Bay knows. The Bill creates a monopoly for dentists and is solidly opposed by the people of the country. The British Empire Service League, the Trades and Labour Council and other public bodies ask: Is this democracy? I want to know from the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), since he is so interested in this £8,000, just how he is going to vote this time. I want to issue a challenge to the Minister now.

That is the way. Take him outside on the steps.

I want the Minister to invite me down to his constituency. He and I to be the only two on the platform to debate this Bill, and let us abide by the decision of his own electorate, particularly the men from the Salt River workshops. I ask him whether he will be prepared to abide by the vote given by those workers.

Come on Harry, it is up to you now.

A number of people try to be facetious about this Bill, but there is nothing to be facetious about, and I tell you honestly that our party is going to lose considerably if this Bill is passed. The Labour Party will lose more, and the only party that will gain if this Bill is passed is the Nationalist Party. They are more clever than we think. There are thousands of people today who cannot buy dentures because of the enormous expense and all the Opposition have to do is to say to those people: The Government passed that Bill. Now I want to move ….

A vote of no confidence.

I move—

That will give the country time to consider all the matters that have been put before the members of this House and that have been made public. It may also give the Minister time to reconsider his position in regard to this Bill, and it will certainly give his constituents time to tell him exactly what they think of him. I suggest that, if the members of this House want to be fair to the people who have fought our battles, they will support this amendment. I suggest, Mr. Mayor …. [Laughter]. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you consider that unintentional remark an insult or a compliment. At any rate I move that the Bill be read this day six months.

In seconding this amendment, I want to add my appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, and in doing so he would be acting in keeping with his assurance, oral and written, that he was not prepared to allow this Bill to come before the House unless it was an agreed measure. Admitted, and it is appreciated, that the Minister was somewhat compelled to dishonour that promise when a deputation of professional men, dentists and doctors, representing all parties in this House, met and gave him the assurance that it was an agreed measure, and that possibly one or two like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) and myself from the “kitchen” of this House, would be the only disgruntled individuals. I feel that if this amendment is accepted by the Minister it will enable the country and those of us who most strongly object, to have the Bill dealt with through the proper medium and that is a Select Committee, next Session. Listening to the hilarity, particularly from the benches opposite, I am more convinced than ever that certain dentists have told hon. members on that side that they must follow them blindly in supporting this Bill.

What rubbish.

It is not rubbish. I am going to bore you with the so-called rubbish in reading certain paragraphs from that important booklet which has been issued by the Dental Technicians’ Society and which I am certain has not been read by more than half a dozen members on that side of the House, otherwise they would not lightly deal with something that affects the very existence of the workers concerned. They treat this booklet as though it were a mere scrap of paper written by their late friend, Adolf Hitler. I feel, after a thorough study of this important booklet, one can only come to the conclusion that this Bill is merely an attempt still further to entrench the position of the moneyed, privileged classes, the dentists who have been fleecing the public and exploiting the labour of the technicians. If this booklet does not contain the truth and nothing but the naked truth, why did not the accused, the dentists, and particularly those of them and their professional friends in this House, put the technicians in the witness box for cross-examination, and the only way in which that would be possible is by means of a Select Committee. To me it is quite apparent that they are afraid to follow that course because in my humble opinion the wild fear, that has been expressed by certain representatives who have appeared before group committees about this cancer and its mythical consequences, cannot be substantiated. The technicians have been deprived of other channels to state their case. They have not been able to keep men in Cape Town continually lobbying, as the dentists have been doing. It has not been denied that the Dentists’ Society have a fighting fund of anything from £7,000 to £8,000 as against the certified credit bank balance of £112 of the Technicians’ Society. Whenever the technicians come down here to see that their case is properly understood by members of Parliament they have to lose their wages or close down their small laboratories. Since they ate unable to have an army of individuals at Cape Town to represent or lobby their case, I feel, Sir, that I must bore this House by quoting various important statements made in this pamphlet and which I am quite satisfied from the cursory enquiries I have made, that very lew members have read it. This booklet I regard as the case of the technicians.

Order, order. May I remind the hon. member that there is a rule which precludes members from reading their speeches? Members may read extracts and make quotations but they should not do so at any length. In view of the hon. member’s indication, I think I should warn him of the rule.

In that case I shall only read a few extracts. On page 4 it is stated—

The previous speaker referred to the undeniable fact that it is the dentist’s duty to look after and preserve teeth and not extract them for the purpose of giving the patient artifical dentures. I feel that that is the sole job of the dentist and not to deal with the question of dentures. It is exactly the same with the doctor who examines one’s eyes; he has no interest in the supply of the spectacles. He has no financial interest in it. Likewise the specialist who takes off a limb; he has no financial interest in the supply of artificial limbs. And the doctor who gives a prescription to a patient has no financial interest in the supply of the medicine or the pills. Why the dentist should be so keen to have a fnancial interest in the craft of the dental mechanician is beyond my comprehension excepting, as has been quoted previously, that the dental technician makes and supplies the dentures at anything from £2 10s. 0d. to £5 per set, according to this booklet, and the dentist charges the public eighteen to twenty-five guineas. The actual services rendered by the dentist in connection with the supply of such dentures is equivalent to the time it takes him to fill a tooth, for which he charges one guinea. That being so, in taking the bites or the impression his professional services are reckoned to be worth not more than one guinea in £ s. d. So the dentist gets the difference between one guinea and £2 10s. 0d., or £5, as the case may be, which he pays to the dental mechanic, and the sum of eighteen to twenyt-five guineas, the price which the public has to pay for dentures. It was stated during the previous discussion that it is possible that, if the dental technician is forced to give up his laboratory by virtue of the fact that the dentists will combine and establish their own laboratory, thereby forcing the dental technician who has his own laboratory, out of existence altogether, the public will have to pay still higher fees for their dentures in the future. The Minister indicated during the second reading debate that it is possible to lay down some tariff. I am afraid that that will be something new in the form of legislating for any section of the community in South Africa. I only hope that something like that will be done. I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not point out that the main objection on the part of the dentists and those who represent the Dental Association to the present position is that they are afraid that unless this Bill goes through, there will be a continuation of the alleged malpractices on the part of dental mechanicians taking impressions. But what I want to know is why the members of Parliament who represent that profession are not prepared to allow the dental mechanicians to retain their existing right to carry out repairs, because in the case of repairs, the question of taking impressions does not enter into the picture. If the dental mechanician were allowed to retain that right he would come as near as possible to being the master of his own craft, in that he is able to repair something he has made, and he would not be encroaching upon the preserves of the dentist. I say in all sincerity and without fear of contradiction that unless the Minister is prepared to allow the dental mechanicians the right to continue doing something that has been considered legal and legitimate all these years—and the Minister is even prepared in this Bill to extend the right of repairs for another six months or two years—the public will be called upon to pay as much as one guinea for a slight repair which today costs no more than 7s. 6d. If the Minister is prepared to extend this right for a certain period, what would be wrong in making it legal for all time? I wish to quote my experience having a denture repaired through a dentist in Cape Town recently. I never saw the dentist and my mouth was never examined by him. The denture was handed to the dentist by my wife in an envelope, and I was charged a guinea for a small repair. In view of your ruling, Sir, I merely want to quote to the House the following passage in the matter of the dentist wanting to encroach upon the preserves of the dental mechanicians—

In conclusion I want to refer to the fact that it has been stated by the dentists’ society that there is no need for dental mechanics to serve an apprenticeship in excess of two years, and one of the arguments used is that the material now used acrylics for making dentures is very much easier to work with and lends itself to the completion of the job in a much shorter space of time. Notwithstanding that fact, there is no suggestion that the prices charged for dentures, which are pretty extortionate should come down. Finally I want to tell the Minister not to treat what the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) said as partly a joke, as the public outside are very much indeed against this Bill. The voice of the people in this House should be the members of Parliament, but I say regretfully that very few of them indeed have troubled to contact the people who count in this matter. As an ex-railway official I visited the Salt River workshops, where as the Minister knows only too well, there are thousands of workmen and many of them reside in his constituency, some actually asked me, as an ex-railway official, why I did not sponsor a petition and thereby open the eyes of the Minister as to the extent to which the public are against this Bill. I would not go so far as the member for Port Elizabeth (South) to say that I would like to appear on a platform with the Minister to state the case of the people, because I do not think it is right. If it were a member of the Opposition, I would be quite prepared to do so.

Why not face your own man?

For the simple reason that it would not bring me any further than I have got in this House and I would only be helping the Opposition who are 100 per cent. behind this Bill. I blame the two dentists on the Opposition side more than I blame the members on this side, and I say finally that this Bill is going through against the wishes of a big percentage of the public, because they know that when the Bill becomes law they will have to pay for their teeth, not through their mouths but through their necks, and pockets. I am sorry the Minister has not deemed it necessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. As I said on a previous occasion, if this Bill had gone to a Select Committee, I would have felt that both sides had had every opportunity of stating the truth and nothing but the truth and whatever recommendations had emerged from the Select Committee, I would have been prepared to support. But knowing as I do that it has been a one-sided affair, and that the Dental Technicians’ Society has not had a fairopportunity of stating its case, I am not prepared to support the Bill. The Minister made the best of a bad job in allowing these people to appear before him only after he had already committed himself to the passage of the Bill. I was not present, but as far as I could gather, it was a case of listening to Prof. Shaw and Prof. Shaw only, and the other members of the deputation could not get a word in edgeways.

This Bill has now passed through various stages until it has reached the third reading. May I say that I am no more enamoured of the Bill now than I was when I first read it. Unfortunately in my reading of the Bill the impression it made on me was that this Bill was designed by dentists to protect their own interests, and to place in a disadvantageous position those mechanics who unfortunately under the Bill they will have under their thumb. I think the attitude of the dentists is borne out by the request they made to the Secretary for Public Health that in this legislation a dental mechanic should be a dentist’s mechanic; it is the possessive—not a dental mechanic. Thereby they showed their desire that every dental mechanic should be the possession of the dentists as servants and nothing else. That is the attitude evidenced right through the Bill, in the composition of the board, in the duties of the board, and in the prohibitions. The fact that the dentists and not the dental mechanicians have sponsored the Bill is an argument against it. Actually the dental mechanicians would be glad of control. They want to be controlled, but controlled in a proper manner through a proper board, and this is no board which meets with their approval. They are agreeable to being controlled and to follow the ethics of the profession, that is to say no advertising and no canvassing for work, providing their affairs are controlled by dental mechanics and not by dental surgeons. Now if this Bill is passed into law the dental mechanic is certainly a servant of the dental surgeon. He can be nothing else. When this Bill is in full swing he will not be able to undertake any work unless he receives work from a dentist and returns it to the dentist. He will not be able to contact the public at all. At present he has the right. Certainly the Minister has made provision that the full implications of the Bill will not be felt for some two and a half years, but in the meantime the board is to be set up.

Let me say at the outset I fully appreciate the motives of the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. McLean) and Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) and the last minute appeals they have made in regard to this Bill. I appreciate the fact they feel strongly on this matter, but I should like to remind the House before we reached the stage of taking the passage of this Bill there was the fullest consultation not only with the dentists who were interested in this Bill but there was the fullest consultation with the dental technicians and the Dental Mechanics’ Association. I arranged discussions, lasting the whole day, with representatives of all sides of the House. There were other meetings with hon. members interested and with members of the Dental Mechanics’ Association. I hope the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) is prepared to bear me out in regard to that. I tried to give every opportunity for the fullest discussion and the fullest exploration of ways and means to deal with this matter. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has said nobody who had the interests of the worker at heart could vote for this Bill. I would remind the House that the main provisions of the Bill, including the abolition of the repairs clause, were contained in a Bill submitted to the Public Health Department in 1932 by the Dental Mechanics’ Association. The dental mechanics of South Africa unanimously agreed at this stage to ask the Government to put through a Bill with these provisions in it. The difficulty at this stage was that no agreement could be arrived at in respect of working conditions, in respect of wages, in respect of conditions, of employment as between the dentists and the dental mechanics. That matter has since been adjusted by the Department of Labour and the mechanics are given a charter. They will be able to sit round a table with the dentists and deal with the ramifications of wages and working conditions. For the first time in the history of dental mechanics in this country they will have a board which will register dental mechanics and will protect the rights of the man who is carrying on his trade and calling legitimately. In all the circumstances and in view of the long discussions which have taken place, I am sure hon. members will not expect me once again to go over the ground that has been covered so fully in the previous debates. But may I say just one word. It has been suggested there will be dental mechanics out of employment as a result of this Bill, that the dental mechanics will be in the hands entirely of the dentists and many will not be given employment. I do not believe that that is so, but if it were to be true hon. members know this, that it is part and parcel of present Government policy to establish health centres in the Union. It has been laid down that at our health centres apart from medical personnel we shall have dental mechanics if not at all of them, at any rate in a number of those in the more important strategic centres, and it seems that any fear the dental mechanics have that this Bill will oust them from employment may be dispelled immediately by the knowledge that the Government itself will be looking for qualified dental mechanics in future to perform those services at health centres.

Question put: That the word “now”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. H. J. Cilliers, Hopf, Johnson and McLean) voted against the Question, Mr. Speaker declared it affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Bill read a third time.

In connection with irrigation schemes there is one aspect to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention and that is that on all the irrigation schemes without exception there is a danger of the soil becoming brackish, and mostly the best parts of the land, the lower-lying parte of the scheme are very much subject to brackishness. Unfortunately not sufficient attention was given to this matter in the past. These schemes are wonderful undetrakings. Our country needs irrigation and these schemes provide a living for many people but in spite of that we find that in the past insufficient care was taken to preserve and protect the best parts of the land. I do not know where we should put the blame but I want to ask the Minister what his policy is for the future. From one scheme after the other we receive complaints about the danger of the soil becoming brackish. These schemes cost the State a lot of money and I feel that it is not necessary that the soil should become entirely brackish; we can prevent losing our best land owing to brackishness. I am afraid that we only have in mind the storing up of water, the’ construction of canals right through the lands and the bringing of land under irrigation, but we give no thought to the danger of the land becoming subject to seepage because the water runs through uncemented furrows, and when it is too late we try to remedy the position. Only after one, two, three or four years we find out that the lower-lying land has been spoilt. Then we want to save it when it is too late. I want to suggest that the Minister hould take steps not to have any canals constructed in future unless they are cemented out.

That is what I am doing now.

I am glad that the Minister has laid down this fixed policy but then I want to ask him in the second place what his policy is in regard to canals which so far have not yet been lined and where brackishness has resulted. The Minister knows about the cases which I am now going to mention, namely, those along the Olifants River; those are State settlements. Take for instance Vaalkrans Koekenaap and others. There you find some of the best lands in this country; it is level but not high enough above sea level. Some of our best lands there are being completely destroyed by brackishness. Take for instance Koekenaap. There you have 72 plots under irrigation and of those 72 three were totally and 50 partially brackish last year. I can assure the Minister that those 50 are also beyond repair today. They have been lost. Then everything is tried to save the land and a large expenditure is incurred. Several thousands of pounds have been spent to construct “brakslote” and to lay pipes but unfortunately the land is situate two feet under the high water mark of the sea. That means that when the water recedes the brackish water runs off but when the sea rises—the sea usually rises as much as six feet—the seawater comes in.

One does not lay out plots on the sea level.

Then the seawater pours in again and the plots become spoilt. The combating of brackishness is all speculation, there is no fixed method. The Minister never got so far as to appoint staff or experts for that purpose. All the work is left to be done by the engineers there and we do not know whether they possess a sufficient knowledge of the best methods for combating brackishness. Thousands of pounds are lost in that way. Our best soil is being lost and the Minsiter does not know how to save the soil. I do not put the slightest blame on the Minister. He has his hands full already. The whole of the Union is looking to him for help and the Minister should not think that I am blaming him in the slightest but I do blame the former Director of Irrigation. I am glad that we now have a new Director of Irrigation and I believe the country is looking to him for finding the best method of combating brackishness and for taking precautionary measures before it is too late. I only mentioned the 53 plots which were lost at Koekenaap and I shall not mention the others. Do you know what was the cost of the State to level the land and to prepare it and to put the settlers there? Not less than £1,200 per plot. That means that £60,000 have been wasted in regard to those 53 plots. Apart from that the excellent soil there has been lost. The private owners have not the means to cement those canals. That is irrigation work. Our future depends on irrigation, and we encourage irrigation, but we should like the Minister to take steps so that when money is spent for the future of our people and for providing a living for our people, the money which is so spent will not be wasted as a result of insufficient care or wrong methods which make those wonderful undertakings quite useless. I am not only referring to the Olifants River settlements. There is no irrigation scheme in the country which is quite free of brackishness and those undertakings are still in their initial stages. It is essential that the utmost attention should be devoted to the future and that no reliance should be placed on the landowners under such a scheme. They do not have the means and they are too poor to combat brackishness properly in its early stages. I appeal to the Minister to consider the combating of brackishness in our country as a national problem and not to rely on the efforts of private owners. I ask the Minister to keep an eye on the position and to adopt protective measures also in regard to the land of private owners and to protect them, for, as I said before, irrigation in our country is not a matter of the private individual only but it is a national matter and our irrigation works are State assets. I shall be glad if the Minister as a first measure will send a commission to the Olifants River scheme with instructions to investigate how much of the private land there has already been destroyed by brackishness and how much land is still daily subject to that danger and what is the best method to combat it. Here and there steps have been taken to combat brackishness but in the few cases where drainage channels have been dug on the instructions of the Department and where pipes have been laid, the pipes have all been destroyed again in some way or another and that expenditure therefore was in vain.

First of all I should like to express my deep gratitude to the Minister and his Department that they went out of their way, when the water at a certain school in my district gave in to allow a boring machine of the department to be sent there. In the second place I want to express my thanks to the Minister for what he said yesterday. He did not commit a breach of faith towards the farmers behind the Zoutpansberge. He promised to send boring machines there as soon as possible and I can assure him that it will be highly appreciated because the water level there has fallen and there is not sufficient water for the cattle. I now want to ask the Minister something. He knows that a strong appeal was made to him in regard to the scheme in the district ….

Please raise this on the Loan Estimates.

Another request which I want to make to the Minister is to give attention to our mountain slopes. If you come to my district you will notice that the Drakensberge and the mountain slopes formerly supplied water to the farmers lower down but you will also find that the water has gradually diminished. Many of the farms higher up were purchased at the time by the Native Trust. Of course we cannot blame the natives that they cultivate the soil there, but the water supply is now becoming so poor that the farmers down in the plains no longer have any water. I want to appeal most earnestly to the Minister to see to it that the mountain slopes will not be used for sowing lands and that no vegetation shall be established there which reduces the water lower down to such an extent. Anoher matter which I want to stress in connection with the mountain slopes is that large tracts of lands are being planted with gum trees, and some of the springs in my constituency, large springs, have become entirely dry. Take for instance villages such as Duiwelskloof and Louis Trichardt. When those villages were established there were large springs there but today there is not even sufficient drinking water in that vicinity and I am convinced that this must be attributed to the enormous gum tree plantations. I just want to tell the Minister that indigenous trees can be planted there, which are suitable for water conservation, also along the mountain slopes, trees which do not absorb all the water but contribute to the conservation of the water and to the strengthening of the springs in the vicinity. I hope that the Minister will see to it that such a type of tree is planted to prevent the springs lower down drying up. Experiments have been undertaken in regard to those trees and I may tell the Minister that the wood of those trees can afterwards be used as boxwood and for other purposes; those trees will not merely be ornaments but will be of actual value. Where land has been bought by the Native Trust I want to ask the Minister, as far as the mountain slopes are concerned, to do his utmost to exchange in some way or another the land on the mountain slopes or to take steps, in co-operation with the Department of Native Affairs to have those farms fenced, so that nothing will be done which might result in our springs down there drying up entirely and the farmers down in the valleys receiving no water at all. The Minister should do everything in his power to increase the water supply. I want to urge the Minister to do so. The trouble is that not only do the springs become weaker but when there are heavy rains the soil washes away and where farmers have been pumping water all those years their pumps are now standing in mud holes. The position is very serious and I want to ask the Minister and his Department to investigate conditions there immediately and to save the farmers who are dependent on the mountain streams. The Minister told us that he is going to provide concrete dams and concrete cribs at the boreholes. I want to tell him that in certain parts the farmers are entirely dependent on boreholes for their irrigation. I know of quite a number of farmers who make between £2,000 and £3,000 a year as a result of irrigation from boreholes. I know that the Minister is better acquainted with turbines for irrigation and I want to appeal to him to see that the cattle farmers not only will obtain water but that he will even go so far as to assist the people who are dependent on boreholes for irrigation, if possible, not only with boreholes but also with the necessary machinery, turbines and engines, so that they can keep going. Yesterday the Minister mentioned something here in regard to the conservation of water in order to increase the water in the boreholes. I hope that he will not only go to the Northern parts of the country to conserve the water there but that he will take care that throughout the Union attempts will be made to conserve water so that our boreholes may become as efficient as in the past. I especially want to stress the fact that in my constituency there were streams which supplied running water to at least thirty people, but now those people can hardly obtain sufficient drinking water from those streams although a few years ago these were running continually. The Minister should if possible, assist people on a £ for £ basis to conserve water so that these people living along those streams and dependent on those streams for water, not only for the cattle, but also for irrigation purposes, may receive assistance.

Last year I drew the Minister’s attention to two districts in my constituency where the value of the land has decreased because the water is running away so quickly. The Minister was so kind as to act on my request. He sent the Irrigation Commission there to investigate conditions in certain parts of those districts and more in particular the possibilities of the Touws River and the Buffels River, and I want to take this opportunity, on behalf of my constituency, to express my appreciation for his kindness to have that investigation made. The Minister knows that in both areas there are possibilities for the conservation of water. The rainfall is of such a nature that the water cannot be used effectively without water conservation. The Irrigation Commission received a very favourable impression of the possibilities for the construction of storage dams. I should mention, however, that a conflict exists between the inhabitants of Laingsburg and those of Ladysmith. All I can do is to ask that consideration be given to the report of the Irrigation Commission and at this stage I do not want to… associate myself with one scheme or another. Before coming to a final decision I want to ask the Minister, however, to afford the inhabitants of Laingsburg an opportunity to submit their representations to the Irrigation Commission so as to try to remove as far as possible all doubts about the most suitable site for a weir.

I think that the hon. member should raise that matter on the Loan Estimates.

In that case I shall not go into this matter any further. I should like to say something in regard to the boring machines. In this connection we are faced with the difficulty that not sufficient boring has taken place to determine the depth of the solid earth. The Commission will report and I shall be glad if the Minister will be able to go into that aspect of the matter. Furthermore I want to ask a question about the meteorological division. During the war the work of that division was suspended. We all attach much value to the findings of that division and also to obtaining data from outside the Union. Such a division is in a positon to gather data about the southern hemisphere and I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is the intention to put that division again into full operation.

It is in full operation but it only has been placed under the Department of Defence.

But surely it belongs under Irrigation.

I know the Minister has had his boring equipment very depleted and his manpower reduced as a result of the war, but I feel under the circumstances, and in view of the severe climatic conditions which exist in certain parts of the country where there are many thousands of head of stock in danger of dying owing to the shortage of water but I must make an urgent appeal to the Minister to do all he possibly can to relieve that state of affairs in those parts of the country. Representations have been made from time to time for these drills but I want to assure the Minister that it is not a question of neglect on the part of those people that they did not apply for drills earlier. In my part of the country where you have a rainfall of anything from 25 to 30 inches, it is normally not necessary to do anything more than to make dams, but the last rain in that area fell somewhere in September last and there has been no rain since. Having dealt with that I want to congratulate the Minister and express my appreciation of the fact that he is going to investigate the Thirstland Redemption Scheme recommended by the late Professor Schwarz. Many regard that scheme as one which will be of no use at all to this country, but if it only impregnates with a little moisture these north and west winds which are drying up South Africa today and if it only raises the water tables from the low levels to which they have fallen in the last ten or 15 years, it will have made a big contribution to the replenishment of the water supplies of the southern hemisphere. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on the step he has taken and I sincerely hone something will eventuate in the next four or five years. I want to comment now on the scheme outlined by the hon. the Minister yesterday which it is proposed to make a start with in the near future and which will cost the country some £8,000,000: I just feel that our policy of irrigation in this country is designed today to relieve the position of men who already have uneconomic irrigation schemes in existence, and I feel that an expenditure of £8,000,000 on a new scheme, without the greatest amount of investigation into it, will, as I have worked it out, cost the taxpayer £320,000 odd per annum if the Minister levies £1 a morgen on those people with their 80,000 morgen for irrigation in that valley, and I feel that we should keep an eye on the fact that we want a reduction of the cost of food, and in this way the greatest attention should be given to these irrigation schemes. We are in danger of setting up something which will create a serious position for the consumers of this country, if the schemes are not economical. Finally, I want to deal with an item which affects my part of the country in respect of the run-off of water. I want to give the Minister examples of what has taken place. Many dams have been built in that part of the country and his engineers have told us that these dams are not likely to be filled in two years from the normal rainfall and runoff. On Gvoernment institutions three of these dams were built and the engineers stated quite openly that they would not fill up in two years. But these dams filled up with one rain and one run-off, so that I feel that in assessing the size of the dams to be built the engineers should investigate closer what amount of run-off there is in those parts of the country;

Do you get rain that fills a dam in one rain in one year?

Yes, I am dealing with an area where you have a certain amount of rainfall every year. It is never less than 25 inches but as much as 35 inches, but in no year is there not sufficient rain to fill these dams. Even in the present area where I am pleading for drills to be sent they had one rain in September which lasted them to April, but the normal run-off is very much higher than that assessed by the engineers.

The mere mentioning of the word “irrigation” gladdens the heart of the farmer, for he knows that irrigation is the salvation of the farmer. If a farmer can irrigate his farm he is able to withstand droughts. We had that experience during the drought of 1933. The man who had one morgen under irrigation was better off than the man who had five or six hundred morgen of dry land. The former could save his cattle. The rainfall in our country is not so very bad, but the difficulty is that it is so erratic. Sometimes we have a lot of rain within a very short period and then again we get nothing at all for a longtime. The result in the Free State was that we had three crop failures in succession. The farmer can do nothing against it. All he can do is to do his duty. We know that the position in the fertile parts of South Africa is that the farmer cannot rely on the rainfall. The result of that was that, as he could not rely on sowing crops only, he also had to go in for cattle farming in order to tide him over when his crops were a failure. In my constituency we have a good average rainfall but in spite of that we have crop failures because the rainfall is so erratic. On the other hand there is any amount of water running to waste in the sea. Last year the Minister of Lands already expressed the idea that an attempt should be made to afford every farmer in time to come the opportunity of establishing a fodder bank on his farm. That is a very good idea for stablising the position of the farmer. When a farmer has twenty or thirty morgen under irrigation, he will never become a burden to the State, for he will be able to help himself in times of drought because in the better periods he will be able to grow sufficient fodder for storage. I want to refer particularly to the high rainfall in the Drakensberge. The Caledon River carries enormous quantities of water to the sea. The Minister of Lands already has his eye on that river. If a dam can be constructed in that river, not only a large part of my constituency will be supplied with water, but it will even be possible to fill the proposed irrigation works on the Vet River and Sand River, when the Caledon is in flood. I only want to ask the Minister whether he is still considering the possibilities of the Caledon River and when we may expect a start to be made with the construction of that scheme.

I would like to ask the Minister to appoint a number of geophysicists to his Department. In the north-western areas where drilling is difficult, I think I can say that 80 per cent. of the holes drilled are unsuccessful. Recently the Minister sent a geophysicist to select sites for his Government drills and the improvement was most remarkable, probably about 60 per cent. of the holes drilled on these sites being successful. The Abyssinian campaign also proved the worth of these men, and the Rhodesian Government have used them now for a number of years, and they maintain that their percentage of successes increased from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. In view of the fact that the Minister said here that there are something like 3,000 applications for holes it will probably take a number of years before these can be completed, and I would like him to have these men available, also for private drills, as well as for Government drills.

During yesterday’s discussion on this Vote the Minister of Lands in reply to an interjection on my part said that it did not pay to let Government boring machines go deeper than 400 feet. We know that in the North-Western parts of the Cape Province along the Malopo the water is much deeper than 400 feet. In the past we went down as far as 250 feet but did not get any water. Then we sunk boreholes in the Malopo River bed and obtained water at 300 feet. Lately people have been boring in the hills where there are nice tracts of land and there they obtain the water between 400 and 500 feet. If the Minister is going to insist on the policy that Government boring machines are not to bore deeper than 400 feet, then he may just as well not send them to those parts of the country. The other day I talked to a person who has a private boring machine there and he told me that most of the boreholes are between 400 and 500 feet deep. I want the Minister to treat every part of the country on its own merits. In this district the water is deeper than 400 feet and where that is the case the Minister should allow the people to bore to a greater depth. Furthermore the Minister said that it is his intention to visit the Northern parts together with two engineers in order to find out whether they cannot get the Malopo and other rivers running again. The intention of course is to again make the water run down along those rivers so that the subterranean water supplies can be fed. If that is the case I would like to suggest to the Minister whether it is not possible to pay a visit also to Barberspan. A very large quantity of water is standing there but the situation of the pan is such that the water again flows back to the Hartz and Vaal Rivers. If we can arrange matters in such a way that this water can run in the direction of the Kalahari it will have a very beneficial effect. I therefore want to ask the Minister also to pay a visit to the Barberspan.

I have noticed the way in which the water flows there.

If you can prevent the water flowing back it will be an excellent thing.

I should like to discuss a matter of local interest. The Minister will remember that one of the first things he did in the House in 1940 when he became Minister of Irrigation was to have the Bospoort Irrigation District Act passed. I can give the Minister the assurance that that Act which he had passed at that time was of great benefit to the people concerned. He will be surprised to see the satisfaction there. The Act provides that the Minister can have the matter investigated again in five years’ time, to determine whether the water tax should be increased or decreased. I do not now plead for a reduction of taxation.

Do you want an increase in the taxation?

No, but I plead here that more money should be lent to those people to build a canal in order to bring new ground under irrigation. I wish to point out to the Minister that I am not speaking about extra ground but of new ground. The old lands have been exhausted through continuous cultivation of the same ground, so that things are becoming difficult. If a canal is built new ground can be put under irrigation, and then it can become one of the best schemes and be of inestimable value to the irrigators. Then there is also another matter, namely the Buffelspoort Irrigation Scheme. Last year there was a great deal of flood damage to the Eastern canal, and with much trouble it was repaired so that people could again sow wheat. The Minister agreed to have a new canal surveyed, and I understand that the survey has been completed. But due to the shortage of personnel the necessary report cannot be immediately drawn up, with the result that the farmers there lose much. I should like the Minister to speed up the work so that the work on the canal can be done as soon as possible, in order that the farmers may plant the next tobacco crop there. That will be very good. In this connection I also wish to bring to the Minister’s notice the question whether it is not possible, seeing the war is at an end, immediately to get his engineers and boring experts from the Department of Defence. A lot of work is accumulating owing to the shortage of personnel and in the meantime the farmers suffer.

I very much want to associate myself with the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) in connection with ground becoming brackish. I do not think we realise how much damage is caused to South Africa through ground becoming brackish. I hope that there can be co-operation between the Minister of Irrigation and the Minister of Agriculture as regards this matter, so that private irrigators can also get the benefit of their knowledge and experience, because we suffer a tremendous amount of damage. I do not think we have any idea of the amount of damage really suffered. I should like to thank the Minister very much because his engineers have now investigated the scheme at Zastron. The report is not as favourable as we would have liked to have it, but I hope that that will no be the end of the matter. The Minister knows what such a scheme will mean to the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern portion of the Cape Province. I hope he will have further investigations made to find out whether there is no other suitable area for such a scheme. I feel happy after this two days’ discussion on irrigation to know that an attempt is being made to conserve water in the country. The Minister has told us of gigantic schemes. These are very nice schemes, but it seems to me that those schemes will need a long time to come into operation. The Minister yesterday told us that the survey of one scheme will take two years. On the other hand we know that there are thousands of people to be provided with work after this war and that the Government will have large quantities of machinery on hand which it can use for making dams, and I want to suggest that the Government should make available those implements and its engineers for the construction of smaller schemes, until such time as those great schemes on the Orange River have been completed. As I have already said, those schemes will take very long to complete if the survey alone will take two years, and I am of opinion that we should provide work for our people immediately and immediately assist those who urgently require water for irrigation. I think for example of the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern Cape. Those parts are high-lying and the Irrigation Department has already said that we cannot use our great rivers there for irrigation because we lie so high. I however wish to point out that we have large valleys there and on the other side there are mountain ranges in which there are beautiful openings which can be dammed. Is it not possible that smaller schemes can be built there, which will be of great assistance to the farmers in those parts? I think that side by side with the great schemes these smaller schemes should be investigated, as at the moment, from the national point of view, they are the most essential. We have parts of the country where there is a high rainfall, but the rainfall comes in such a short period of the year that we cannot use it properly if you have no irrigation schemes. In the South-Eastern Free State and the North-Eastern Cape our difficulty is not really that the rainfall is too low, but the period in which it comes is so short that we cannot use that rain water economically without storing it. I know that there are many spots in that area where dams can be made to supply the grounds further down. Earthen walls can be made. Cement is not necessary. I have a fair amount of experience of making dams, and with the necessary machinery openings can be dammed in two constituencies there, which will enable the people there to accumulate fodder with a view to droughts. A few years ago a dam was built at Egmont. It was a small private dam. We have had a terrific drought in the Southern Free State this year, and I can say this, that if it were not for that scheme, if the farmers there did not have the opportunity to obtain fodder, we would have lost tens of thousands of head of cattle in that vicinity. They are still alive as the result of this one small scheme which was constructed in the past. I therefore want to plead with the Minister that as soon as he has got back his personnel he should send engineers there to investigate such schemes. The farmers in my area were sheep farmers. Unfortunately sheep farming deteriorated so much that investigation had to be made and the Department recommended that farmers should reduce their sheep farming and go in for cattle farming. Owing to the high price of ground they had to farm with cattle which have a high production value, like dairy cattle. The Minister will immediately realise that we must have a fodder reserve if we want to farm with that sort of cattle. If we build a few of these schemes which will enable stores of fodder to be built up in that vicinity, it will be a great help to the farmers. I want to plead very seriously that the Minister should send his engineers as soon as possible to investigate the possibility of damming up such openings in the Southern Free State and Northern Cape, and also in other areas where it is possible to do so. I imagine that at this stage the Government have much machinery which was used in the war and which after the war will have to be sold for a bagatelle, or at least at a great loss, and that machinery can be usefully employed in the construction of schemes of this nature. I hope that the hon. Minister will not let that opportunity go by.

In the first place I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to the position at the Bronkhorstspruit River. Certain spots along the river were inspected years ago and the authorities at that time told me that there is an extremely suitable spot for a dam, although not a very big dam — I understand it falls under the category of small dams. The matter has been pending for years and I want to ask the Minister what will now be done. Along the river there are a large number of farmers, but these people cannot expand, and the result is that their sons and families are driven to the cities because they cannot earn a living on the platteland. If an irrigation scheme is built it will be a great acquisition and a large number of people can be permanently settled instead of, as today, going to the cities to try to earn a living there. The rainfall is particularly good and the catchment area in the vicinity excellent. I think it would be a very good undertaking. The second point I wish to bring to his attention is the position along the Pienaars River. That is in the immediate vicinity of Pretoria. That is an old matter. I believe it was surveyed in the past, and I understand that all along the river there are still marks showing where the surveys were made. There was even a boring machine in order to discover where the dam should be built. All these things were done and I am informed that later an ideal place was selected near the farm Zeekoegat. It is said that in the hills they found good rocks, a beautiful place to build a dam. We should now like to know what the position is. But it never got any further. Why was it stopped? I do not know whether it was due to the war or io something else. The farmers along the river went so far as to sign a document pooling their ground on the recommendation of the authorities. I think everybody signed except one owner. They now want to know, seeing that they have already pooled their ground and that there is a good rainfall, and the Pienaars River comes down in flood and washes away everything, and seeing that there is enough water to feed such a dam, when it will be built. I want to ask the Minister also to devote his attention to that area. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that the two dams will be built. I wish to congratulate the Minister on his exposition last night. I think the whole country will joyfully welcome it, especially when he used the words “bores for boers”. I think all the farmers look forward to getting boring machines for sinking boreholes and making use of the subterranean water. But I was a little disappointed when the Minister later stated in which areas all the bores would be used and where the subsidy will be granted. I sit a little far away from him and perhaps I did not understand properly, but if I understand correctly, I want to ask the Minister not only to take into consideration that portion of the Transvaal situate behind the Zoutpansberg, In the vicinity of Pretoria and Johannesburg there are many small farms where the people do prosperous business, and they would also like to bore and that the subsidy should be given there. The last point I would like to bring to the notice of the Minister is this: The Minister knows that between the Rust-der-Winter scheme and the Loskop scheme there is an area of good valuable ground which does not fall under either of these schemes. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to build storage dams on the Elands River above the Rustder-Winter scheme, and in this way to extend the schemes and join them up. I myself, although I am only a farmer, have seen places above the Rust-der-Winter which can be dammed with small expense, thereby extending the scheme. The people there have made a success and that success can be extended.

I should like to speak in the contrary direction to that adopted by hon. members who have spoken up to now. We at Christiana speak about too much water. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is now 15 months ago that we had the serious floods there, and we should now like to have a statement about what the Minister will do in the near future. We are thankful for the temporary houses given there by the Department of Welfare, etc., but those houses are unbearably cold in winter and ovens in summer, and something will have to be done to provide other houses and to rehabilitate the people. I should like to point out that all these years we lived there peacefully and nicely. I myself lived there for 30 years. But ever since the dam was built there the difficulties began. Parys, Warrenton and Douglas suffered no damage from floods, but Christiana had a lot of damage. The Minister knows the contents of the report. For example 86 houses fell and a few hundreds were damaged. But until the present day nothing has been done. I should like the Minister to make a comprehensive statement. I will be going to my constituency over the week-end and should like to inform the people what the Minister’s intention is, because from that will depend what we are going to do. We cannot allow the matter to drag on longer. We are now practically living no longer along the river, but next to a dam. The water penetrates to our foundations and damp appears everywhere. The Underground water has been increased so much that one-third of the town is practically already uninhabitable. I therefore ask the Minister to state very clearly what he will do in that connection. At the same time I wish to point out to him, that, as in other places, the dam is completely silting up. The dam is already so shallow that at the slightest flood the water pushes out to the town, and it is time that we should be relieved of his threat. We have not the courage to build again where we have been living and where the houses have fallen. It is too wet and the underground water is too high. We wish to move to a dry area, but we cannot do so without assistance. The hon. Minister last year stated that he does not feel responsible for the damage, but that he feels a moral obligation to help. Well, a moral obligation presses much stronger on one than a legal obligation, and I hope the Minister will tell us precisely where we stand.

I just want to ask the Minister to give us a little information on one point. The Rand Water Board has a certain amount of authority over the water in the Vaal Dam. The inhabitants on the banks there are now anxious. They wish to erect pumps for irrigation on a small scale, and the same applies to settlers who will still be put on the ground, but now they do not know whether the Rand Water Board may perhaps have so much authority that they will be prohibited from doing that sort of thing. They would like to have the assurance that they can invest money in erecting pumps in order to irrigate on a small scale. The second matter I wish to refer to is in connection with the flood water which causes much damage to mealie lands. It was found that water pushes up during floods and inundates the mealie lands for days, with the result that the mealies are coated with slime and fall down. Before the dam was there, in former years, that did not happen there. As long as the water is allowed to flow it can come over the mealie lands for as long as two days without damaging the mealies, but since the dam is there the water at times of flood pushes up and enormous damage is suffered by the farmers on the banks. Now the argument is used that the water does not push up higher than the engineers measured. They put in markers, and the argument is that the water does not rise higher. The farmers doubt that. There are now people who receive servitude money for their ground on the banks. They are protected. They still cultivate their lands at their own risk. But there are others who did not receive servitude money for their ground, and they suffer tremendous damage. They begin to doubt whether the survey… was so accurate when the dam was built; they begin to believe that the water pushes up higher than the engineers said it would. It will therefore be right for the Minister to investigate why this happens. I know of cases where people have small pieces of ground and suffer damage. They did not buy the ground under the servitude system, and they suffer much damage. The water pushes up over their crops. I shall be glad if the Minister will give an explanation about the position with regard to the Rand Water Board and its rights to the water in the Vaal Dam, and if the Minister will investigate the position in regard to the other cases quoted by me.

I would like to take the opportunity of saying a few words in order to direct the Minister’s attention to the large number of small plots in my constituency whose occupants are in urgent need of boreholes. There are hundreds of such plots and small farms in my constituency where the people have built decent houses, people from the mines, etc., and they are living under difficult circumstances. I want to ask the Minister to make drills available for them, and give them the opportunity to make payment on easy terms. I have already discussed this matter with the hon. Minister. In the second place I should like to agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) that not only the people behind the Zoutpansberg should be assisted with boreholes. In the low veld there are large areas of very good land, and we should like the Minister also to bear them in mind. That is a very fine district for livestock, but for expansion water is needed.

I should like to put a question to the Minister. We as members of Parliament are glad when the permanent Irrigation Commission visits our constituencies. We are usually notified of its visit so that we may accompany the members on their investigations. But I am sorry to say they arrive during the Parliamentary Session, so that members of Parliament cannot be present.

They have been instructed to advise the members of Parliament.

I should prefer they did not visit our constituencies when Parliament is in Session, but during the recess so that we may be able to accompany them. The Minister has enlarged on irrigation schemes. I have no objection to offer to other schemes being constructed; I have no objection to a tunnel 49½ miles in length being constructed to provide people with water. I consider it the duty of every Minister of Irrigation to ensure that not a single drop of water flows to the sea if it can be prevented and if it can be utilised. Without doubt the future of our country is wrapped up in irrigation. The farms for grazing have already all been taken up and farms have already been so divided that they are becoming too small. Our only salvation lies in irrigation and it is the duty of the State to take every possible measure in this connection. While I have no objection to offer to other schemes being proceeded with I want to direct the Minister’s notice to a scheme that has for many years attracted attention. I believe when the Assouan Dam was built in Egypt the Cape Government selected a site for the dam I have in mind, and they picked on the spot at Gerwerspoort on the other side of Bain’s Kloof. The dam will not cost £1,000,000, but I understand that the scheme will entail an expenditure of about £500,000. It will give a tremendous impulse to our district, and from 15,000 to 20,000 morgen may be brought under irrigation as a result. The scheme has already been tested in the past. There will be no difficulty with silt. There is nothing of that sort; it is mountain water. We have the Brandvlei Dam, which was constructed as far back as 1924 and you can still distinguish the road that used to run along there. There is no silt. The climate too is ideal, and such a scheme would prove a great success. It is opportune that a commencement should be made with this scheme. Some ten to twenty thousand morgen can be brought under irrigation. I take no exception to other schemes being embarked on, but if schemes are going to be carried out on a big scale this part of the country that has proved that irrigation works are a success, ought to have a chance. Then I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the difficulty in connection with the Kafferskuilrivier Irrigation Board. The Irrigation Board has been declared illegal. The result is that a big difficulty has arisen in connection with it. There are contracts with owners who are obtaining water without levies. Then there are others who do not get water but have to pay the rates. Since the war the Government has not collected rates from these people, but I should like the Minister to investigate in order to arrive at a solution of the difficulty. They contributed £260 a year for cleaning the pipes, etc., and if this work is not carried out, considerable damage will be sustained. I hope the Minister will be able to solve the problem.

I think that most of the points have now been mentioned and it appears to me that hon. members are now beginning to indulge in repetition and to stand up for a second time, and consequently I think I should prefer to reply now to the questions that have been put. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) referred to the great danger of and the damage caused by brak appearing on irrigation schemes. He is right. It is one of the most serious matters with which this Department has had to contend, the prevention and the combating of brak. It is a difficulty that has been experienced not on one settlement but on all the settlements. When I tell hon. members that for the past two years we have been occupied with a plan entailing an expenditure of £150,000 to prevent brak appearing at Vaal-Hartz alone, to provide drainage and to lead off water, hon. members will realise the magnitude of the problem. There are various reasons for the present position. One difficulty arises from over-irrigation. Hon. members should bear in mind that perhaps 75 per cent. of the settlers on an irrigation scheme are people who have never irrigated in their lives. They were farmers who perhaps farmed with sheep or cattle, and their idea of irrigation is usually that you should simply open the sluice gates and drench the lands. If the husband is out of sorts in the morning, or if his wife is in a bad mood, then he opens up the sluice gates. That all tends towards brak appearing in the lands, and one of the big difficulties is to restrict this excessive irrigation. There is another reason, and it is that in the past when irrigation schemes have been embarked on the canals have not been lined with cement. Especially along the Olifants River this is the cause of brak. The policy of the Government is that in the future no further canals would be constructed on our irrigation scheme or elsewhere unless they are lined with cement. In respect of the Olifants River regarding which the hon. member has made a complaint, money has been placed on the Estimates to build these canals gradually. We can only do it piecemeal and we must make a start where the need is greatest. It is not only with leakages we have to deal but at many places the canals have cracked and damage has been caused, and we shall continue to build the canals with cement so that it is to be hoped we shall be able to solve the difficulty. The hon. member has spoken about 72 erven at Koekenaap which has cost so much and which became brak. The first occasion on which I visited Koekenaap the scheme had already been some years in progress. I went to see the erven there. On the upper part the land is the most beautiful in the world, but these erven which were allotted are unfortunately at sea level, not 4 ft. above the sea level. It is near the river mouth and when the flood comes the water rises to a height of at least 8 ft. above the surface. Erven have been given out, and when I came there they were making canals no deeper than sea level. At the top end they have a pumping plant and now they are pumping the water into the river, but as soon as the river rises again the water returns. They carried on in this way year after year. I put a stop to that at once, and got other erven for these people. You cannot allocate erven that are on sea level. That is the great difficulty in connection with Koekenaap. But I want to tell the hon. member that we are trying to combat brak. Our engineers and experts are engaged in improving the canals and we hope that as soon as we can effect these improvements the hon. member will have no further complaints. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) mentioned the difficulty in regard to mountain slopes where natives have land under the Trust. It is unfortunately a fact that much of the land is separated at the sources of the rivers in the mountains, and there are natives there. I must, however, say this, that it falls under the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. It is a serious matter which is occupying their attention. It is not only that the natives plough the mountain slopes as far as they possibly can, but they chop down indigenous trees and bum out the rest, and so contaminate the water, and if we keep on like this the position, especially in the Transvaal, will be a very sombre one as far as our water sources are concerned.

Cannot you talk to the Minister of Native Affairs?

He knows about it, but it is the Department of Agriculture this is particularly charged with soil erosion and veld conservation, and they are taking up the matter seriously.

But it is the farmers who are sustaining the damage, because their springs are drying up.

Yes, the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. N. J. le Roux) put a question to me about the Cale-don-Vetrivier-Sandrivier scheme. Let me just tell him this that this is a huge scheme and in the course of time other schemes have cropped up that must be given priority over this huge scheme. There is, for example, the Fish River and the Sundays River scheme that must get preference. But in view of the development of gold mining in the Free State and in order to commence the scheme we have made a start with the Vetrivier-Sandrivier scheme, particularly as this will at the same time be able to provide water for mining development that must take place there shortly. Our plans have been laid and we shall begin with the Vetrivier and the Sandrivier. The Cabinet has, however, asked for a little more information before they approve the scheme, and when Parliament adjourns I shall appoint two engineers to institute further enquiries, and they will submit a report, so that I hope that during the following Session of Parliament a start may be made, especially with a view to providing water in connection with gold mining.

What does the Basutoland Government say?

Basutoland is not under our control.

But the Caledon River affects them.

We have worked out the scheme at the confluence of the two rivers; we shall begin with the Vetrivier and the Sandrivier. Later we shall tackle the upper end, that is when the time is appropriate.

What will Basutoland say?

We have not considered it necessary to discuss that further. We merely notified them that we intended to construct the dam, but there will be no difficulty. I do not think we shall have any difficulty in reaching agreement with the British Government to build the dam in the Caledon River, because the water in that part of the Caledon River in Basutoland will rise.

Then you will have difficulty.

Why should there be difficulty? The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. Connan) asked whether we shall take precautions when we are initiating the scheme to appoint experts, geologists, to indicate the spots where we should drill. Yes, we shall do that. We are going to have people for those schemes—which we shall proclaim—and we shall endeavour to have at our disposal the experts who will be able to indicate sites for boreholes, more particularly the boreholes on which subsidies are paid. When in future we pay a subsidy we shall emphasise that the people must take our advice and that advice will be given gratis by our experts.

Will other farmers also be able to avail themselves of the services of these experts?

Yes, there are other farmers we are helping today, but particularly where we pay a subsidy for a borehole we shall emphasise that they should accept the advice of our experts. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has asked whether it will be possible to grant a loan to the irrigators at Bospoort to enable them to extend their canals and to acquire new land. Yes, I think these people, after the Bill has been put through, show that they could do well there and there will be no difficulty in granting them a loan to obtain new land. The hon. member for Smithfield also spoke about brak. He asked that we should appoint more engineers so that we could make smaller dams for our people throughout the country. As far as smaller dams are concerned, I am very much in favour of them, because there is nothing that tends more to prevent soil erosion than having a sufficient number of small dams for the farmers. I am now talking from experience as a practical farmer. They arrest the flood waters, and that in itself helps to prevent soil erosion. This is a question that will also rise under Agriculture. When the war is over the Government intends to tackle soil erosion on a large scale—it will naturally fall under the Department of Agriculture—and these small dams will then be taken in hand.

I meant smaller national schemes, not small dams.

We are also ready for that, once we have the money and the labour. We cannot go on spending millions and millions of pounds every year. We should have to set about things gradually, but as far as our resources permit we shall build irrigation schemes. I do not think the hon. member need fear about that. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) asked that we should not drill merely behind the Zoutpansberg but that we should also assist other people to obtain those facilities that we are extending in connection with these schemes. I always give the fullest information I can to the House because hon. members are entitled to it. This scheme that we are going to apply north to the Zoutpansberg, in the dry areas that have not the advantage of irrigation areas, and where the rainfall is small, and to the north-west parts of the Cape, we shall extend right through the Union a year or so after it has been in operation. We want to see whether it may not be possible to carry out this scheme right through the Union. We may perhaps vary the terms a little, but it will depend on the experience we acquire of the working of the scheme in that area where we are now applying it. Now I come to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Drink). He asked me what the Government’s policy is in connection with the flood damage sustained at Christiana during the floods of last year. Hon. members will recall that after that flood damage had been sustained throughout the Union, more particularly in those parts, we appointed a inter-departmental committee comprised of representatives of the Department of Irrigation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Social Welfare and the Deparement of Labour. The four Departments appointed a representative committee and they went right through all these districts that had suffered damage as a result of the floods, in order to assess the damage. The Government did not at any time state that they held themselves responsible for any damage or that the Government would pay compensation. The members of the committee traversed those areas and assisted the people in those areas. They did not pay compensation, but they provided food for the people and tried to arrange for accommodation, as we did at Christiana. In some cases they distributed tents to persons who had lost their houses. We gave them blankets and so on, and we even advanced money to assist them to restore their canals. That was all satisfactory, but then we came to the question of Christiana, and there we were confronted with this,’’that Christiana is situated above the diversion weir, above Vaal-Hartz and it is possible that the damage sustained there could have been occasioned through that dam. Then I appointed a departmental committee, a committee of the Irrigation Department alone, the object being to ascertain the Government’s responsibility in connection with the damage caused at Christiana. I should like to say that the dam we use for Vaal-Hartz lies 22 miles west from Christiana. Consequently, to prove that diversion dam caused the damage at Christiana 22 miles higher up is a very involved question, as hon. members will realise, expert advice and technical knowledge being necessary to prove it. The committee appointed produced a report which was not accepted by the Government.

Why not?

The hon. member must not put questions to me now. I say the Government did not accept it. We enquired into the whole position of Christiana. When we built that diversion wall 22 miles below Christiana we had already paid for servitudes in Christianaitself. I speak subject to correction, but I believe we paid £4,000 to Christiana for water servitudes. The water on this occasion did not reach the height that it reached on a previous occasion when we were not held responsible for compensation.

But oh a previous occasion houses did not collapse.

I am talking about the water. I say that previously there was a flood, and the water rose much higher than it rose on this occasion and we were not held responsible. We then sent all the data to the legal advisers and we asked them to give us an opinion in connection with the question as to how far the Government was responsible for the damage recently done by the flood. The advice we received from our law advisers is that the Government was not responsible for the damage. The question of moral responsibility I admit, I have always admitted it. These people sustained damage, and we may decide to meet them from a moral point of view, but regarded from a legal viewpoint we are not responsible. I gave that information to the hon. member for Christiana. He then stated that the people in Christiana were not satisfied with that, and he took the stand we were legally responsible. Then I took all the documents and referred them to a private advocate, and it is now in the hands of other advocates. We have not yet got the final report in that connection. As soon as I have the final report of these private advocates in connection with this matter, together with that of our own law advisers I shall again submit the matter to the Cabinet and I shall at once carry out the decision reached by the Cabinet, and then the hon. member will know what the attitude of the Government is in connection with the damage that has been sustained, and the claims for compensation. I do not think it is necessary at this juncture to add anything more on that point. Now I come to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne). He has asked the question whether the Rand Water Board’s authority also infringes those rights possessed by riparian owners above the dam along the river to pump out water in order to start irrigation works there. The answer is no, the Water Board has no such rights. They have no say in connection with what occurs above the dam. I should merely like to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that so far as my knowledge goes the Government has already paid the servitudes in respect of the damage he is referring to that was caused to the mealie lands. We have already paid the servitudes. I want to state this to the House, that the Government has paid out no less than £850,000 to those people for servitudes.

It was not all to farmers.

Yes, to farmers above the dam where the water rose and streamed in. I go so far as to say that in some cases we have paid for the servitudes, because the surveys were made. We have had the plan for a considerable period, and I have even stated during the present Session that we are going to increase the height of the Vaal dam by 18 ft. I believe that even in respect of land where the water will rise this 18 ft. we have in some cases paid for the servitudes. If the hon. member says we have not paid for the servitudes ….

No, I did not make that assertion. I said that the farmers doubted whether the surveys were correctly done.

If our surveys were wrong it appears to me that we shall have to pay, but that must be proved, and on proof being forthcoming we shall pay. I cannot imagine that the Government, when it builds a dam and when the water rises and damages farm lands will not be held responsible. I, too, am a farmer; although I might be paid out for the servitude I am still inclined to cling to those lands.

That is not the case there; it is the other case. I shall bring it to your notice.

If the hon. member will bring these instances to my notice I shall have them enquired into. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) enquired about boreholes for farmers on small plots. I am sorry we cannot do that. We have not a sufficient number of drills for municipalities and for the farmers on small plots. We can provide the farmers with drills, and although the hon. member may say that those small plots are also cultivated by farmers these are not people who can be regarded as farmers under the Act.

These are not really farmers.

Possibly some day we may have enough drills, and then we can go further into the question of assisting these people, but at the moment I regret to say we cannot do it. Then I come to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). He talked about Gerberspoort. I am quite prepared to have the matter investigated and as regards Kafferskuil I shall have that investigated also. I think I have now answered all the questions.

I have been standing up the whole afternoon. I am sorry that the Minister was so quick to get on his feet, otherwise he could have replied to me. He was obliging enough during the recess to send the Irrigation Commission to us to investigate a certain scheme on the Rhenosterrivier, and I think they reported very favourably on the scheme.

Is that at Koppies?

Yes. The Minister knows that the Koppies settlement is one of the most successful in the country. It is really a model settlement. The settlers have made a great success of it. It is because the ground is of such an exceptionally high standard. The ground is level, the water gathers there, the, rainfall is good, and the land is admirably adapted to a successful irrigation scheme. We thoroughly investigated the matter, and we found that with a relatively small expenditure 3,000 or 4,000 morgen can very profitably be placed under irrigation. I should like the Minister to tell us what the result of his consideration is. Then last year he said that one of the first schemes that will be undertaken after the war is the survey of the Vaal River in the neighbourhood of Parys, the third scheme in the neighbourhood of Parys. The war is now over and we should like to know when the intention is to make a start with that scheme. It is a very necessary scheme, especially in connection with gold mining in the Free State. These are two important schemes. The Minister has all the surveys ‘and it is only a question of when the first sod will be turned. Then we are grateful that an investigation has been instituted into the drainage ditch at Rooipoort. I am grateful that they have eventually arrived at a conclusion that after all we were right, and I only hope that the Minister will give instructions to his Department that they will take the digging of the ditch in hand as speedily as possible. The farmers have been waiting for years for that ditch, and it has been a contentious point over a period of years, and as the Department have finally been convinced that we were in the right we hope that no time will be lost in making the ditch. I should further like to say a few words about the manufacture of drilling plant. If there is one thing that will help the Minister to live down his unpopularity with the Opposition it is this matter of the manufacture of drilling plant. He can see how in the last few days things have been going better for him since he has been talking about boreholes for farmers. You can see how cunning the Saps are. They are seizing this slogan for themselves. They say it is their slogan. That is nonsense. For years now we have been saying “bore vir boere”, and now that we have allowed this thought to take root with the Minister we want him not merely to manufacture these drills at the rate of four or five a year. He has built ten in the last two years. Let special attention be given to the matter. There is nothing more important, and I am glad the Minister realises this. He knows that if there is one necessity in the country it is the provision of water and the enlargement of our water supplies. We expressed that view last year, and we shall mention it in the House every year. It is one of the most important things in the life of the country, water conservation and water augmentation. The supplementation of our water resources can only be achieved by drills, and if the Minister’s Department is not competent enough to make drills at a quicker rate than five a year can he not consult his colleague, the Minister of Transport, and ascertain whether the railways cannot assist in the manufacture of drills. As the Railway Administration has done a great amount of work in connection with the manufacture of armaments I am certain that they will help him out of this difficulty in regard to the manufacture of drills. And moreover they ought to do so, because there is no one who does more drilling in the country than the railways, they are continually falling back on private drills and Government drills, and if there is a department that ought to assist us it is the railways, in connection with the manufacture of drills, and I should like to see all the attention the Minister bestows on these matters rewarded, and the more attention he gives to these matters the more will it assist him to surmount his difficulty with the Opposition. We also want to talk about the idea voiced by the Minister in connection with conservation of borehole water merely for watering purposes. Farming as he does in the Karoo, he knows that every farmer there has a little garden and that he plants crops below his drill. He must do this for his weak stock and for his flocks and his breeding stock during the bad season of the year. If a man has the water and he has land at the water why should he not be permitted to grow a little lucerne for his stock for the bad seasons of the year? Why should he not be allowed to turn that water to the best account? Why should we have to adhere to conservatism on account of the idea that this is only water for watering animals, when there is more water than is necessary for watering purposes? Then there is the question that is mentioned every time in this House and in connection with which we sounded a warning last year. We must not rob the earth by taking out the water and not putting water back. In those regions where we are drilling we should focus the attention of the farmers at the same time to the necessity for the construction of farm dams or small dams in order that we may in any effective manner stop the flood water from flowing away. The water pressure from above will supplement our underground water supplies. I really believe the Minister will give proper attention to this, but I should like to emphasise this matter because it is exceptionally necessary, and as the Minister is now going to tackle or investigate the big scheme in the Kalahari we trust that he will give close attention to this matter. If there is one thing on which many people have fastened their hopes for the future and for the salvation of our country, from the point of view of water supplies, it is in connection with this huge scheme. And as the Minister is going there we should like them once and for all quickly to dispose of that matter. [Time limit.]

I should like to reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The hon. member spoke about the settlement on the Rhenosterrivier. The Irrigation Commission was sent there and they nave furnished their report, but I have not yet had an opportunity to study it. Of course I will not allow it to be lost sight of. The hon. member mentioned about this side of the House being very tricky in making political capital out of certain things. I want to point out to that hon. member that they on their side of the House are always saying that the Minister of Lands is making promises but not carrying them out. I challenge them to point to a single promise that I have made and that I have not carried out. But now I would like to point out what a clever trick he has. He says that I stated last year— and he stated this in all seriousness—that the first scheme that I would build and that I would set going was the one at Parys.

I said one of the first.

And he says now that he hopes I will carry out this promise and that I will build this scheme now that the war is over. I only wanted to say this to the hon. member: If I do not immediately comment on his statement, when he returns to his constituency let him go round with Hansard and tell the people about the promises that Conroy broke. I never made any such promise. Let us understand each other thoroughly. What I said in connection with that scheme opposite Vredefort and not at Parys, is this: We talked about the difficulties of converting and utilising the water that is flowing to the sea. I said that at Vredefort there was a fine opportunity to dam up the water, to divert it and to transfer it to the southwestern parts of the Free State. There are situated there a large number of pans that are always full of water, that has brought the water level of the south-western parts of the Free State up high. Now these pans are dry the water level has fallen, and I said that if we could divert that water and fill the pans it would be of tremendous benefit to those parts of the Free State. That is what I said. Now the hon. member must not say that I promised this would be one of the first schemes to be constructed after the war is over. If he wants to read these things out to the people from Hansard he must also please give the reply I have just given.

It is a long time since I have been so disappointed as today in a reply by a Minister. The Minister says that the dam is 22 miles from Christiana.

Do not let us discuss that now. The matter is in the hands of the advocates.

When I go back I have to explain the position to my constituents. At the moment the water is dammed up to a height of 15 ft. In earlier years you could cross barefoot, and today there is a 15 ft. dam. It is understandable that the water should be now 15 ft. higher than formerly, and what seems very remarkable to me is this. A commission comprised of three persons visited that area for a few weeks. Subsequently they produced a report. It seems strange to me that then report was not adopted, and that people who were not on the scene made the decision. I want to point out to the Minister that the information that apparently was placed before the law advisers emanated from his Department, and that his Department is responsible for that construction. They did not take their servitudes far enough back, and now they do not want to admit their error. They are trying, of course, to work things in such a way that the law advisers will bring out a report that does not condemn them. This is the position. I am now definitely going to advise the people to take one of three steps. In the first place to go on with the matter ….

Why did you not give that information to the advocates?

I should like the House to have a clear understanding of the position. The Minister has now for 1½ years tried to gain legal advice, and still we have got nothing. It cannot go on like that. The Minister will pay nothing and is he going to take away those huts?

Yes, we lent them and we shall take them away.

Then these people will again be without homes and in the same position as they were after the flood. It is very disappointing to me that there should be such an unsympathetic attitude on the part of the Minister. The water was previously in high flood, but nevertheless it has never been so high at Christiana as it is now. The water level is well known. It was higher at Christiana than it ever was previously, but yet the water at other places was not as high as previously. If the Minister will come and Took for himself he can convince himself about it. We surveyed all of it before witnesses. It is very curious that the Government have not adopted the report of the commission that was on the spot. It is very likely because their report was that the Department was responsible. We shall ventilate the matter immediately. This is tantamount to the Minister plunging us into expense, and that is going to create difficulty. We have now dallied with the matter for 15 months, and we cannot do otherwise now. We shall have to refer the matter to the Water Court or take legal advice and carry on with it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 36.—“Justice”, £710,000, put.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 23rd May.

I move—

I move this resolution in terms of paragraph (b) of Section 12 of the Fishing Industry Development Act. There is therefore nothing extraordinary in it. I am merely carrying out the routine prescribed by the Act in respect of the issue of “B” shares by the Corporation. Hon. members will be aware that the share capital of the Fisheries Development Corporation is divided into two classes called “A” shares and “B” shares, and the “A” share capital is to be used for the purpose defined in paragraphs (a) and (d) in Clause 3 of the Act, and the “B” share capital for the purposes defined in paragraphs (b) and (c). The objects in paragraphs (a) and (d) relate to the promotion, etc., of schemes for the catching and sale of fish by the inshore fishermen, and for the establishment and carrying on of a number of undertakings of a social welfare nature calculated to be beneficial to the fishermen registered under the Act or to the employees of the Corporation. The objects in paragraphs (b) and (c) for which “B” share capital may be used and is required include the carrying on of the business of buying and selling and marketing or processing fish, and the acquiring and the holding of shares in any company engaged in any of these businesses to which I have just referred; and the following Clause 4 of the Act defines in some detail the very wide powers indeed given to the Corporation for the purpose of carrying out these objects. Now, Sir, the exercise of some of the powers for the use of “B” share capital is likely to bring the Corporation into the activities which have hitherto been carried on by private undertakings, and when the Bill was under discussion last year, since it was the declared intention of the Government in forming the Corporation not to establish a nationalised State fishing industry, but to enable the Corporation to take an active part in developing the inshore fishing industry and to co-operate with private enterprise in integrating it into the fishing industry as a whole, in the national interest, Parliament last Session in its wisdom decided that when the Corporation wished to issue “B” shares it should come to Parliament and state the purposes for which the capital was required, in order that Parliament should be satisfied that the Corporation was carrying out the policy which Parliament had in mind when it passed the Act. Hon. members will therefore appreciate that in moving this resolution I am not asking for anything which is not explicitly provided for by the Act, but simply for an issue of capital to enable certain of these objects as defined in the Act to be carried out, and my duty therefore is not to argue the merits of the Act itself but simply to report to the House on certain of the activities of the Corporation and to place before the House the Corporation’s request for authority to issue “B” shares together with its reasons for wishing to do so. The Corporation was established towards the end of last year, in October, 1944, and since then most of its time has been devoted to visiting the various fishing areas and investigating the possibilities and giving consideration to the ways and means of usefully investing the proceeds of “A” share capital; and as a result, to date, I am informed that the Corporation proposes during the next twelve months to embark upon a number of schemes with “A” share capital. In the first place it will be necessary to declare these areas in which the schemes are to be undertaken controlled areas in terms of the Act, and for that purpose a meeting of the Fishing Advisory Council will very shortly be held, as provided in the Act. The first scheme proposed is at Lamberts Bay. There the Corporation proposes to proceed with the establishment of a township for non-European fishermen, comprising some 200 to 300 houses. It also proposes to build 30 to 40 houses for European fishermen in Lamberts Bay and to undertake the provision of light and water for the new settlement. The light will be drawn from the existing factories there. The water will have to be brought some 15 miles from recently sunk boreholes in the area. The ultimate cost of this scheme—I say ultimate cost because the whole amount will not be spent next year —is expected to be somewhere between £60,000 and £70,000. Next the Corporation proposes to help to provide more boats and gear, improved boats, to the fishermen working in the area of St. Helena Bay. Thirdly, at Hout Bay, the divisional council is proceeding with a scheme for erecting a number of dwellings for fishermen and the Corporation is in consultation with the divisional council for taking over, either in whole or in part, these dwellings when the Divisional Council has erected them. Also at Hout Bay the Corporation proposes to proceed with the establishment of a communal centre for the fishermen working there and to provide the social amenities which today are practically non-existent. Next, at Gansbaai, in the Bredasdorp area, the Corporation proposes to proceed with the erection of a cold storage plant which is badly needed there, and is also conducting negotiations with the Electricity Supply Commission and the Hermanus Municipality for the extension of electric power and light to Gansbaai and the villages nearby.

To be supplied from Cape Town?

Yes, it is linked up with that. Also, the Corporation has investigated the opportunity of other schemes which have not reached finality. They are, for example, considering the question of St. Helena Bay, which appears to afford an ideal site for establishing a settlement for returned soldiers who can be trained to go into the fishing industry. That will depend on the experimental work done on oil and meal obtained from the industry, but if those are as successful as we think it will be, the prospects of a settlement there seem to be bright. It is too early for a detailed plan to be completed, but the Corporation is investigating that proposition. In addition to that, discussions have taken place with independent fishermen in Kalk Bay and Cape Town area with a view to establishing co-operative societies for those independent line fishermen, and the Corporation is now working on the regulations which will be required for such a co-operative society based on the idea that the Corporation will provide, at any rate in the beginning, the managerial and secretarial services and will finance the cooperative societies at a low rate of interest to get them established. This particular development will be a slow one, because the idea of co-operation is new to fishermen and cannot be forced Upon them. They have to be satified that it is to their advantage before we can get very far with it, and at the present moment the prices which inshore fishermen are getting for their fish is so high that they are not aware of the need for cooperation, as they would be aware of it in normal times. But that is only a temporary state of affairs and I have no doubt that later on the fishermen will be only too ready to enter into a co-operative organisation which will be able to guarantee them some stable conditions for their industry, and the Corporation’s policy therefore to go ahead with the drafting of the regulations preparing the machinery and working out details for these proposed co-operative societies, so that at the opportune time they will be ready.

Will the fishermen get an explanatory memorandum from time to time?

I think it will probably have to be more than that. There will have to be a certain amount of missionary work done. They have had discussions in the Cape area but they have not got round to the coast yet. It is intended to do that. As the House is aware, we have on the board of the Corporation a director representing the interests of the fishermen, and he will make it his business to undertake that particular part of the work.

Is there to be no development work on the whole of the south-west coast?

I am coming to that in a minute. For the information of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) the board of the Corporation spent the whole of last week in his constituency investigating conditions there with a view to seeing what can be done. I will refer to it in a moment. I may as well tell the hon. member now. Discussions have taken place at Knysna with the object of developing a scheme with the industry there. Definite proposals have been received from interests in that area and this scheme will be predominantly an “A” share scheme, although a certain amount of “B” share capital may be required to complete it, and later, when the scheme is proposed, I will have to lay that before the House. Lastly, there is the question of replenishing the crawfish beds of the Union, There has in the past been considerable overfishing of crawfish, and as a result, right along the west coast as far as Port Nolloth, some of those beds have been very considerably depleted. As hon. members know, crawfish has been the mainstay of the canning industry in the past, and the Corporation is now examining a scheme for breeding crawfish in controlled conditions on a large scale, which comes under the heading of “fish farming” as defined in the Act, the idea being to breed crawfish on a large scale and to transfer the small fish, when they reach a certain size, to areas which have become depopulated through overfishing. Of course this scheme will require considerable planning and there will have to be regulations for crawfishing to cease to allow the fish to grow, but it can be carried out entirely with “A” share capital. Well, considering that the Corporation was only established some seven months ago, I feel that the House will be satisfied that the Corporation is tackling with energy the question of the best advantage to be taken of the “A” share capital. I come now to the question of the “B” shares. When I introduced the Bill I expressed the opinion that it might be some time before the Corporation would come to us and ask for an issue of “B” shares, but since then two things have happened to justify the present application. In the first place, the Corporation when it surveyed the position of the inshore fishing industry, very soon came to the conclusion that if it’ were to play any effective part in the development of inshore fishing, as its name implies, it would have to become interested to some extent with those engaged in the canning or processing of fish. Secondly, the Corporation was hardly in existence when it was approached by various concerns engaged in the fishing industry with a view to the Corporation co-operating with them by acquiring a financial interest in the development and expansion of their business. Conditions in the inshore fishing industry fall roughly into two categories, when you consider the conditions under which fishermen work. Along the south and south-east coasts the fishermen are for the most part individual fishermen living a somewhat precarious existence and without any properly organised method or system for marketing their fish, and without any facilities for storing or processing. In such conditions “A” share capital can and will be used to organise the fishermen and to equip them with better boats and gear, but side by side with that, and parallel with it, arrangements will have to be made to deal, either by marketing in an efficient way, or processing, with the increased catch of fish which must be expected if better facilities are provided for the catching of fish, and this means that “B” share capital will be required. Now “B” share capital may be used by the Corporation in terms of the Act either to erect its own processing plant or start its own marketing organisation or its own factories, or else it may be used to acquire an interest, to take shares or to come to a financial arrangement, with existing companies. As I have explained the nature of the amendment, the Corporation is proposing the latter course, having decided that its activities should co-operate in every possible way with existing private concerns. Conditions on the west coast are different. There nearly all the fish is either canned or processed and the canners and processors are, I am informed, to a very large extent the’ owners of the boats and gear and employers of the fishermen. Apart from housing there is very little the Corporation can do for the fishermen in those areas who are engaged in catching fish for the canneries, and still less they can do for developing schemes for the better catching of fish and the wider exploitation of the inshore fisheries, and in order therefore that both the welfare and the interests of the fishermen in… those areas shall be promoted and the Corporation should at the same time take an active part in the developing of the inshore fisheries along the coasts, the Corporation consider it should be interested in the canning and processig along with existing concerns. As I say, the Corporation was approached very early on by a large firm of canners with a proposal it should take up a share in a scheme for the development of its canneries. The board consulted me about this proposal and my reply was I did not think it right at that stage for the Corporation to link up with one individual concern, without giving other and similar concerns a similar opportunity to do the same thing. I should add at this stage two or three other firms approached the Corporation for the development of that particular branch of the industry. So the Corporation then approached the other canners with the object of getting as large a number as possible to link up in a general rationalising scheme for the canning industry on the West Coast. All the canners except one firm received the board’s proposal in principle favourably, and expressed their desire to co-operate, on the basis of a financial link-up subject to a measure of rationalisation being introduced at an early date. Subsequently, chiefly I think due to the opposition of one firm, most of the canners changed their minds, and therefore the idea of a general reorganisation and rationalisation of the canning industry, with the Corpora tion as an interested party, did not materialise. I may say that in my opinion if the canning industry is to maintain its war-time growth, or if it is to develop, some form of organisation and rationalisation is essential. Whether that reorganisation takes place with or without the participation of the Corporation it will be necessary. In the meanwhile two canning companies have maintained their desire to co-operate on a financial basis with the Corporation and the Corporation desires to go ahead with them and also to enter into arrangements with two other companies elsewhere, and the purposes therefore for which authority is being asked this morning to issue “B” shares to the value of £155,000 are as follows: In the first place, 50,000 shares have to be set aside for issue to registered fishermen. In terms of Section 13 (4) (a) we are bound to do this as soon as “B” shares are made available. I do not think the fishermen are very likely to want to take up the shares in the early stages, or until the Corporation has reached the dividend-paying stage.

Are they given a time limit?

No.

And if they do not take them up?

They will not be issued. This is authorised capital we are asking for.

What happens if you do not get the money?

I am explaining the scheme at the present moment. This authorised issue of 50,000 shares to the fishermen is a formality we have to observe in terms of the Act. The present intention is not to issue them for the time being, but it seems to me when the Corporation reaches the dividend-paying stage these shares will be very useful in enabling the fishermen, through the Corporation, to become shareholders in their own industry. But, for practical purposes at the present moment I am in terms of the Act asking authority to issue the shares and if the fishermen are prepared to take them up ….

Is that issue restricted to fishermen?

Purely for fishermen; if the hon. member will read the Act he will find it is clearly laid down. The next proposition is in respect of the issue of 60,000 shares to enable the Corporation to invest £60,000 in the Lamberts Bay Canning Company, which is the largest cannery along the West Coast and which has had a very successful record in the last ten years. Originally it confined itself to crawfish, but in the last few years it has branched out into the canning of pilchards, and it is this development which holds the greatest interest because as a result of the operations of this company it appears reasonably certain a new industry with great opportunities may develop in the pilchard industry.

May we have the names of the directors?

I have not the names here.

May we have them?

You can get them anywhere.

Are you in a position to get them?

I may be.

Why ask the Minister; you can get them on the letterheads.

In regard to the pilchard industry, large shoals of these fish run off our coast for approximately nine months in the year and they may be caught at a reasonably low cost. In California, America, where the pilchards only run about four months in the year—it is seasonable fishing—there is a very large industry that has been built up based on pilchards, and I am told the annual catch represents about 1,000 million pounds of fish and there are good grounds for believing that we can develop the industry on similar lines here. The Lamberts Bay Canning Company, owing to war conditions, has been canning pilchards but the pilchards are also used for the production of oil and meal. Up to now the Union has had to rely on importation for its requirements of edible oil, and it can be assumed most of the importations could be replaced by oil obtained from the pilchard industry. At the present moment the annual importation of edible oil and oil seeds is equivalent to 12 million gallons of oil per annum valued at over £2,000,000. In addition to that the Union is deficient in protein, and the fish meal obtained from the pilchard has a particularly high protein content, running I believe to about 60 per cent., and it will provide a valuable food for cattle, poultry and pigs. The Corporation’s investment, therefore, in this company will be used for the development of the pilchard industry, firstly to erect a new and modern plant (through the war years it has been impossible to modernise the factory which at present is equipped with a crawfish canning plant and not a modern plant for pilchards) and, secondly, to establish a modern meal plant and oil extraction plant. The second investment the Corporation wishes to make is in relation to Stephan Bros., Ltd., one of the oldest of the canning factories. It operates two canneries at St. Helena Bay. They have what the Corporation considers the best sites in the whole industry along that coast, quite near the present known pilchard grounds, and the fresh capital we propose to put in will be used to modernise the equipment of the existing factories. It is at this spot, if the development of the oil and meal industry prove successful, conditions offer the ideal opportunity for the settlement of ex-servicemen in ’the industry. I should mention these two companies are considering a financial line-up in order to pool their experience in the development of these new industries. The third investment, of £10,000, is in a new company, South African Products, Ltd. This is a new company and the principal shareholders are three gentlemen with very considerable experience and assets in the fishing industry, men who have held an important position in Cape industry for many years, and they propose to operate from Hout Bay. The company will erect a modern cold storage, and acquire a freezing plant and a modern smokery and oil extraction plant, and will be in a position to provide a ready and steady market for the fishermen there whom the Corporation, as I have mentioned plans to assist in various ways by means of “A” shares. The last proposal is for £10,000 to take shares in the Ocean Products Co., Ltd. This company has been one of the pioneers in the shark liver oil industry with an extraction plant at Gaansbaai, and they propose to join with the Corporation in the development of the industry in the Gansbaai area. The draw-, back of Gansbaai is the harbour, which at the present moment, does not provide sufficient shelter for boats of the size required to exploit the whole of that bay. My department is, however, actively continuing investigations with a view to improving harbour facilities there and making it suitable for the development we have in mind. Hon.’ members will have seen a very small sum of money does appear on the estimates for a small slipway; but I think it will be necessary to go much further and to develop it into a first-class fishing harbour. Pending the developments and the improvements to that harbour the Ocean Products will undertake, with the Corporation, experiments in catching fish with larger boats and more modern gear with a view to collecting the final data necessary when we come to equip the fishermen in the Gansbaai area with the object of improving their individual catches. It will also erect a small cold storage plant for the benefit of the fishermen at Gansbaai, which is badly needed. At the present moment the fishermen come in there with their fish and they have to dispose of it at once to whoever happens to be there to buy them, or else they go bad. These are the four proposals for which the Corporation wishes “B” share capital, and they all represent approximately one-third interest in the companies. I should say the proposals have been very carefully examined by the officials of the Corporation, also by the Corporation’s auditors and by valuators appointed by the Corporation, and I am satisfied that the actual money side of the investment has been thoroughly examined and is satisfactory.

If other companies want to come in what will be the position?

At the present moment these are four separate investments in different companies; if other companies wish to come in the Corporation is there to assist in developing the inshore fishing industry, and it is open to receive suggestions from any quarter, provided the proposals have as their object the better development of the fishing industry.

But you would have to come and ask for more money.

Certainly; if there are any further proposals the Corporation wishes to accept and in respect of which it desires to issue “B” share capital, they will have to come before this House. As I say, those are the proposals and I submit, taking the “A” shares activities together with the “B” share proposals we can say that the Corporation has made a suitable and promising start, and I hope the House will have no difficulty in giving approval to what they propose and in passing this resolution.

I second.

At the present moment this side of the House is not actually in a position to judge of the proposals made by the Corporation and to come to a conclusion in regard to the justification or otherwise of advancing the required capital, proposals for which have been submitted to us today. The Minister will surely realise that the time has been too short to provide the House with the facts which are necessary to enable us to form an opinion, because the period of the Corporation’s experience has been too short. Whatever the case may be, there are two aspects in the proposals now before us which should receive attention and which have received the attention of this House in the past. The first aspect is whether the registered fishermen should obtain a share in the capital of the Company. That is a matter towards which the Select Committee of last year felt favourably inclined and I take it that actually there can be no fundamental objection against giving the registered fishermen an interest in the industry itself. Secondly capital is now asked for on “B” shares which will mean an investment in the industry as such. This question was extensively discussed last year and I do not want to go once more into the details of it. I am sorry that the Minister laid too much stress on the fact that the “B” shares will only be used for the promotion of inshore fishing since the original purpose was not to develop only the inshore fishing industry. As far as the matter as a whole is concerned, we are therefore in the position that we can only express an opinion on the principle, and as far as the principle is concerned, I think I can wholeheartedly and candidly state that this side of the House raises no objection against allowing the required capital to be raised. About certain aspects thereof we cannot form an opinion at present and this must be left to the responsibility of the Minister and his Department. But as far as the principle is concerned, we on this side cannot raise any objection, because during the previous Session we were even prepared to go much further than the Minister is now going in his request. The proposal is made in terms of Section 12 (2) of the Act and it does not go beyond the existing powers laid down in the Act. In the provisions which contain the objects of the Act, provision has also been made for the application of the required capital, as now proposed by the Minister. They have been outlined, and some of the aspects have been justified in particular, in Section 3 (2) of the existing Act and they have furthermore been covered by the powers granted to the Corporation under Section 4 (c) (1) (h). No additional powers are now being asked for. The whole idea of the capital investment asked for, is already covered and made sure of in the existing Act which the House passed last year. Since we as a party are now being asked to express our attitude in regard to this proposal, we can frankly support the proposal, with one reservation which I shall deal with later, because the request does not go further than what has already been approved of by the party last year. On principle we have no “objection against the request made by the Minister. We even go further and we maintain that this request means that the Minister is now coming back to the original objects of the Bill as introduced last year. We took up this attitude last year in regard to the original objects of the Bill and though the Minister for reasons which will be clear to himself departed from those objects, he now comes with this request which goes into the direction of supplementing the powers which had been intended last year but which were abandoned owing to circumstances which the Minister himself will be best able to explain. The position was that the original object which we had in view for the participation of the State in this large and important industry in South Africa, as it appeared in the original Section 12 had to be abandoned or replaced by a much watered down provision. For that reason we welcome this tentative—I expressly call it tentative—return to the original objects of the Bill and in welcoming this return I want to congratulate the Minister at the same time on his apparent success to bring about a conversion in certain circles. It does not matter whether that conversion took place within or outside his party. We are grateful to the Minister that he succeeded in achieving a return to the original objects of the Bill. I only hope that his colleagues in the Cabinet will not again leave him in the lurch as they did last year. There are a few principles embodied by implication in this proposal. The first one is the attitude adopted by this House in regard to the invesment of private capital. During the previous Session I expressed my point of view in regard to this matter. I then said that none of us are prepared to declare that we must destroy private initiative. On the contrary, the point of view of the House as a whole and of all parties is that we are in favour of the retention of private capital. We do not want to tie down capital in an unfair manner. Private initiative, however, which is not prepared to keep pace with developments or which does not want to acknowledge or accept the new circumstances will in my opinion, if it does not adapt itself be swamped in the flood. We need not go into further detail but we once more want to stress our view that private initiative must play its rightful part in the development of the possibilities of our country and our people. This point of view, which we now stress, is bound to be reassuring to private capital which is worried and concerned about the participation of the State in industry. We are strongly in favour of the use of private capital. On the other hand the State definitely has an obligation, especially in this industry in which certain tendencies were noticeable in the past, to participate, in the national interest, in the development of the industry. The State should participate in certain fields of activity. We only regret the attitude taken up last year by private capital in regard to this problem. Seeing that a fresh attempt is now being made, and I take it that the House as a whole is going to support the proposal, that the House is going to support this attempt by the Minister to foster the development which is necessary in the interest of the consumer as well as of the State as a whole, I hope that this House will in turn also take up the point of view in regard to private capital that such private capital will only have a limited field of activity in such development. There will be limits to the application of private capital, within which private initiative will have to be satisfied. I just want to mention here for the benefit of the House and the people outside that we have taken note of the attitude taken up by private initiative and of the objections raised by organised industry. I assume that the memorandum which has been drawn up by organised trade and industry and especially by one branch of the organised industry, namely the Food Canners’ Council, and which I have received, has also been received by other hon. members. I believe that we can frankly say that nobody is indifferent to private capital already invested in industry or to private initiative. On the other hand I think that it can also be said that the organised industry has put forward certain suppositions and certain basic principles which cannot be accepted. I have read with interest and consideration the various points put forward in the memorandum. Of course it is impossible to go fully into these questions on this occasion and neither is it necessary to do so. Nevertheless I feel I must reply to certain of the suppositions and statements made by organised industry. First of all I want to say that organised industry apparently has not yet made any headway in departing from the point of view it adopted last year, namely, that the Corporation has no right to play a part in any other field but the field of the inshore fisheries. Here we find the following proposition—

According to this memorandum one nas to assume that the purpose of the Corporation—its only object—is to encourage the inshore fishing industry. Surely we cannot accept the view that the Corporation should limit its activities to that only. Then another fundamental objection is raised, namely that—

Admittedly it is true that this specific exclusion did take place, but not as a result of a change in the point of view as a whole. It only happened as the result of the pressure which those interests are able to exercise and I believe that if those interests were to insist on their previous attitude and were to exert further pressure, they would not only render a disservice to the country and to the people as such, but they would also render the greatest disservice to organised industry itself. The time is past when any group of organised capital can risk and dare risk to prescribe to the State to the House of Assembly, certain limitations of the latter’s powers. I believe that organised industry, although we sympathised withits objects, wants to go too far in asserting that there is no justification for the extension of the powers of this Corporation. There are a few further fundamental objections which I shall not go into now. I do not want to keep up the House any longer. Also on behalf of my Party I want to state that we have taken note of a statement issued during the last few days by organised trade in Cape Town, namely, that this entrance by the State in certain fields of activities is in fact the beginning of the downfall of private enterprise. I think that is an exaggeration. I want to repeat that I believe that we are all concerned about the maintenance of private initiative and the investment of private capital, but still I think that that statement is an exaggeration of the position because the people outside can assume that we are all concerned with the maintenance of private enterprise. I want, however, to object against the assertion by a highly placed representative of the organised trade that this step to introduce a Bill and to devise schemes for the participation of the State in private undertakings, represents a new spirit in the public service. I think that is an unfair imputation against the public service. First of all it is unfair to maintain that our public servants are imbued with a new spirit to involve the State in everything which in the past was controlled by private initiative and secondly it is an insult to the House of Assembly to say that the House of Assembly cannot but say yes and amen to proposals originating from the public service. I believe, because I have knowledge of the original general feeling in favour of the Bill, especially in the Select Committee, that it is once more my duty to declare that these ideas do not originate with the public service. The idea was born from a new process in the relationship between the public service and private initiative and the development of the country as a whole, and for that reason it is our duty to raise objections to the insinuation that we are sitting here merely to endorse proposals coming from the public service. We therefore have no objections against the acceptance of the proposals We welcome it because it fills a gap which was created last year, and together with the people outside who are so concerned about it, we want to keep a watchful eye on the application of this capital in order to see that it is duly applied to the purposes which the House had in mind last year. One problem which remains is the economical application of the capital asked for. The House as a whole and least of all the Party which I represent cannot accept responsibility for this particular Investment. If it were assumed that we are therefore convinced of the sound economic investment of this money, we would have to withdraw ourselves from this matter, but nobody amongst us is able at this stage, except on the particulars given by the Minister, to judge of the soundness of the investment of the amount which is now being asked for What we can form a judgment on is whether the direction in which it has to be applied carries our approval. We have no objection against the direction in which it has to be applied. We believe that this is the commencement of an expansion which has to develop further until the State obtains its rightful share in the development of our industries. As far as the economic aspect is concerned, the Minister in the first instance and thereafter his Department will have to accept responsibility. And what we should furthermore like to stress is that since the Corporation as a body created by the State is now being empowered to issue capital and to invest it in existing companies, we should all like to see that the Corporation will obtain its due share in the management of those companies. We do not want protection only of capital which will again be under full private control, but we want to see that where the Government invests money of the State, the Corporation as a body created by the State must have proper control and be represented on the management of those companies to exercise such control. Furthermore I have nothing to add except that I want once more to express my appreciation for the point of view taken up by the Minister. This morning I read up what I said last year, namely that I saw no possibility of the Minister ever being able to come back here. Those words I now should like to withdraw in view of the progress which we are making and in view of the point of view adopted by the Minister and I hope that the capital now required to be invested in the industry will be only the beginning of a development which will be to the benefit of the industry as a whole, to the benefit of the consumer and will promote the independence which we all strive for.

I regret that I am unable to support the proposition of the Minister in applying to the House for authority to issue this £155,000 worth of additional capital for taking up “B” shares. I am one of those individuals who believes that while the State should foster private enterprise it should not compete actively in those fields which private enterprise has built up in industry and in commerce. I am well acquainted with the circumstances under which the Bill was last year amended, so as to include the provision that the “B” shares should not be issued until the sanction of both Houses of Parliament had been obtained, and the reason for that was that in its original form the Fishing Industries Bill was designed to take over the whole of the industry as it existed in this country. That caused the greatest alarm to the industry. It had been built up with the expenditure of great energy, ability and capital and suddenly the State decided to take control of the whole of that industry. Mr. Spooner, who was the civil servant responsible for the drafting of this Bill, and who took a very active interest in the organisation of the fishing industry, declared in his evidence before the Select Committee which was appointed by this House before the Bill was passed—

That is in Paragraph 2561 of his evidence, and it was after the Bill in that form had been approved of by the Select Committee that the Minister was induced to accept the amendment which provided that it would not issue the “B” shares unless private enterprise did not co-operate with the Corporation and the industry in marketing the products of the inshore fishermen. But the clear intention of the Bill was to improve the position of the inshore fishermen, and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who has just spoken, in his remarks emphasised that aspect of the matter. He said this at page 6962 of Hansard—

That is, the powers under the “B” shares—

And the Minister, in his reply, repeated these very words, and emphasised the point that if there was co-operation on the part of industry, there would be no necessity for issuing the “B” shares. Now, I have listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister, and he has not suggested in a single sentence in that speech that there was no co-operation.

Do you say that co-operation was forthcoming?

The Minister himself gave a perfectly definite assurance in his speech—

Private enterprise asked for it.

This is what he said in column 6956 of Hansard (Vol. 49)—

Those are the words which I emphasise—

And I say that if ever there was a case where there was unwarranted incursion into private enterprise, it is this case. This Corporation was set up on the 1st October, 1944 and it had ample powers to improve the position of the inshore fisherman. I just want to refer to the provisions of the Act, which specify the purposes for which “A” shares can be used—The objects of the Corporation shall be—

So that they are entitled to assist them in catching fish and they are entitled to assist them to dispose of the fish. No steps, as far as I know and as far as I can understand from the Minister, have been taken in connection with that matter. Then there is sub-section (d) which says—

Here we have a Corporation formed for the uplift of the fishermen, which can assist them, finance them and market their products’. What more do you want as far as the inshore fishermen are concerned? But what about them now? The Corporation is issuing “B” shares for the purpose of taking up shares in the canning industry where fishermen are employed and well paid and live under satisfactory conditions. For what purpose? I do not know what the purpose is, excepting in order that the original conception of the Bill, as it was conceived and developed in the mind of Mr. Spooner and the Department should be put into effect and that the State should eventually obtain control over the whole of the fishing industry in this country. The Minister has declared to us that there was a meeting which took place with something like 12 of the canning companies. Only two were agreeable to the Minister’s conditions, because the circular upon which that meeting was based provided that the Government was to take a one-third interest in the capital of each of these companies and that it was to have a director on the board of these companies and that these conditions were only to obtain for 10 years, after which they could be reviewed by the Government. While two of them accepted this condition because, as they explained it themselves, the Government was determined to do this and they were not going to fight the Government, the other 10 took up the attitude that they would put up a fight for the rights and privileges they were entitled to as citizens of this country. We must not forget that this Bill originated in the Department of Commerce and Industries, and we know it is an unfortunate thing that for the last 10 years not only in this country but in every other country there has been an infiltration of the idea amongst civil service personnel that the civil service now must become the master of the State instead of the servant of the State. That, of course, was the result of conditions in Europe, and we must see to it that that position is not allowed to develop in South Africa. If there is one country in the world which was built up by private enterprise it is this country. It was colonised first of all by the East India Company, the republics were formed by private enterprise, Rhodesia was occupied by private enterprise, the diamond industry was discovered and developed by private enterprise and the gold mining industry has been discovered, developed and organised entirely by private enterprise. For us now to tolerate the interference and intrusion of a number of incompetent persons into a highly developed industry like the fishing industry seems to me to be an absurdity, and a thing this House should not tolerate for one moment.

Why did you not say these things last year?

I want to refer to the personnel. The chairman of the Fisheries Development Corporation is Dr. Skaife, a scientist and botanist. Then there is Dr. Von Bonde who was also largely responsible for the original conception of this Bill, which was based on similar Bills in Russia and in Germany. He is a scientist and Director of Fisheries. There is Mr. Barnard, who is a schoolmaster and social worker, a man who undoubtedly in the area in which he resides has done magnificent social work for the uplift of the fishermen. I do not say a word about his actions there. I recognise his work and I think his appointmen to this board is a recognition of that valuable work, and he was appointed to the board as the representative of those people for whom he worked for very long before this idea of a Fisheries Bill arose. But Mr. Barnard is not the sort of man who should be put on the board of a company to control the fishing industry, to market and to process fish. I would be very sorry indeed to put a company with £1,000,000 capital under his control. That is not his work. His work is particularly work in connection with which “A” shares were issued. That is his work and he is eminently fitted for it by virtue of his experience. The next man is Mr. D. Saunders, a sugar grower, and Mr. Crean who was at one time a price controller and is a shipper by calling. And of course the man is Mr. Spooner, who today is manager of that company. Mr. Spooner has first of all to make a success of the reasons for which the “A” shares were issued, and the Government should not go on until some steps have been taken to develop the ideas upon which the “A” shares were issued, and until they satisfy us that they have put up cold storages and have taken steps to market fish, and that there has been a distinct call for the issue of “B” shares, because, as the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) put it, there has been an absence of co-operation on the part of the industry. But so far from there being an absence of co-operation on the part of the industry, the industry actually appointed four men to advise and assist as far as they can to carry out the objects of the “A” shares. It seems to me that they should first of all have been given an opportunity of doing so. It is not a question of whether it is good business for the Government to purchase these shares and to enter into these industries in competition with private enterprise. The question of good or bad business is irrelevant. It is a vital question of principle which will affect the foundations of commercial enterprise in this country. I imagine that members yesterday must have been struck by the presidential address of the president of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, and I would like to quote a couple of passages from it, because it shows what we are up against and what we must look to before we sanction what the Minister asks. He said—

And he goes on to say—

I do not believe’ that the Minister, if he had not been new to his job at the time when this was introduced, would ever have brought in a Bill of this nature. It is not the type of policy for which we, on this side of the House, stand and are committed.

Speak for yourself.

The war has just been concluded to decide the rights of the individual as against the State. What is the use of the war having been won on a principle like that if this House immediately after the declaration of peace is going to pass a resolution which has the effect of striking at private enterprise and enabling the State to eliminate private enterprise.

The outburst by the hon. member, who has just sat down, does not leave a pleasant taste in one’s mouth. By way of interruption I asked him why he remained silent last year, when this Bill was before the House for the first time. I hope I am not doing the hon. member an injustice by repeating this question. If I do him an injustice I will apologise to him but here in front of me I have Hansard and as far as I can make out in the short time at my disposal I cannot find the hon. member having taken part in the debate last year.

I was satisfied with the proposal.

Last year we approved of the principle of the Bill after the Bill had been thoroughly thrashed out by a Select Committee and the hon. member was sitting here all that time and did not speak on the Bill. When he should have spoken on the principle of the Bill he remained silent and now he comes here— and with due deference to you, Sir, I thought at a certain stage that the hon. member was out of order, but you ruled otherwise—and criticises the principle of the Bill. The hon. member has now been taken in hand and I can guess who has taken him in hand. I think that Messrs. Irvin and Johnson have not yet abandoned their opposition to this measure.

I do not know them; I have never seen them.

Very well, I leave it at that. I accept the hon. member’s word that Messrs. Irvin and Johnson were not in touch with him and I hope that the hon. member also did not read the memoranda with which Irvin and. Johnson have swamped us.

I did.

What memoranda were those?

Is the hon. member a stranger in Jerusalem? If the hon. member is not au fait with the memoranda by Irvin and Johnson with which hon. members have been swamped during the past year, I cannot help him. All I want to say is this; I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), in saying that we are filled with a measure of gratitude that the Government is prepared to go as far as has been indicated by the Minister this morning. That is the direction in which we all intended that the principles of the Bill should go and therefore I should, also like to express my thanks to the Government that it is prepared to make the provisions, which according to the Minister’s statement this morning, will be made. It is obvious that certain persons in the country, persons whose names were mentioned last year, and one name of which I mentioned a’ few moments ago, will not abandon their struggle against a measure of this nature. The Minister should be prepared for that. He should even be prepared for outbursts such as that of the hon. member who spoke before me. He should assume that the powerful interests of which we spoke last year will not abandon their opposition against the Bill. They will go on with it for years. He should take no notice of that. He has the large majority of the country behind him as far as these measures are concerned.

But this Bill makes them even more powerful.

The hon. member will have an opportunity to speak on behalf of the people on whose behalf he wants to speak. I am speaking now on behalf of the people who represent a large number of interests in the country and who gave evidence before the Select Committee last year. The hon. members who were on the Select Committee together with us gained an impression of the need for a measure of this nature. It is based on the same principles as Iscor; it goes in the same direction as the development of the iron and steel industry, and we have to state that the very large majority of the inhabitants of this country are today convinced that the industrial development of South Africa is to be based along lines similar to those applying to Iscor, and that is also the reason why in the meantime quite a number of Corporations have been established by this Parliament along those same lines. It is many years ago, 1927 or 1928, when Iscor was established,… but at no time after that date have people such as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and other large interests given up their opposition against that institution. It will still take many years before these people will realise the great advantages of the principle upon which the Corporation has been based. What I do deplore, however, is that the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis), went so far off the track that he saw fit to attack here in the House officials who, as he knows, cannot defend themselves. That was a most unsavoury scene. Last year the hon. member remained silent. Now he comes along and suddenly reveals himself as a very strong opponent against the measure and not only does he fight a measure proposed by his own Government but he also attacks and criticises public servants although he knows that they cannot defend themselves. I want to say this morning that our country owes a debt of gratitude to Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde, two officials who are qualified in regard to the work for which they have been appointed. I do not know whether we would have been able to find two officials in South Africa—I do not ignore the others who also deserve praise—but I do not know whether in South Africa we could find two officials for this Fisheries Corporation who are bettter qualified than Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde. Then the hon. member with his defective knowledge—somebody must have whispered it into his ears— declares that they are not qualified and he attacks them. I resent that attack.

He never attacked the officials.

Was the hon. member deaf when he spoke?

I did not attack him.

If that was not an attack then I do not know what an attack is. He even went so far as to accuse Dr. Von Bonde and to drag in the argument that Dr. Von Bonde came with proposals and ideas originating in Russia.

Certainly.

That he recommended measures which had their origin in Russia. Well, the same thing was said when we established our iron and steel industry.

That was his own evidence before the Select Committee.

What does it matter’ whether the principle… underlying Iscor is taken over from any country of the world? I see nothing wrong in copying a principle from another country, but I want to add that that principle which underlies the idea of Iscor was to a large extent conceived in South Africa. But supposing that the principle originated in England or Germany or Russia, what does it matter if it is a sound principle for South African conditions, and it certainly is not fair of the hon. member to come here and to accuse an official who cannot defend himself that he has put forward proposals which were copied from Russia. What was the reflection he wanted to cast? That the officials approach the Government with proposals originating in Russia and that that is something which should not be made applicable to South Africa. That is the impression the hon. member wanted to create. The hon. member should be ashamed of himself. As far as the measure before us is concerned we hate every reason to feel pleased and to congratulate the Minister—I am not often in a position to congratulate the Minister and last, year I attacked him fairly sharply and I think he deserved it to a certain extent—but today we can congratulate him and I am glad that the Minister has taken a stand against certain vested interests which wanted to force him into a certain direction, and which want to force the commercial life of South Africa in a certain direction. I congratulate him and the Government with the attitude they have adopted against those people and that they said: We realise what is in the best interests of South Africa. I just want to make a few further remarks. The Department was kind enough to give me two names of the directors of two companies which are involved in this proposal, namely, the Lamberts Bay Canning Company and South African Sea Products. I shall not read out the names here. I only want to say that I was very pleased to hear that on account of more or less one third of the share capital which the Fisheries Corporation will invest in those companies, it will be able in respect of that one-third interest to appoint two directors on the management. That will mean that where the management of the Lamberts Bay Canning Company consists of four directors, the Corporation will have two directors, and where the South African Sea Products also has a management of four directors, the Corporation also will have two there. I hope that the Minister will continue with that policy and that also in respect of other companies to which capital amounts will be allotted, the Corporation will at least be able to appoint two directors for the one third interest. In this connection I want to issue a word of warning and that is that something has happened in the case of Iscor which is not above criticism, namely that Iscor, in regard to the “B” shares which have been invested in certain industries and where it consequently has obtained representation on the boards of management, has in my opinion made the mistake of appointing the same person to too many of those managements. I want to emphasise that the Government should not repeat the mistake of one person being appointed in perhaps five or six or eight boards of management, for then the position arises that too much power is placed in the hands of one person, and an octopus position is created. A man who is connected with so many bodies afterwards cannot cope effectively with all the work, and in the second place too much power is placed in the hands of such a person. I want to talk frankly. I believe that we should prevent this happening in regard to the Corporation in question, which will be directed along similar lines as Iscor; we should prevent happening here what has happened in the case of the management of Iscor. In my opinion some of the directors of Iscor are one the boards of management of too many subsidiary companies, companies in which Iscor has invested money. In that manner directors obtain powers in their hands which it was never the intention to give to them. We do not want to mention names. Hon. members who know the position will agree that it is an unhealthy state of affairs that a few of the directors of Iscor are members of the boards of management of so many subsidiary companies. That puts a power into the hands of certain persons which is already causing surprise today. As a result of these enormous powers the position today is that some men have obtained a hold on the industrial development of South Africa which would be practically impossible in most other countries of the world. One trembles at the thought of what might happen one day if those men would decide to abuse their powers. For that reason I want to warn the Minister in connection with this Fisheries Corporation not to appoint one or two or three persons on four or five or six subsidiary companies, for in that case they might possibly after wards obtain powers which we cannot again wrest from them and they might then put us before a fait accompli. The matter should preferably be dealt with in another way and the directorships should be spread over a number of people who enjoy the confidence of the Corporation. It will be an easy matter to find these. There is one other point of criticism which I want to raise. Perhaps it escaped the attention of the Minister, but I should have liked to have heard from him when he gave his explanation of the sums of money to be made available for the various companies and for the different kinds of work which they will have to undertake in connection with the development of this industry, when wé shall obtain cold storage facilities for the transport of fish. I waited in vain for a statement by the Minister on this point. He said that at Gansbaai there would be a company which will establish cold storage facilities there, but the Minister will remember, for he was the chairman of the Select Committee, that one very important matter to which our attention was drawn was the lack of cold storage facilities in regard to the transport of fish from one place to another. It will be of little use to establish only cold storage facilities at Gansbaai or Velddrift or anywhere else. Of course that is also necessary, but one must also have cold storage facilities for the transport of the fish to the railways, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to that aspect. Then there is one more point I wish to mention. I am glad that the Minister has agreed to send a memorandum to the fishermen in the areas to be proclaimed and also in the areas not to be proclaimed, in order to tell them in plain language what the purpose of this Corporation and the Act is. I was glad to hear from the Minister that they are already engaged in preparing such a memorandum, and I hope that he will avail himself of that opportunity to make that information known not only through the medium of the newspapers but also among the fishermen in the areas to be proclaimed and even among the fishermen outside the proclaimed areas, so that the fishermen may be able to inform themselves of the good intentions of these measures which are to be applied for their welfare. Recently I visited areas where the fishermen live and it became apparent to me that such a step is essential because they are not conversant with these matters. This is an intricateBill and the financial aspects are very involved, and for that reason they should be told in the plainest language possible what the position is. I want to conclude in saying that we are pleased that the Minister has put his foot down and that he has come along with these proposals.

It must have been obvious when the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) made his impassioned appeal for the sacred rights of exploitation by private enterprise that we on these benches would at least disagree with him. I am rather surprised to have to realise that a member of this House can stand up and can get so hot and bothered about people who are obviously able to look after their own business in a way he himself certainly is not able to do. In addition to his heartfelt and heartrending appeal to this House on behalf of the poor, oppressed fishing companies who would have nothing to do with co-operation in the matter of exploiting our fisheries, he has seen fit to question the bona fides of members of the Corporation and, he says: You have a schoolmaster. Well, what is wrong with that? What is the hon. member but just a lawyer? If he wants to question the status of any man appointed to serve on any particular body he must, of course, show that he himself possesses a superior qualification, and, unless it is because it is “fishy” business I do not know what right a lawyer has to question anybody’s status in the matter of catching fish.

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

I was referring to the aspersions cast by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) on the Corporation and questioning why he cast those aspersions. We are always content, in any endeavour to perform the business of this House, that men of goodwill should be appointed’ by whoever is empowered to appoint them to do the work that has to be done in order that the work shall be carried out, and we are prepared to judge the Corporation by its performance. We say to the Minister that we are glad that he has taken this step and that we wholeheartedly support him in the taking of it. We do regret that the Minister did not go as far as we would have liked him to go, but that does not detract from our appreciation of the fact that he has gone as far as he has. In connection with the hon. member’s reference to a Press statement I may say that we on these benches also read our daily papers, and we sometimes also read various memoranda which are sent to us as members of Parliament by many and various bodies whose wish it is to influence us in our doings in this House, and I read last night the recital of some parts of the speech of the new commercial leader of Cape Town, and was as struck by it was the hon. member for Pretoria (City). These are two of the things which struck me. The one is a statement by the city commercial leader to this effect—

That struck me very forcibly. Is it possible that any Minister can be forced by his Department, because of a misguided sense of loyalty, to enact in this House with our permission legislation which is unjust, because that is the imputation? I cannot believe that is so. I am rather inclined to believe that the Minister can too often be very much influenced by interests outside this House in order that legislation should not be passed in this House which will affect private arrangements. That, I think, is the true picture that we have to keep in mind. Then again, this same leader said—

He was referring to the Minister of Finance here—

So anxious to give them at a price, the price being the Ministers susceptibility in response to their ideas not to, or to implement legislation which will favour their interests. Now, if a leader of commerce in this city can be so indiscreet as to say things like this, shall we, as a House, listen, or shall we say rather that this is a case of the blind leading the blind? Now, there was another document which we have all had, as members of Parliament. I want to quote a little from that also. It is a memorandum on the Fisheries Industry Development Corporation, about the proposed issue of “B” shares and here we have this statement—

Now, that is very misleading. An amendment was adopted in this House, to our regret, may I say which was surely not adopted because it was designed to restrict the implementation of “B” shares. This was only inserted in the Bill after the Select Committee had reported that it heartily agreed with the original Bill, and because outside influences had been Gold to make their case and had done so very thoroughly. There again we have a statement that we in this House should discard and discredit, because it is certainly not true. And then there are other statements, in the matter of the proposed Corporation and the setting out of the work that the Corporation proposes to do, not against the interests of industry, but in the interests of industry, and I think no one will quarrel with the constructive nature of these proposals. It seems to me that under item 3 of this memorandum is set out what shall be the interest of the Government and what shall be the total financial liability in connection therewith, and is proof of the Government’s desire really to co-operate and not in any way to impose through the Corporation on the industry a restricting and smothering influence. I want to say it is my belief in that connection that the two big firms who did not want to collaborate with the Government did not so much object against the Government smothering or restricting them, but really objected to Government nominees being appointed because being on the inside they would get to know too much about the internal arrangements of the fisheries industry. The whole plan of campaign seems to be to attack the Department and its servants and to discredit what the Minister has done, and perhaps the Minister himself. This is a subtle and subversive attempt to discredit this legislation and to discourage its administration and to engender resentment against civil servants and to stir us as members of Parliament to unduly curb civil servants in the use of their powers. We know it is impossible for members to do without them. We realise we have to trust our civil servants.

I do not think the hon. member should go too deeply into that aspect of the matter.

I shall not carry it further, Sir. To return to the bone of contention, we have a Bill that the Minister is attempting to carry, out. The trouble has been that in the past we have had Bills designed which served merely to allay unrest in the minds of the public, and too often Bills have not been implemented. We welcome signs of real life and we congratulate the Minister on his courage and determination to set in motion the machinery he envisaged when he introduced this Bill. I think I may say that we on these benches are solidly behind him and we support him in this good job of work he is doing.

I am sorry the hon. member for Germiston read but portion of a passage from the memorandum issued jointly by the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Association of Chambers of Commerce and the South, African Food Canners’ Council. In this memorandum the passage occurs—

It however continues—

It was owing to amendments introduced to that Bill last year that the debate we have had today has become necessary. They made it necessary for the issue of these shares to be subject to the resolution of this House, of both Houses. In the event of their issue being necessary the Corporation should, however, come forward with a settled and determined policy and on that information the House should decide whether to sanction the issue of “B” shares. First and foremost this corporation was established for the specific purpose of protecting the inshore fishermen, whose plight the Minister painted in very dismal colours. I do not think anybody questioned the objects of the “A” shares.

I hope the hon. member is not going to discuss the merits of the Bill now and that he will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.

I shall do that Sir. Nobody questioned that, the objects of the “A” shares, but the ’great problem we had last year was the issue of “B” shares, and “B” shares could only be issued for the purpose of engaging in normal trade carried on up to that stage by private enterprise. Today we have the motion by the Minister asking for the issue of £155,000 “B” shares.

That was foreseen last year when we voted for the Bill.

I agree with that. One of the fundamental points raised last year by the Minister was that there should be co-operation and that if it was felt an asset was not being developed by private enterprise the Minister would have ample grounds to ask the House for shares to develop that asset. But is that the case here? I submit it is not. I test it on the basis of the negotiations which have taken place. The Corporation was registered early in October, a few months back. From the information I have a certain company interested in this industry went to the Industrial Development Corporation before coming to this Corporation. It went to the I.D.C. because the essential difference between the I.D.C. and the F.D.C. is that money may be borrowed from the I.D.C. on a short-term redeemable basis, whereas the F.D.C. wants a permanent interest. The I.D.C., knowing this Bill was in contemplation, referred the company to the F.D.C. Another canning concern approached the F.D.C. with a proposition. That proposition was reduced to the proposal which was submitted to the various members of the canning industry. Hon. members probably have seen this document. From a business aspect this proposition leaves a great deal to be desired. It was submitted in great haste. The canning industry was virtually given an ultimatum. Their minutes of the meeting report Dr. Skaife as saying that if members fail to give the co-operation that was necessary the Corporation would be forced to take other means to attain its objects, and he said it was necessary to have their acceptance of the proposal in time to submit it to the Minister by the 20th February. That very statement indicates the way this matter has been approached. I submit such an approach is the very negation of co-operation. If there is one way not to do a thing, that is the way. You come along to a dozen different firms, who all have different problems to contend with, after you have been a short time in existence and throw an ultimatum at their heads. These are bigstick methods and is holding the Sword of Damocles over the heads of private enterprise, which was one of our main objections to the Bill last year. How can one expect an industry of this nature, with its numerous and diversified interests, to reconcile the different problems involved in any scheme in a matter of a few days? If this Corporation was being controlled by men with a real sound knowledge of business that would not have been the approach. The negotiations might have been expected to cover a long period of months, and what harm would there be provided the ultimate solution was sane, satisfactory, acceptable and conducive to a spirit of confidence? The approach to this matter could only be calculated to upset confidence badly, and it is in clear contra-distinction to the policy the Minister enunciated at a meeting held on the 17 th October last year of the annual convention of the South African Federated Chambers of Industries, when he said—

Confidence is an all important factor in the make-up of the body economic, and anything done to upset that confidence will have serious repercussions. I was surprised to hear the Minister tell the House that the scheme was accepted with only one company objecting.

I said in principle, I did not say the scheme was accepted.

I am not satisfied that that is the case even, because the Corporation’s proposal was replied to by the various companies concerned, and various questions were raised and various doubts were expressed. However, on this question of confidence, what are the points in the scheme? One of the clauses provides that the Corporation will give the companies an undertaking that for a period of 10 years it will not seek a higher share of capital than 33⅓ per cent. Dr. Skaife, according to the minutes, said it was not possible to guarantee that after that period of 10 years the Corporation would not demand more than 33⅓ per cent. Surely the correct procedure for the Corporation is now to develop along the lines of the “A” share objects; it has a great deal to do. In that connection it has, I am sure, the wholehearted support of every member. But what has it done along the line of the “A” share objects? We hear nothing concrete. Has any area been declared yet?

The Minister has made a statement.

He virtually confined himself to saying a suitable and promising start had been made. They appear to have no tangible policy on any point. They appear still to be in the initial stages. When they have the “A” shares under way and make good use of some of the half million of money, which, is available to them at not exceeding 1 per cent., there is ample time to come to the House for authority to develop along other lines by issuing “B” shares. The Minister made a point about disposing of the catch of the inshore fishermen. The Corporation has the power under the “A” share objects to dispose of the fish. Last year the object known as paragraph (a) was amended to provide specifically for the selling of fish, because we foresaw that in limiting the issue of “B” shares to a resolution of both Houses, the Corporation would early be faced with the problem of disposing of the catches of inshore fishermen. So this provision which is ample, was made. Has the Corporation made any attempt to arrange for the disposal of any catch it may have from the inshore fishermen? I know of no arrangements that have been made. Instead of following reasonable and constructive lines the Corporation is now going in for the business objects, boots and all, with the issue of these “B” shares. It has failed to bring about unanimity in any section of the industry, and now it is committing the unpardonable mistake of putting money into only those concerns — of resorting inexpediency—who say come along and help us along. It has no policy. It is not investing this money in terms of any considered policy. How do they know that Stephan Bros is a firm of sufficient stability for them to put money into?

We have two directors to keep an eye on them.

My hon. friend was the man who criticised the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) because he was a lawyer, and should know.

You are wrong again; I did not say a word about that.

It was the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne).

I withdraw that then, I was under the impression it was the hon. member. Let this Corporation formulate its policy and come to the House with it. Let private enterprise and the Corporation co-operate together in a spirit of harmony rather than have a state of affairs which can only produce lack of confidence in the industry which has, under the pressure of war conditions grown remarkably, but which we all recognise may, under post-war conditions enter a difficult period. The support of the F.D.C. may then be necessary. I am not saying that in those circumstances “B” shares should not be issued, but they should only be issued after a sane and sound and carefully devised policy has been framed. For that reason I think this motion before us is premature, and that it should not be forced on the House at this stage. Under these circumstances I am not able to support it. I say so with regret, but I feel it does not implement the Minister’s own statement in the House last year when he envisaged the longterm character of the work involved in the “A” share objects and stated it would at least be two years before they would issue “B” shares. In regard to the motion itself, there is one aspect I have misgivings on. The motion merely asks for authority to issue 155,000 shares, but it does not state to what purposes that’ money is to be applied. This is a weakness. Having authorised this issue, has this House any definite assurance that the money will be invested only in the manner in which the Minister has explained today the Corporation proposes to invest it. Furthermore, I want to ask the Minister what is to be done with the proceeds from the 50,000 shares, which are to be made available for subscription by fishermen. It is a good object to allow the fishermen to come in and participate, but when they have subscribed. £50,000 what is the Corporation going to do with that money? I cannot conceive any business institution increasing its capital by £50,000 without being able to utilise the money to good purpose, and as the issue of these shares is subject to the approval of both Houses, I think the House, before it sanctions the issue, should know what is going to be done with the proceeds. In reply to an interjection on my part the Minister said this would constitute authorised capital, but authorised capital can be issued. He did further say it would not be issued immediately, and that makes it more difficult.

I will reply to that.

I hope the Minister will give us a full reply on the point. I regret that the Minister should come forward this year with this motion.

The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) raised the usual parrot cry about not interfering with private enterprise, and in his arguments he brought forward a speech delivered yesterday by the chairman of the Chamber of Commerce. Let me read out to you a comment on that speech by the editor of the “Cape Times” which appears in this morning’s paper. The comment says—

That is exactly the position we meet with in connection with the fishing industry, which not alone curtailed the supply of essential foodstuffs to this country, but it also kept the fishermen who were supposed to be cared for by “A” shares, very poor indeed, and the sooner it is realised that the time has arrived when there must be some modified control over capitalism ….

There are twelve canningfirms.

You have spoken quite long enough; leave me alone now. That capitalism has to be controlled more particularly where it affects the food of the people and the employment of people, and that is the case we meet with today. So I do not think that this parrot cry of “do not interfere with vested interests” does hold good any longer, and it represents merely so much retrogression because it is not going with the times. But the hon. member, like a lawyer who had a bad case, immediately starts an attack. And whom does he attack? He attacks the management of this Corporation. He says they are absolutely incompetent and know nothing at all about it.

I never said they were absolutely incompetent; I said they were incompetent to carry out the provisions of the “B” shares.

I understood the hon. member to say incompetent persons were handling the corporation. This is one of the rash statements he made, because he knows very little about the work the responsible people of this corporation put in before the Corporation was formed. He says that the action of the Corporation originated in the Department of Commerce and Industries, and that Mr. Spooner, now general manager of the Corporation, may be responsible for the whole thing, and it was ill-considered and done in a hurry. The hon. member should know, and he has heard of it before, that both Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde, these two directors, have been working on an Inter-departmental Fisheries Committee for the last four years. I personally was associated with them on that committee and I must say that Mr. Spooner, especially, who was a civil servant, is most competent to handle the management of that Corporation, and I think it is deplorable that these attacks should be made on people who cannot defend themselves and show they are unjustified. I think it is deplorable that these attacks should be made on people who cannot defend themselves. Not only did he attack Mr. Spooner but he also referred to the other directors. He referred to the chairman, who is a botanist and he referred to all the others; they are absolute nonentities in commerce and are not competent for the job. In fact, they are not competent to hold a directorship. As far as the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) is concerned I think he himself is a director of a company called Satmar and I would like to know what actual knowledge the hon. member has of extracting oil from coal or shale. He is also a director of a very big housing scheme in Pretoria.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of correction, that is not correct. I am a director of Satmar but I know a lot about the extraction of oil, more or less.

He knows less than more about the extraction of oil, but we can leave him alone. I do not think he knows what he is really talking about. He may have been fishing in the past in muddy waters or in the Boksburg Lake, but as far as the fishing industry is concerned I do not think he knows very much about it.

There is good fish in the Transvaal.

No, only sharks.

Let me come on to the Bill. Why is it necessary to issue these “B” shares? The argument is that everything can be done by the issue of “A” shares. One thing can be done. That is to provide these fishermen with amenities, with a house or with boats, but you cannot secure to them a market for the fish that are brought in by them, and that is why it is necessary to take that interest in the actual processing of fish.

That comes under the “A” shares.

It does not, because there are no facilities.

They charge us enough for fish today.

If those gentlemen who are so keen on interrupting are only acquainted with conditions in the fishing villages they will think differently. Arrangements will be made whereby the fishermen will be guaranteed a minimum price for all the fish they bring in, so that they know it will have a market. I think it is a far better proposition for the Corporation to take an interest in the established industries than tö erect new industries themselves. That is the main point at issue. The opponents of the Bill say that we can go into distribution with “A” share capital, and do this and that. Let me tell hon. members what happened in past years in connection with distribution. When some of these inshore fishermen wanted to market their fish in Johannesburg and other markets they were stopped by the big fishing trusts, because the latter went round to the distributors of fish, who were supplied by the inshore fishermen, and said that unless they stopped buying fish from the inshore fishermen direct they will stop supplying them with deep sea fish, such as soles, etc.

How many years ago was that?

Quite recently still. That is the position and that is the threat we are up against too. The very fact that the big fishing trusts here themselves try to buy these interests in the Lamberts Bay company shows that. They actually negotiated for it. Does that not show that the trusts want to go further in the stranglehold and get hold of the canning as well as of other fishing? That is what is before us and unless there is interference to bring competition to those very strong companies, so long will these inshore fishermen have no chance of earning a living.

They already have a law which deals with that.

What the House must remember is this that the big trawling people and the big fishing combines have an output of 60 per cent. of the total fish supplied, but they only employ’ 10 per cent. of the fishermen, so that the 40 per cent. of fish-catch which is left goes to 90 per cent. of the fishing population, and that population consists of nearly 50,000 souls, men, women and children, of which the trust employs only 10 per cent. Ninety per cent. depend entirely on the market on which these trusts have a stranglehold and will continue to do so until proper measures are taken to see that the inshore fisheries and other fishing interests are going to get a fair deal.

I am one of those who thinks that the State should not enter actively into commerce and industry. During the passage of the Bill last Session the amendments which were made to the Fisheries Development Bill together with the Minister’s statements in effect suspended the issue of “B” shares until such time as it can be shown that private enterprise in the fishing industry was failing to meet its responsibilities towards the development of the industry. Private enterprise has not yet been given a chance to show what it can do and the issue of “B” shares is at this stage premature. Opposition to the Bill when before the House last Session was specifically on the grounds that the Bill confers powers on the Fisheries Development Corporation to nationalise the industry in their last report. My friends who sit on the Planning Council are nibbling that way. They have drawn up a very interesting report. That is what I would like to see. If that is what we aim at, then I will go to the gentlemen on the board and I will say to them: “We will give you a million pounds to take over the fishing industry of South Africa; catch the fish and distribute it”.

Hear, hear.

Old Mussolini has awakened. He does not want to be a semicapitalist now. The Labour Party does not want to be a semi-capitalist now. The Labour Party is getting frightened now. No, it is the old story of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread. They wanted to make friends with Irvin and Johnson; they wanted to make friends will all the other so-called devils; they wanted to make friends with the monopolists, and now they say they want to follow me.

Follow you?

Yes, follow me. They want to follow me in the policy that this country should lay down the basic principle that the basic food of the country should be distributed by the State, and I ask the hon. member for Moorreesburg whether he will support that. Will he support the principle that maize, milk and meat should be distributed by the State?

If it is the cheapest way.

My friend here says if it is the cheapest way. That is quite a good remark. The cheapest for whom? No, I tell the Labour Party to beware of the agreement they are making with my friends over there. They will let them down as they let them down many years ago I have not got much more to say. I do not want to go into this question because I do not want to tread on what I might call your hospitality and kindness in allowing me to go so far. But I want to say this to the Minister: I do not say that he may not be right in taking the action he is. I know it is difficult for him to go as far as I am going this afternoon, but the country will have to make up its mind whether it is going to take the socialist line or whether it is going to take this Bernham’s Managerial Economy. That is the fight today all over the world. It is no good my friends here talking about private enterprise. Private enterprise is as dead as Queen Anne. In no Parliament in the world can a man stand up and get the support of the House for private enterprise as such. That fight had been fought. It is now a changed world and you have either to follow the lead given to us by the young Minister today of making friends with the capitalists and dealing with them—as Iscor is today at a cost to the country of £2,000,000—or that the State should run the country as far as food distribution is concerned. That is what I would like the country to do, to say: We trust you and Mr. Spooner and Dr. Von Bonde and Dr. Skaife and the other scientists; come to us in a year or two with a comprehensive scheme so that we as Parliament can take over the basic food distribution of South Africa. We will protect the fishermen, we shall not ask Irvin aind Johnson to do so, but we shall do so under this Act in respect of wages, building their homes and everything else. Under this Act the price of fish must go up. The combination of capitalism with the Government has always resulted in the commodity in which it is dealing rising in price. And just as Iscor put up the price of steel so the new board is going to put up the price of fish. If the Minister makes a success of this let him go a little further and bring in sugar, and if a utility company dealing with sugar is a success let him bring in a utility company dealing with maize; and if that is a success let him bring in a utility company to deal with meat, and then a utility company to deal with wheat. Let us be run by utility companies and then when we have all the utility companies, let us then do as Mussolini did, bring to Parliament all the representatives of the utility companies, and when the Minister has that Parliament representing the utility cimpanies he will have the corporate State. Then all he has to do is to say: You have to vote as I tell you to vote. He will be a dictator and then he will have to be very careful or he will end up as Mussolini did.

I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) pleaded with so much ardour for a system which recently was thrown over in Germany and Italy. From the last part of the speech by the hon. member I cannot but come to the conclusion that he is in favour of fascism or national socialism or communism or a combination of all three. As a representative of an urban constituency I feel in the first instance, when the Minister comes to this House with a request of this nature to ask for more money for the State in order to extend the powers of this Corporation, that the first question which I must ask myself as a representative of the consumers is what the effect of this proposal will be on the price to be paid by the consumers. In the past we have accepted a similar interference by the State, for instance in connection with our fruit industry and the position in regard to fruit was weaker than ever before and the prices were higher than ever before in spite of the enormous supplies in our country. Even in the case of meat we witnessed the same thing. For that reason I got up last year and urged the Minister to keep these corporative bodies under supervision. I want to ask the same question again, namely, whether the Minister will keep supervision, strict supervision over the Corporation and its activities, over what is being done with the additional money which is now being asked for in this motion. Will it be spent in such a way that the consumers in the country will obtain the products of the Corporation at lower prices? The original idea was to protect the fishermen and we agreed to that. But even the fishermen are consumers and if this House were to accept the principle so strongly supported by the hon. member for Hospital, namely that everything should be handled through utility companies, also the whole distribution of food, then all your employees become consumers who will be affected by this extensive system of corporations. That is the reason why it is so essential in this modern world and in our country, where new corporations are continually being created and new powers are being given to existing corporations, that we should have the assurance that their activities will be such that the products of our country will reach the consumers on the basis of the very lowest overhead expenditure. In order to achieve this it is essential that the services of these bodies will be modelled on the most economical lines. The hon. member for Hospital mentioned Iscor. I think that the whole of South Africa is proud of the achievements of Iscor. Those of us who have visited the war factories and have seen what has been produced in those factories during the war know that the steel came from Iscor. But still Iscor produces the most expensive steel in the whole world and the hon. member for Hospital hit the nail on the head when he said that we should have proper control over those organisations. They handle enormous amounts of the State’s money and are in fact under the control of one dictator. And they are not stagnant but, as in this case, they are expanding and I predict that next year or the year after the Minister will come along again to ask this House for more money to finance such expansion. I understand that this is the intention and for that reason I should like to say that although we agree in principle, we do have our doubts in regard to the method in which the principle will be put into practice. In practically every case where interference and control have taken place we found that prices were increasing continually and together with the hon. member for Hospital I also want to express the fear that in two or three years’ time we may find that the price of fish and fish products will have gone up, and if they do not in fact become higher, they will still have become relatively higher—I mean in comparison with the price of similar products elsewhere in the world. I want to appeal earnestly to the Minister as I have done before that the Minister and through him this House should keep a check on the functions of the boards and corporations and bodies handling large amounts of State money, and if the Minister wants us to allot more money every year and to grant new powers every year he will realise why it is so essential that these bodies—I even want to include Iscor—should be kept under control and that the accounts and books of such corporations should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. That is of the utmost importance. If he reports to this House, we can be kept informed of the whole position and through this House the country can be kept informed in regard to the question of what is happening to the money which is being spent on such a large scale by the Corporations. If we do this and keep a strict supervision over the Corporations, then only can we expect that their functions will be carried out in the best manner. We have no distrust in any individual person. I have known the managers of that organisation and of others quite well for a number of years and I am glad to say that they are the most capable people we could have appointed in their positions but they are not experienced business men and even if they would be that, the fact remains that no business undertaking anywhere in the world can continue to give the best service unless there is the stimulus of competition. This Bill and the money which is being provided by the State, to a large extent eliminate healthy competition, and consequently the stimulus disappears for the continual application of better methods, for the constant introduction of more modern methods, and for the realisation of lower production costs. That stimulus is now being eliminated by the money voted in this House for such organisations. For that reason I want to appeal to the Minister, although we on this side of the House support the proposal, to keep this in mind, so that when I go back to my constituency I will be able to declare that we have the assurance of this House and of the Minister concerned that the money asked for will be spent in such a way that the consumers will nave no need to fear that in future they will have to pay more for these products. On the contrary our opinion is that when you create such a large monopoly and when it functions properly, then it should be in a position to supply the consumer with its products at lower prices. We hope that the Minister will devote his attention to this matter and that we may rest assured on that point.

I am not getting up to raise any objection against the proposal of the Minister. On the contrary, like other members on this side, I welcome it. The whole country has always been dissatisfied with the conditions of poverty and neglect in which our inshore fishermen had to live and our fishing industry cannot get away from the fact that it is responsible for this position of poverty and neglect. Where therefore, the State interferes in order to correct this state of affairs, we are prepared to support the Government 100 per cent. and we hope that it will be a warning to every industry that, when it allows conditions to… arise in the industry with which the public of South Africa are dissatisfied, such an industry may have to expect interference by the State. I therefore want to say that the objections raised by the other side of the House do not carry much weight as far as I am concerned. I want to say clearly that we consider the welfare of the fishermen and of the persons employed in the industry to be of very much more importance than the dividends of the fishing companies. That is the principle which this side of the House accepts. I would, however, like the Minister to keep two things in mind. The first one is that the coast of South Africa does not stretch only from Lamberts Bay to Skansbaai. What I heard this morning from the Minister gave me the impression that the attention of the Corporation is focused only on the short stretch of coast between those two places, as if this is the only part of the coast that matters and the only part where the sea contains fish. That is not the case. One of the very best fishing banks along the coast is to be found along the South-West coast and I should like the Minister and the Corporation to keep two places continually in their thoughts, namely Swartvlei and Buffalo-vlei. I hope that the Fisheries Corporation will keep these places continually in mind and I should like the Minister to remember that at one time that whole area existed from the products of the forests. Today that is no longer possible and they have to find some other means of existence and during this period of transition some of the people will go and work in the factories, etc., but there is one industry in which a large section of the people there can find a living and that is in the fishing industry. This area is the most highly populated part of rural South Africa. It is not a cattle area where one can farm with cattle and sheep. The food of the people has to consist of fish; but the fishing industry has not been developed there. Therefore I want to impress on the Minister that he should not forget Swartvlei and Buffalo-vlei. And just a word of warning to the Minister: Fish is a perishable product. Make haste slowly! If I may give the hon. Minister some advice, then it is not to be in too great a hurry to undertake the marketing and distribution of fish through the State. We have had the experience of the deciduous fruit industry. I hope that it will not be necessary for me to state what our experience has been in regard to the deciduous fruit industry. At the time when a large percentage of our fruit went overseas, the fruit here was plentiful and cheap, but today, although we do not export but have a Deciduous Fruit Board, one cannot obtain fruit at any price. We do not want to have a repetition in the fishing industry of what happened in regard to the deciduous fruit industry and my advice to the Minister is to concentrate on the chief function, namely, to reorganise the fishing industry in such a manner that we raise the standard of the coastal fishing industry and uplift the inshore fishermen. In that respect he can count on our entire support. But he should not attempt to interfere in too great a hurry in the marketing of the product, because he might create the same muddle which we have had in our country in connection with the deciduous fruit industry.

I entirely agree with what the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) says as to the necessity for hastening slowly when it comes to interfering with the existing organisations, that is to say, “The devil you know is sometimes better than the devil you don’t know”. I take his point. As far as his acute interest in his own constituency is concerned I told him this morning that the whole board of the Corporation was down in his area last week examining the whole position, and I am told they examined both Swartvlei and Buffalovlei in company with several important people like the Mayor of Knysna and Mr. Raubenheimer of the Roads Board, and they risked their lives being carried on sledges to see the spot. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) raised the question of price. I do not take the view that the price of fish should be raised by the operations of this Corporation. On the contrary, by extra efficiency they should be decreased, but what we should achieve is a stabilisation which over a year will probably give the fishermen a better return and possibly even reduce the average price over the year to the consumer, in the same way has happened in respect of butter by the activities of the Dairy Control Board. I feel that this resolution has the overwhelming support of this House and there is very little for me to reply to. All the points raised by hon. members who have objections to the resolution have already been dealt with by other hon. members, but there is one point I wish to refer to that was dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) on the question of the “B” shares. I outlined fully this morning the intention and the purpose for which the “B” share capital is asked to be used, and that is what it will be used for. As far as the fishermen’s shares are concerned I made it clear it is unlikely they would be issued, but if they were the capital raised from the fishermen’s shares would be used for the purposes stated here already, and in consequence fewer shares would be required to be taken up by the Government. So the total investment is £155,000. If the shares are issued to the fishermen we shall require correspondingly less. There is little else for me to reply to except I want to say once more I do not accept the argument that anything in this proposal is other than absolutely in line with the policy adopted by this House last year. I do not accept that the amendment I accepted last year was intended to restrict the activities of the Corporation to the object covered by the “A” shares or to prevent the encroachment of the State on the sphere of private enterprise. That was not the purpose. The purpose was this, that the powers given to the Corporation under the Bill last year were extremely wide. They were wide enough to enable it, as was stated in evidencé in the Select Committee, to establish a complete fishing industry, a nationalised organisation. That was not the intention. For that reason whilst leaving the powers latent in the Act in order that they could be used if necessary to attain the objects of the Corporation, we circumscribed those powers by saying: In order to exercise those powers and in order to obtain the issue of “B” shares for the purpose you shall come to Parliament to state the policy you are following so that Parliament may be able to satisfy itself it is in line with the purpose of this Act. I agree with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). His Party cannot be expected to vouch for the soundness or success of any particular investment by the Corporation. That must be left to the board of the Corporation who are charged with that specifically. I feel very gratified that the activities of the Corporation so far have had the support of this House and I have no doubt that their future operations will be worthy of the support the House has bestowed so far.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

In moving the second reading of the Electoral Laws Amendment Bill I should like to explain that the original Bill was a Bill that was prepared by the various electoral officers of the Union in order that we should have a Bill dealing with the experiences they gained in connection with the matter. I then reported the Bill, before the second reading to a Select Committee for the House presided over by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark). I want to pay a tribute to that Select Committee. They have improved the Bill the second reading of which I am moving at the present moment. The principal features of the Bill before the House are those which provide for continuous registration and for permanent changes of address of registered voters to be reported to the electoral officer for the area in which the new address is situate. Apart from the saving of the ever-increasing cost of a biennial registration under the existing system (over £100,000 in 1941) and the use of literally millions of sheets of paper required for the various lists, forms and index cards which are prescribed under the present system, one great advantage of the system proposed in the Bill is that when a person has completed an application form in duplicate for registration, he is registered permanently for the rest of his life or stay in the Union, unless he becomes disqualified by conviction. If he moves permanently from a residence in one electoral division to a residence in another division, he must inform the electoral officer concerned and it becomes the duty of that officer to remove his name from the Voters’ List for the division in which he lived and to insert his name in the Voters’ List for the division into which he has moved. Under the present system, every registered voter (of whom there are now 1,400,000) must complete a registration form every two years but that requirement disappears under the provisions of the Bill. At present if a person is registered as a voter at a biennial registration in the month of April, as the list does not become valid until January of the following year, it is nine months before he can vote. Under the Bill he can vote as soon as his name is on the list, after two months’ residence in the division in which his new address is situate, provided, of course that he has completed and delivered or posted to the electoral officer a form of application to be registered as a voter, or has informed that officer of any permanent change in his address. Revision courts disappear, any objections to registration or to rejection of applications to be registered or to removal of names from the Voters’ List, being lodged for decision with the electoral officer concerned. If objectors are not satisfied with the decision of the electoral officer, they may appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer and if not satisfied with the decision of that officer, they may appeal to a Judge in Chambers. To enable political organisations to keep Voters’ Lists up-to-date provision is made in the Bill for monthly returns of changes such as new entries or deletions of names of persons who have become registered in other divisions or have died or become disqualified, to be supplied to representatives of political parties. Existing franchise qualifications have not been amended and the provisions of the Bill in Clauses 31 to 36 inclusive are consequential amendments in respect of the commencement of periods of registration, which are a feature of the existing scheme. Clause 38 remedies an omission in the principal Act. At present there is no provision for appointment of a substitute for a returning officer who during the progress of an election becomes ill or dies. Clause 39 provides (1) for the nomination of a candidate for election to be possible at any time after the issue of the proclamation ordering the election; (2) for the written consent of the person nominated, to be a candidate and (3) for the withdrawal of a candidate, up to the close of the nomination court. Clause 40. In 1931 the Electoral Law was amended to provide for the establishment of a second polling station in a polling district for the use of female voters only in view of undesirable occurrences associated with nonEuropean voters. The amendment in the present Bill enables the Minister to establish additional polling stations where necessary. Clause 44. The reason for the change contemplated in this clause is that at almost every General Election, parcels or packages of election documents go astray. After the last General Election, the ballot papers and election documents from one electoral division were lost on the railways and in view of the necessity for absolute secrecy of the ballot, provision is made in the Bill for retention of election documents and ballot papers by the returning officer, counterfoils of ballot papers being sent to the Chief Electoral Officer. It will be quite impossible under this arrangement for anyone to ascertain how any person voted. Clause 43 and other similar clauses. The Chief Electoral Officer is substituted for the Minister in certain cases in which, under the delegating provisions of Section 24 of Act No. 35 of 1931, the Minister has delegated his powers and duties to the Chief Electoral Officer. Clause 48 corrects an omission in amending the principal Act in 1940. Clauses 50 and 51. The Select Committee recommends that the display of national flags should not be used for election purposes. Clause 52. It is not desirable that political meetings should be held in any building in which intoxicating liquor can be obtained. Clauses 53 and 54. These amendments are consequential upon change in the system of registration. Clause 55. Remedies a defect in principal Act. At present intoxicating liquor may not be supplied in any division in which an election is being held. On the occasion of a by-election in an urban area comprised of more than one division, if any voter or other person interested in the election wishes to obtain intoxicating liquor, he need only cross the boundary line, i.e. from one side of a street to the other—and he can at once obtain such liquor at the nearest bar or hotel. The amendment in the Bill prevents the defeat of the object of the provision in the principal Act. Clauses 57, 58, 59, 60 and 61. These are consequential and amendments which, in the experience of the Department, are desirable. Clause 62. In the Amendment Act of 1940, the Department provided for persons who were seriously ill or infirm or (if a female) was pregnant, to vote as an absent voter. The proposal was wrecked in the House owing to a conflict of ideas as to the furnishing of a certificate. In the provision now made in the Bill, there is no reference to any certificate. The applicant makes an affirmation as to the reason for the application and if that affirmation is false to the knowledge of the declarant, he or she may on conviction be subject to a fine not exceeding £50. Clause 63: In this clause, an amendment affects the period up to which a returning officer may receive applications for absent voters’ ballot papers. The period originally was eight days. This was later reduced to five days and in 1940—though the Department did not recommend it, the period was further reduced to three days. As elections are generally held on a Wednesday, this meant that the returning officer had to receive applications up to 4 p.m. on a Sunday. Under the provisions of Section 141 of the Act, this in effect meant that he had to receive applications up to 4 p.m. on a Monday—two days before polling day. Under the provisions of paragraph 9 of the Voting by Post Regulations, the returningofficer is required to issue the ballot paper and other documents not later than the day following, i.e. one day before polling day. In practice this seriously interferes with the work of the returning officer. He is required to indicate the issue of absent voters’ ballot papers in each copy of the Voters’ Lists to be used by polling officers at the various polling stations in the division and when a division consists of 20 to 50 polling districts, the immense amount of work involved will be apparent. Clauses 64 and 65. The period in the amendment is restored to five days, i.e. the Friday previous to the polling day. This will enable the returning officer to mark the lists and get the election material for each polling station ready on the Saturday and during the week-end. The returning officer usually distributes the material and instructs the presiding officers on the Monday prior to the election and the period up to which he can receive applications for absent voters’ ballot papers should not in any circumstances be less than five days before polling day. Clause 66 enables an absent voter to exercise choice. He may personally deliver or post his completed ballot paper and other documents to the returning officer or he may hand these to the officer before whom he completes them, as is now the practice. At almost every election the Department has been requested to authorise this procedure owing to the post having closed or gone but under the existing provisions in the regulations, no such authority could be given. Clause 67. Enquiries have frequently been addressed to the Department as to the validity of a ballot paper marked by a voter in cases where the voter died before 7 a.m. on polling day. There being no provision in the existing regulations, the clause remedies the omission. Clause 68. This amendment is consequential upon the amendment in Clause 44. Clauses 69 to 73 inclusive. These are consequential upon the changes in the system or registration which, under the earlier provisions of this Bill, is proposed to be continuous and not in biennial or supplementary periods. Clause 74. The amendment provides for the disenfranchisement of persons ordered to be detained in work colonies while so detained, a provision transferred from the Work Colonies Act of 1927. The amendments to Clauses 75 to 79 inclusive are consequential. I have no hesitation in asking hon. members to give this Bill their full support. When this Bill is passed, as I feel confident it will be passed by this House, because it is not a controversial Bill but a technical one which was conceived and dealt with purely from a non-Party point of view, for the purpose of making our electoral machinery as simple as possible, next year we will be able to have what my predecessor in office suggested should be done, and what is very necessary, namely a consolidating Bill dealing with the electoral laws.

We on this side of the House support the Bill. It means a step forward, but unfortunately it does not go far enough and for that reason we shall discuss it further during the Committee Stage. There are a few points in regard to which we think that the Bill does not go far enough and to those we may come back during the Committee Stage. For the moment I only want to make a few general remarks. First of all I regard this Bill as a good example of what happens when the Government agrees to sending a Bill, if necessary, before the second reading, to a Select Committee. If one takes up the attitude that our legislation in this country should be thoroughly prepared, then it is desirable as we have stressed lately, that it should be referred to a Select Committee. This Bill is an example of what a Select Committee can achieve if such a Select Committee faithfully carries out its duties and works as hard as I may say the other hon. members of this Select Committee have worked. I maintain that this Bill is a step in the right direction. We were pleased to hear from the Minister that next year we shall have a consolidating measure. Consolidating legislation in regard to our electoral laws is more than overdue. I hope that the Government will avail itself fully of the services of a certain official, viz. Mr. Owens, who in my opinion is an outstanding official in South Africa as far as technical and practical knowledge of the Electoral Law is concerned. I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government intends making use of his services. If it should be necessary to send him overseas in order to make a study of the electoral systems in other countries, I hope that the Government will not fail in affording him the necessary facilities to do so. I maintain that the Government acted wisely in referring this Bill to a Select Committee. If you compare the Bill which we have today before us with the Bill as referred to the Select Committee, you will notice that important alterations have been made therein. I am almost inclined to say that those alterations were drastic. For that reason it is of interest to read carefully the Bill as originally introduced and the Bill now before us. Before I go into this matter, I should like to point out that in the Select Committee it unfortunately became clear that as far as certain provisions of the Bill are concerned, a difference of opinion exists on certain principles between this side of the House and that side of the House—a difference of opinion which is so wide that in some respects it seems, in my opinion, insurmountable. The hon. members who have read the report of the Select Committee will have noticed that there were serious conflicts of opinion on certain points. One can assume that the Select Committee reflects the opinion of the two sides of the House, of the United Party on the one hand and of the Nationalist Party on the other hand. I want to refer to two points where there were sharp clashes of opinion and where, as its seems to me, there exists no possibility of bridging the gap. The first one concerns a national registration. The attitude of the Nationalist Party in regard to a national registration of the population is well known. The impression I received in the Select Committee, and one will most likely also receive that impression in this House, is that the United Party is not prepared to bring about a registration of the whole population. However one may regret the fact it became apparent in the Select Committee that the question of a national registration is such an important point of difference that it is insurmountable. It will be of little use to go into this question except to say— I have still to hear from the members on the other side whether it will not be in the real interests of South Africa to obtain once and for all a register of the whole population, so that the basic composition of our population in this country may be determined. At the commencement of the Session I was almost surprised to hear that the Minister was prepared to introduce legislation to make provision for the continuous registration of all adult Europeans in South Africa. In the Select Committee we then said: If you are prepared to say A, why not say B too? If you are willing to take down the names and the particulars of all Europeans in this country above the age of 21 years, why are you not willing to take down all the particulars of all Europeans in South Africa, and to also take it down in regard to all natives and coloured persons in South Africa, so that we may know where we stand? Our country is suffering much damage on account of the lack of a complete population register. I maintain that the time is more than due— I do not want to go fully into the matter again—that we should bring the pouplation and the races of South Africa on a fixed basis of registration so that in future there can no longer be any doubt about who is who. But leave it at that. In the Select Committee it became apparent that as far as this point is concerned, there is a difference in the points of view of the two parties which is insurmountable. Another difference of opinion concerns the colour question. On this point too, it seems to me, that there is an abyss between the Nationalist Party and the United Party, as far as the political representation of the coloured people is concerned, which is unbridgeable. In a few moments I shall go further into that question. I want to come back once more to the amendments in our electoral laws which have also been approved by the Select Committee. I think these amendments are in the best interests of the country. The first amendment of the electoral laws which was agreed to by the Select Committee is that there shall be a continuous registration of all European persons above the age of 21 years and that this will be made compulsory. The penalty on evasions has been increased. It will now be a fine of £25 or three months imprisonment. In regard hereto the Select Committee also inserted the provision that the Minister shall table a report every year in which will be indicated how many people have been prosecuted in terms of that provision during the previous year. This is a drastic measure, but the Select Committee considered that it was an essential one for South Africa. Another important change brought about by the Select Committee is the following. The Government proposed that if one did not object, within three weeks after a person had been registered, against his registration, one could never in future object again in that case. The Select Committee said: No, if there is to be continuous registration, there must also be a continuous opportunity to object against a person who has been registered or in regard to a person who has not been registered. The Committee inserted such an amendment and I am pleased that the Government has introduced the Bill with this alteration. It is in the interests of the people that if there is a continuous registration, one shall also always have an opportunity to lodge objections. Another alteration which has been made is the following. In South Africa we have become accustomed to the revision courts. Since 1918 we have heard much already about these electoral revision courts. That revision court is now being abolished by virtue of this Bill, and in the place of it the Union will be divided into ten areas. At the head of each area there will be an elctoral officer and you have to lodge your objection with him if you object against a person who has been registered or in regard to one who does not appear on the list. This is a very radical change. If you are dissatisfied with the officer’s decision, you do not go to court, as is the position at present. From such officer in his area you first appeal to the Chief Electoral Officer in Pretoria. Only when you are also dissatisfied with his decision you can go to court about it. That is now the provision in regard to appeals. Another provision which is new and which has been inserted by the Select Committee and which is also essential, is that a definition is now given of a non-European, which will regulate the colour problem as far as electors are concerned. As a matter of fact the Select Committee accepted the definition of “native” appearing in the native segregation laws of 1936, which gave separate political representation to natives in our Parliament. That definition is now also being applied to the Electoral Law. It is a very far-reaching step, but it is also a step which is very welcome. What does that definition say? It says that the child of whom one of the parents is a native, will be considered to be a native. I mention this with pleasure, because South Africa can only base its future on that principle. If we do not want a tremendous increase in our coloured poplation in this country, we have to call a halt in some way or another, and in that definition we call a halt as far as the coloured voters are concerned. However much miscegenation there has been amongst natives, as far as the electoral provisions of the law are concerned, and I do hope that this definition will be applied right throughout our social life, the natives can no longer, as far as the electorate is concerned, cause the number of coloured voters to be increased unduly, for in future every child whose father or grandfather, or mother or grandmother is a native, will be considered to be a native. If one of the parents or grandparents is a native, then that child will also be a native. That is one of the welcome and most important provisions in this Bill. Furthermore, there is some dead wood which has been cut out. Remarkably enough the Minister introduced a proposal which I did not expect from him and which would have put a damper on all public meetings. Whether he was thinking of Klerksdorp or some other meeting I do not know. We do not know at which meeting the Minister may have got the mitten, but in the Bill he proposed that any person who might do something at a political meeting to disturb the proceedings, would be liable to a fine of not more than £50. In the Select Committee this clause became known as the “kill joy” clause.

It was not the Minister’s proposal.

Then I have to apologise. But it was a provision in his Bill all the same. Seeing that the hon. member now tells us that there is some other sinister hand behind this clause, he is bound to know who it is. I am glad that at the stage when this clause became the butt of ridicule in the Select Committee, it was withdrawn by the Government. Another provision to be found in the Bill as originally drafted was the following. You will remember that when a person was sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine he lost his vote for three years thereafter. The Government came with a proposal saying that this was too drastic and that one had to wait until a man received a sentence of six months’ imprisonment without the option, and then only he would lose his vote for three years. I am glad that at a certain stage the Government was prepared also to withdraw that proposal. The section now reads that if a person is sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, he loses his vote for the following three years, except in cases where the imprisonment or detention is only for a few hours or few minutes until the rising of the court on that particular day. Another change brought about by the Select Committee is the following and that closes my remarks on these points. It is obvious that our Voters’ Lists will now change continually, and since every month new supplementary lists will have to be composed by the Department, the Select Committee recommended that those lists should now be available every month at all police stations in our country so that, since you are putting a heavy penalty on a person for failure to register, he will also have easy access to the Voters’ List. The Select Committee thought it advisable to insert such a provision, and I am pleased that the Government introduced the Bill with that provision, namely that the Voters’ Lists will be available at the police stations for the information of the public in that vicinity. Furthermore the officials of the political parties will also receive copies of the Voters’ Lists as amended from time to time.

What happens where there is no police station?

Unfortunately we could not make provision for that contingency. Our idea was to lay down that it should be hung in all Post Offices, but the Department was of the opinion that there are too many Post Offices and that this would require too many copies. The hon. member can, however, put forward such a proposal during the Committee stage and I am sure the Minister will then consider it.

Some electors are living at a great distance from the police station.

There is much to be said for the argument of the hon. member. He can raise this matter during the Committee stage, and we can then see what can be done. This will suffice as far as the amendments are concerned. There are still some minor points in regard to which amendments were made but I do not want to discuss those now. I want to confine myself now to the first clash of opinions which apparently reflects the difference of opinion in this House in regard to the colour bar. I am very sorry that whereas we have here in South Africa, so far as the natives are concerned, progressed to such an extent that we could agree to give the natives separate political representation, we have not yet reached that same stage as far as our coloured people are concerned. There is no doubt that one day South Africa will reach that stage. It is only the United Party which today is diametrically opposed to us. If only we can get rid of the United Party, we shall be able to provide for the colour bar in South Africa as far as politics are concerned. It is only the United Party which is barring the way to separate political representation for the coloured people. There is no actual difficulty in this regard but our only difficulty is the Acting Prime Minister and his Party and the attitude he takes up. I want to read out what his point of view is in regard to separate represenation for natives. It is the same point of view which he and his Party today adopt in regard to separate political representation for coloured people. It is the point of view of the Acting Prime Minister which is barring the way. If it had depended on him we would not even have had separate political representation for natives only, but South Africa progressed more rapidly than the Acting Prime Minister. South Africa passed him and he has remained far behind. It took the Nationalist Party from 15 to 17 years to get the majority of the South African Party so far as to be prepared to give separate political representation to natives in 1936. I hope that we will not need so much time for persuading the members of the United Party to grant separate political representation to the coloured people too. In the Select Committee we tried to select the province from which we thought we would get the strongest support, namely the province of the Minister of the Interior, the Natal province, and we said: Let us abolish the franchise of the coloured people in Natal. Do you think we could achieve that? According to the ruling of Mr. Speaker we could not insert such a provision in this Bill, but then we said: Let the Select Committee make a recommendation to the Government that such legislation should be introduced. You will find that in the Report. When we proposed that it was voted out by the members of the United Party. This side of the House voted in favour of such a provision. We suggested that the coloureds in Natal be given separate political representation just like the natives. We took as a test case the province from which we expected the greatest support, but it then became apparent that the United Party holds such strong views on the matter that they did not even want the coloured people of Natal to have separate representation as distinct from the Europeans. The Transvaal, yes, the Free State, yes, but as soon as you come to Natal, they’ become adamant, including the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) who is a young Afrikaner.

You do not know what my views are. I was not present during that last sitting.

If the hon. member was not present when we voted on this matter, I hope that he will clearly state his point of view here. Perhaps he can now give it to us at once. Is he in favour of the removal of the franchise for coloured people in Natal, is he in favour of separate representation there?

I shall tell you in a moment.

Surely that is a simple question. When we from this side moved a further proposal that the coloured people in the Cape Province should be separated in regard to political representation and that the Cape Province should be divided into three electoral areas and that the coloured people should be able to send three European representatives to this House instead of voting together with the Europeans as is the case now, then the United Party voted against it and turned it down.

Then you touch the franchise, the Constitution

Only the Nationalists on the Select Committee voted in favour of separateness, of separate political representations for the coloured people. The hon. member now maintains that it would be in conflict with the Constitution. Our contention is that on this point the Constitution can be altered by means of an ordinary majority. Our contention is that this Parliament is empowered to pass legislation with an ordinary majority in order to alter the entrenched sections.

In spite of the Speaker’s ruling?

The Speaker’s ruling was that the Select Committee could not insert it in the Bill which is now before us.

Exactly, we are now dealing with this Bill.

Then we proposed a recommendation to this House. We were entitled to do so and the Chairman of the Select Committee also allowed it. I put forward the proposal that the coloured people should have separate political representation, as I explained. Thereupon the members of the United Party voted against it, including the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie). In other words, they do not want to recommend to this House that legislation should be passed which would result in the coloured people being able to obtain separate political representation. Our contention is that this Parliament has the power to pass such legislation by means of an ordinary majority. Here on my desk I have the opinion of two prominent legal men, namely the late Mr. Justice F. W. Beyers, when he was still an advocate, drafted by him in 1932 and supported by advocate H. A. Fagan, at present a judge of the Cape Division. They drafted this legal opinion together. I do not want to read it out from beginning to end because that would take up too much time, but the conclusion which they arrived at after argument was—

What will be the electoral quota?

That is quite another matter again. I do not want to go into that because I do not have the time for it. I am at present only dealing with this point. Our point of view is that Parliament has the right by virtue of the Statute of Westminster, to amend all the entrenched sections by means of an ordinary majority and to pass a law in order to amend the Constitution on that particular point. Thereafter a law can be passed providing that the coloured people will have separate political representation. That is my reply to the hon. member for Rustenburg. We maintain, backed up by the legal opinion of these very prominent legal authorities, that no two-thirds majority is required to amend the entrenched sections of the Constitution since we have become sovereign independent. This Parliament is supreme and can amend the sections with an ordinary majority, and can thereafter introduce a Bill to provide that the coloured people will be placed on a separate Voters’ List and will have separate political representation.

What certainty do you have that that legal opinion is conclusive?

I can only quote it as the opinion of very prominent legal men. The one became a Judge of Appeal and the other is at present a provincial judge. They are people whose opinion deserves the highest respect.

What is the date of that opinion?

It was written in 1932, shortly after the Statute of Westminster had been ratified in Britain. I said that I am very sorry that hon. members on the other side, under the guidance of the Acting Prime Minister, take up the attitude which they now do in regard to separate political representation. It is the same point of view held by the Acting Prime Minister in 1936 in regard to the natives. When this Parliament with a large majority decided that we should have separate political representation of the natives, the Acting Prime Minister stated his views clearly and voted against it. At that time he was our Minister of the Interior and he laid down four axioms which I want to quote because the views he held at that time in regard to the natives—I am very glad he lost then—are the views held today by his Party and himself in regard to separate representation for coloured people. I also want to say, that in the same way as South Africa rejected his point of view in regard to natives, it will also one day reject his point of view in regard to the coloured people. It is merely a matter of time. It is only to be regretted that it should take so much time that South Africa has to suffer so immeasurably as a result of the fact that there are certain people barring the way of this development. When the Acting Prime Minister was the Minister of the Interior, he summed up his objections to separate political representation of natives. His first objection, according to the Hansard report of the Joint Sitting in 1936, was that it would mean a colour bar. It would introduce a colour bar into the Cape Provincial Council. That was his first objection. His second objection was that the Bill of 1936 contained a definition of “native” to which he was opposed. That is the definition embodied in this Bill to which I referred a short while ago. His third objection was that it would place natives on separate lists separated from the Europeans. He said that the removal of all natives who appeared on the Voters’ Lists of the country from those lists was, in his opinion, in conflict with the Constitution. His fourth and last objection against separate political representation of the natives was—

That was his most important point, his greatest objection. These were his four objections against separate political representation for natives. I assume that today these are still the objections he and his Party raise against separate political representation for the coloured people. They now say that they did not want to attempt to deceive the coloured people. In this Bill now before us the United Party in the Select Committee inserted a provision which to my mind very much looks like political deceit. What is it? We proposed that the Europeans should vote at one polling booth and the coloureds at another polling booth in order to achieve political and social separation. What did the United Party say then? No—the hon. member for Rustenburg was one of them—their argument was (I hope I interpret it correctly) that we would hurt the feelings of the coloured people by inserting such a provision. That was the argument of the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure). What did they do then? They accepted a provision which was to deceive the coloured people. They said: Do not tell the coloured people that they will vote at a separate polling booth, separate from the Europeans, but let us do the following and insert a provision in the Bill—and that is how we find it in this Bill before us—that the Minister will have the power to allot serial numbers to all the voters, say for instance from 1 to 6,000 or 7,000, and then the Minister by proclamation can determine that for instance Nos. 1 to 5,000 shall vote at one polling booth and Nos. 5,001 to 7,000 shall vote at another polling booth. In that way you will be able to let the coloured people vote at a separate polling booth. I maintain that they are deceiving the coloured people in that manner. They do not want to say straightforwardly that coloured people shall vote separately from the Europeans, but they want to achieve this by giving serial numbers. We then said: Supposing you make a mistake with one number? As the Voters’ Lists are today you first get the names of the European males,* thereafter the European females and finally the coloured voters. Now supposing they make a mistake and they pass this Bill and the Government determines that Nos. so to so will have to vote at polling booth A and the other numbers at polling booth B. Let us suppose a mistake has been made and that in the proclamation the last number (a European female) falls within the wrong group so that she will have to vote together with the coloured people, what then? Then the Government members had a brilliant idea. They said: Well, we see the danger and we do not want such a position to arise, but if the person concerned is a European male, it will not be so serious. If it is a European female, the United Party will suffer much damage but if it is a European man, it will not be so terrible. So they conceived the bright idea of in future putting the names of the European females first on the Voters’ Lists, and thereafter the names of the European males, so that when a mistake were made in regard to the numbers, it would affect a European man and not a European woman. They want to throw dust in the eyes of the coloured people, but the coloured people will also find them out one day. We then propose to publish the names of the Europeans in one book and the names of the coloured people in another book.

What for?

Then they solidly voted against it. The hon. member asks “what for?” Because we want a total colour bar as far as this matter is concerned. There are polling stations where people do not even heed the coloured Voters’ Lists, but now they have to pay double for the double list because the coloureds are also appearing in the same list. If the Europeans were separately on one list and the coloured voters in another book, it would also be cheaper. Our main reason is that we want separateness. The hon. member asks “Why?” My question as one European to another European is: “Why do you not want it”? The onus is not on me to state why I do not want it. The onus is on him as a European to say why the Coloured voters should not appear in a separate book. That is the question. What do hon. members on the other side, hailing from the Transvaal and Natal, say about this matter? Let them tell us today. The road they are following by giving franchise to coloureds is not the road which the Voortrekkers followed in Natal. Before the English took over Natal, the Voortrekkers upheld the law that only Europeans would have the franchise. Only by an English proclamation of 1856 were non-Europeans also given the franchise in Natal. I tell the hon. members representing Natal that this was not the road of the Voortrekkers. I tell the hon. member for Rustenburg and other hon. members that this was not the road of President Kruger in the Transvaal. Do they want to give the vote to coloured persons in the Transvaal. No, they will violently oppose it. But if you do not want it in your own province, why do you force it down the throats of the people in the Cape. Why do you want the Cape to suffer continually from the fact that at one time it was a British Crown colony? You in the Free State and in the Transvaal years ago escaped the punishment which was laid upon us as a British Crown colony, but in the Cape Province and Natal the coloured franchise has been in force since 1853. Why should we suffer perpetual punishment because at one time we happened to be a Crown colony? [Time limit.]

I do not want to add much to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said. I want to endorse everything he said and I want to express my appreciation to the Minister that he has declared himself willing to consolidate our electoral laws and that he has also agreed to make available the services of his principal official. Mr. Owens, for that purpose. In recent times I have come in contact fairly frequently with Mr. Owens as our chief official and I want to express my appreciation for his help. Especially during the period when feelings ran fairly high and many officials often acted wantonly against people who were of another opinion, Mr. Owens, although he held different views from my own, was always filled with one idea, namely, to give effect to the provisions of the Act and to do his duty as an official. We cannot but express our appreciation of finding an official, especially during these difficult times, who so faithfully carries out his work. As the Minister intends introducing a consolidating measure I want to ask him whether it might not be possible perhaps to draw up a short summary, a popular guide to our electoral laws. Many people have to deal with electoral legislation and unfortunately they are not all in a position to study all our electoral laws and a summarised popular handbook on the electoral Act would be of great value to our people. I hope that the hon. Minister will give his attention to this matter. Then I should like to add a few remarks to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said in regard to a general registration of the population. If there is one thing which has now become a national necessity in South Africa then it is a compulsory national registration. The time has come that this should be incor porated in our laws and I hope that the Minister will in future keep this in mind continually. If we look at all aspects of our social life, we begin to realise that we can only build up a happy future for South Africa if we first have a foundation on which to build. A healthy economic fixture and especially the achievement of a healthy moral growth of the population can only be realised if we have this compulsory national registration, and this is essential not only from the point of view of racial separation, etc. but also for the building up of a healthy people. I also want to say a few words in addition to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said in regard to separateness. We must admit that there are times when the proper relationship between European and non-European is seriously disturbed and disrupted, namely, during election time. To a great extent the non-Europeans who have the vote simply become a political football during that time. That is not a healthy condition and it does not promote a sound relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans. During the last few years we have witnessed the results of separateness in connection with our native problem. I think that every person who has the interests of the natives and the interests of South Africa at heart will today be able to say that it was a very sound and fortunate step when we established separateness in regard to native political representation. It not only was to the advantage of South Africa as a whole but also of the native population itself. We are now in a position to approach the whole native problem from an objective point of view and the natives as well as everybody else profit by it. What is true in regard to native interests is also true today in regard to the interests of the coloured people. Ultimately it will be only to the advantage of the coloured people and of the whole of South Africa if the franchise can be split up and they can obtain separate representation. Reference is often made to the colour bar. The fact is that we do hold the point of view of separateness and of a colour bar in South Africa and everybody can witness the fact that the non-European races are to a large extent already satisfied with it. Only political agitators among the nonEuropean races raise all kinds of objections against it and we notice that fact in particular in regard to the Communist group which exploits this in a most unfair manner and uses it against the European. Also from the point of view of the political position of the other side of the House it will ultimately be to the benefit of South Africa, that effect is given to that policy. I just want to point out that although some hon. members on the other side are not prepared to accept a policy of political separateness, they should remember that the time is very near and that the signs are very clear that they, together with us on this side, will harvest the bitter fruits of the policy they are following and that the advantages of such a policy, which is opposed to separateness, will only be obtained by one section, namely, the Communist section. It is a fact today that a very large percentage of the coloured people are already politically under the influence of the Communist group, which is a very dangerous omen for the future of our country. If hon. members on the other side want to be really great and want to take a wise step, they should immediately adopt the attitude of this side of the House in regard to this matter. For that reason there should no longer be any doubt about it, that this is the obvious direction in which matters are running. It is essential that, as in the case of natives, there should be separate Voters’ Lists and a separate vote also in regard to the coloured people. I do not want to add much to this, but I want to stress that it is a fact which everybody who watches the development of South Africa will admit, namely, that on election day clashes sometimes take place, and that sometimes these conflicts are of such a nature that the good relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans becomes rather upset, and that a state of affairs is created which is not at all in the real interest of a sound relationship between Europeans and non-Europeanss. If that position could be remedied it would do a great deal to improve the future relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa and this would contribute greatly to the furtherance of our national welfare. There is still one other matter I want to suggest. It was also discussed in the Select Committee, namely, that the Minister should consider publishing with every Voters’ List in every electoral division a map of such a division. It will be very handy and very useful if every Voters’ List can be accompanied by a map of the electoral division concerned. It may mean some additional expenditure but on the other hand it will be of very great value during election time. Then there is another very important question which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and that is the different quotas for our urban and rural constituencies and I want to ask the Minister to consider very seriously increasing the quota of our rural constituencies. There are many factors which have to be taken into account in determining the value of a vote. I want to point to the excellent example which Australia has given us in this respect, namely, that the quotas fixed for rural constituencies are much higher than the quotas for the urban constituencies. In South Africa we have the phenomenon that the towns to a large extent are being played off against the rural areas. That is not a healthy state of affairs. As a result you get a large scale agitation on the part of the towns to entirely do away with the quota for the rural constituencies. That is a very unhealthy state of affairs. I want to suggest to the Minister that if he wants to take the best interests of the country into consideration, he should increase the present quota in regard to rural constituencies very considerably.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but that subject does not come under this Bill. The question of delimitation does not come under this Bill at all.

I only mentioned that incidentally. Then there is another very important point in regard to the Bill, namely, the following: It is laid down there that no flag which “is” or “was” a national flag of any country shall be displayed on election day. I want to emphasise that we want to suggest very strongly that the words “or was” should be taken out of the Bill because it will only cause trouble. We know and hon. members on the other side also admit that the purpose of these words was in fact meant to prohibit the use of the Vierkleur of the Free State and the Transvaal. We know what the Vierkleur means to the Free Staters and the Transvalers. We know what the sentiments of the voters are in this respect on election day. On election day you will not find a single Nationalist in the Transvaal who will worry about the provision in the Act, and I want to state quite frankly—although I am a very loyal and obedient citizen— that on election day I am not going to comply with this provision. I will be prepared to bear the consequences of committing an offence against the law and you will be surprised, when these cases will have to be brought to court, how many thousands of Nationalists there will be who will have to appear in court. I am not in favour of looking for trouble. I therefore want to appeal very earnestly to the Minister to take out those words “or was” from the Bill in order to prevent the difficulties we will obviously have to face. The Vierkleur occupies a very important position in the liearts of our Freestaters and Transvalers and there is no power or law in the whole world which will compel us not to hoist our Vierkleur on election day. During the last election we had the instance of a very dignified lady who brought the Vierkleur a little bit too near the polling station, at least in the opinion of the police, and the result was that that lady who was always a very good-natured and gentle lady gave the police officer concerned a smack in his face, which knocked him over, and that was the end of action being taken against the Vierkleur. That only shows how strongly we feel about the Vierkleur. If the Minister deletes those words from the Bill he will prevent a lot of unnecessary trouble. With these few words I want to conclude and I only want to say that we appreciate the attitude of the Minister in regard to this legislation, also during the Select Committee stage. It was something which convinced us that good work can be done in future if a matter is handled in the way in which the Minister handled this matter.

At the outset I should like to congratulate the Minister on having referred this Bill to a select committee. I think if the Minister compares the original Bill that was referred to the Select Committee with the Bill as it has come back from the Select Committee, he will frankly admit ….

I wished the committee luck.

…. and he is doing it now—that the Bill as it has come back is a very improved one. I do not want to cast any reflection on whoever drew up the original Bill. I also want to join the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) in expressing appreciation to Mr. Owen and to Dr. Steyn and others who sat with us all these days on the Select Committee. In connection with the Electoral Law and the legal position we received exceptional services from these officials and we appreciate them highly. I want to voice my appreciation to the Minister on his having reached the stage where he says that next year we shall have consolidating legislation. It has long been necessary for us to have a consolidating Act.

If this Bill goes through we shall get it.

The Minister says we shall get it if this Bill goes through. That depends on the Minister himself. If the Minister will now be gracious and remain gracious and accept valuable amendments we have no objection to the Bill going through. I hope that when that consolidating Bill comes before the House that the House will have the service of those officials, and that those officials and the joint work of all sides will then provide us with a consolidating Bill which everyone in this House and in the country can be proud of. I shall not dwell long on that special point. I do not blame anyone for the Bill as it was drafted. Let us leave it at that. But the fact remains that this Bill went to a Select Committee and was dealt with thoroughly there. There were consultations for days on end, and the Select Committee came with a Bill before this House which, in my opinion, was a big improvement on the original Bill. I only wish to refer—and I hope the Minister will allude to this in his reply—to certain points on which the Select Committee made recommendations. Now I must unfortunately refer to two sorts of recommendations that were made there. One set of recommendations was adopted unanimously by the committee. The Minister will find them on page 19 of the report of the Select Committee. I shall now just ask the Minister to tell the House in his reply to the second reading debate what his answer is in connection with the matter. I refer, in the first place, to the resolutions that were unanimously adopted by the Select Committee, and the first is this—

I only want to refer to the fact that this is a question that has been discussed on previous occasions, and I clearly recall that we made this proposition in the past when Mr. Stuttaford was still Minister of the Interior, and he said that he approved this recommendation, that it was highly necessary and that he hoped it could be done. I mention this merely to show that it is very necessary the Minister should give his attention to this recommendation. It frequently happens at elections that confusion arises amongst the voters not only between one electoral division and another but also between a polling district and another polling district, and when the boundary line between the electoral divisions and also between the polling districts are indicated on the map much of the confusion that now arises can be prevented. I want to give the Minister the assurance that with such a map many of the difficulties that arise, the duplication of votes that frequently occur and of which we had many examples at the last election, can be prevented. People come along and their votes are registered in different districts. Many of these things can be avoided if the Voters’ List is accompanied with a proper map on which the voting districts are properly demarcated, and the voter will have in his hand a map on which his electoral division and his polling district are clearly defined. I want to ask the Minister whether he will accept that recommendation. Then there is the second recommendation that was unanimously adopted by the Select Committee and which runs as follows—

As far as this matter is concerned I only want, to emphasise that it is a recommendation that was also adopted by members on the other side of the House after there was a definite vote against a recommendation which originated from this side of the House, namely, that we should have absolutely separate Voters’ Lists. I do not think I am betraying a secret when I say that at a certain stage in that committee we really were in hearty agreement on the necessity for having separate Voters’ Rolls. I still recall that there was no serious objection. As the Voters’ Roll is at present compiled—I am referring now to the Cape Voters’ Rolls—it has three sections. In the first section you have the names of the male voters, then follow the names of the female voters, and finally you have the names of the non-European voters. This is necessary and this was the standpoint of this side of the House on that committee, that we should consistently follow out that good dividing line, that we should not only have that dividing line as far as the Voters’ Roll being in one volume is concerned, but that we should have two volumes. The hon. member for Moorreesburg stated clearly what the reason for that was. The reason is obvious. This side of the House uses those coloured Voters’ Rolls. There are many polling districts where people never look into the rolls, and we say that we want to have a separate list. Let it be printed then in two separate volumes, but as the proposal that there should be two separate volumes was not adopted we agreed to this as the second alternative, but we want to add that this is our standpoint, and this is our request to the Minister, that this provision should be laid down in the Bill, that it is not sufficient for us merely to accept this recommendation but we want to see that provision laid down in the law. As the recommendation now stands it was our second alternative, and I would only say that the necessity is very strong for having two separate lists. That must be laid down in the law. In the history of South Africa, and especially in the history of this Parliament, many changes have occurred in reference to the portfolio of Minister of the Interior. You do not know who is going to be Minister of the Interior tomorrow. We think it has been a good practice until now —it was the second best—to have a separate list, even if it is in the one book, and what we desire is that the basis of there being a seperate roll should be laid down in the law, so that any Minister who may take over the portfolio from the present Minister cannot follow a different procedure according to his own whim. I would like to put it in this way to hon. members on the other side: Is it right and proper that those rolls should be kept separate? If it is right and proper let us lay it down in the Statute; let us lay it down in the law. My reply to this argument that we should not insert it for fear of hurting the feelings of the coloured people is that all these years there have been separate rolls, and the coloured people have never complained, so why should there now be a complaint if it is laid down in practice and in the law that there should be separate rolls for Europeans and coloureds. I hope the Minister will meet us and lay down in the law that he will keep these Voters’ Rolls apart and that no one, either his successor or himself, will be able to effect an alteration whereunder that separation will be disturbed. The danger mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg is a very real danger, and it is that by a technical error you may arrive at that position that mixed voting can occur, and that might have very serious results. This brings me to the third point—

I have already spoken about this, but I should like to pass on to this question on which in most instances there was no unanimity in the committee, though we should like to have it, and the points on which there was no unanimity were those mentioned by the hon. member for Moorreesburg, in the first instance the question of general national registration, and in the second instance the creation of a clear dividing line as far as concerns Europeans and non-Europeans. And now I want to say this quite clearly: We on this side proposed—and it was unfortunately defeated —that it should be clearly laid down in the law that there should be separate ballot boxes, that there should be separate ballot boxes where non-Europeans would not crowd with Europeans at the one ballot box. It is when this crowding together occurs that friction arises, and this is where the clashes develop. Now I want to put this question very clearly to the Minister. In the past we had the position in the Cape that the European male and the non-European male went together to the one ballot box. That is what we had. The Minister had the right, under the old law, of being able to decide that in respect of certain electoral divisions European males and non-European males should vote at the one polling booth, and that female Europeans should vote at a separate polling booth, sometimes just across the street. We found that this was a good thing that European women had not to mix with coloureds at the same voting station; and if this was nice and fine, having the European women voting separately then it is equally nice and fine that European men should also vote separately—purely European. Accordingly we proposed and we are in favour of that now, that the Minister should provide and lay down in the law that where it is necessary and where this herding together may occur, he should make this division and that there should be separate ballot boxes for white men and women on the one side and for coloureds on the other side, and I should like the Minister to give a clear expression of his views on this matter when he replies to the debate. I only want to mention here that these were the two proposals before the Select Committee where the question of separation came up for discussion; it was principally in regard to the Voters’ Rolls and separate ballot boxes. Now today I want to state that on the question of separation South Africa has gone further than it has ever previously done in the history of our people. There may be people on the other side who say we must not force the question, we must allow it to develop of its own accord along the line of evolution, that it will come right of itself, we must not take drastic measures. Let me just say this, that South Africa has progressed further on the question of separation than it has ever done before, that today in South Africa public opinion is growing, a public opinion that is becoming stronger and stronger in the country, and that demands this separation in every sphere, and I maintain this is attributable to the attitude of the Nationalist Party because it has pleaded all these years for that policy of separation. If the people had said years ago that we should not adopt measures to effect separation, that we should allow it to occur on evolutionary lines, then I ask where we would be standing in respect of the colour dividing line. If we had adopted this argument of not forcing the issue in regard to Voters’ Rolls and if we had allowed development to proceed on evolutionary lines, we would never have laid it down in the law that there should be separation. If we proceeded along those lines the native would today still have been on the European Voters’ Roll, but it is because this side of the House has always taken action regarding the question of separation that gradually public opinion has been formed in this country, and that public opinion has become so strong that even hon. members on the other side can no longer resist the pressure of that public opinion, and they are gradually being compelled to adopt that policy that we have preached all these years. I only want to refer the Minister to the argument mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister—it has already been alluded to by the hon. member for Moorreesburg—when the Acting Prime Minister said at that time that he was averse to native’s vote appearing on a separate Voters’ Roll, that it should have a separate electoral division, and the principle he mentioned was this: “To me it appears to be in conflict with the spirit of the constitution”. And although it appeared to him to be in conflict with the spirit of the constitution that measure was piloted through at the time, that Gordian knot was cut through, and that step was taken. I ask whether there is anyone in the House who wishes to return to the old position. I want to put the question to hon. members on the other side. Was it fit and proper that we should have placed the native on a separate electoral division as he is today? Is there a single member who will rise in his place and maintain that he wants the native to vote alongside the European? And yet that is an argument that was used at that time, and it is precisely the same argument you hear again today. Is there any member on the other side who will now stand up and say that we should not give a separate franchise to the coloured person, that we should not have him on a separate Voters’ Roll, because it appears to us this is in conflict with the spirit of the constitution. The hon. member for Moorreesburg mentioned the legal point in this connection. Let me clearly put this question: As we are dealing with an important Bill affecting our electoral laws, irrespective of the legal position, is it right and proper or is it not right that the native should be placed on a separate list, that there should be separate electoral divisions for the native, that they should have separate representation in this House. Is it right or is it wrong? And if it is right we should have the courage of our convictions and we should stand up and take that step in the case of the coloured people. I can understand the position of hon. members on the other side. There are two schools of thought on the other side of the House. There are members on the other side who are just as anxious as we are to put the coloured person on a separate Voters’ Roll, but today they sit there bound to that side and they do not want to be disloyal to their Party. I would merely state that if it had not been for the presence on that Select Committee of the hon. member for Hotten-tots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) and the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure), I wonder whether that recommendation would have come from the committee that this step should have been taken? But the hon. members on the opposite benches, the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) amongst others, may feel just as I do about separation, but they dare not plead for it. They dare not leave their Party in the lurch. This is the actual position in connection with this serious question. Unfortunately this is the position as far as it affects the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland, the hon. member for Paarl and other hon. members who are dependent on the coloured vote for getting their seats in this House. I say that those members have not enough white people as supporters in their constituencies to vote for them. They need the coloured vote to enable them to come and sit here. But the day will arrive when they will have to see beyond their personal interests and their Party policy and when we shall have to take this step in the case of the coloured person, just as we took it in the case of the native in 1936, and we shall place the coloured people on separate Voters’ Rolls. South Africa will be confronted in the ensuing years with many grave decisions. It is very clear to us who are in touch with public life that the path of South Africa, as far as public life is concerned, will not be strewn with roses. Very weighty decisions will have to be taken, and it is necessary that when these decisions are arrived at Party interests should be set on one side and that we should vote in the best interests of the maintenance of European civilisation in South Africa. I am pleading for this and I should like the Minister to stand up now and tell us as the responsible Minister what his policy is not his personal policy, but his policy as Minister of the Interior, and what the policy of the Government is on this question. I should like to reiterate these three main points. If a thing is right put it down in the Statute Book; affirm it in the Statute Book. Do not let us argue about these things tomorrow and the next day in this House. If it is the policy of the Government that there should be separate polling booths for Europeans and coloured people, or should there not be separate polling booths? What is the Government’s policy? And if it is the policy to have separate polling booths, will the Minister then stand up and state in replying to the second reading debate—and thereby he will be improving his Bill and gratifying public opinion—that in the future he will not allow any intermingling of Europeans and coloured people at these polling booths. Let the hon. Minister also say this in respect if the Voters’ Rolls. Let the hon. Minister make a statement on behalf of the Government, not on his own behalf but on behalf of the Government as to what his standpoint and the standpoint of the Government is in connection with the proposal by this side of the House to have a separate electoral division and separate representation for the coloureds, just as the natives now have a separate electoral division. I have stressed certain points on which we differ. For the benefit of the Minister I should like to refer him to page 18 of the Select Committe’s report. He can read it there. He has it before him in English. There are two pro posals affecting this matter that were made by the hon. member for Moorreesburg and both these proposals were rejected. The members on the Government side turned them down. The one proposal redds as follows—

I should like the Minister to tell us plainly in his reply what the attitude of the Government is in respect of this proposal. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) has stated that he has his own standpoint on that. That is true. He was not present at the meeting of the Select Committee when this recommendation was proposed. When this recommendation was put up only the three members of the Nationalist Party voted for it.

I was not present.

I do not question that. I knew the hon. member was away, and I said so. I should like the hon. member to acquaint the House with his standpoint. He should say where his name would have been recorded had he not been absent.

This is his opportunity.

I trust that he will tell us now, and if he does not apprise us he will not again be able to say that he was away.

Why now?

If the hon. member asks “why now?” I tell him straight to his face that it was convenient for him to have been absent when this motion was put.

That is mean.

If it is mean I shall now give the hon. member an opportunity to state what his standpoint is.

Why not now?

Then I shall give the hon. member a chance to stand up and to say what he feels. His excuse is that he was absent; let him stand up now and tell us how he would have voted on this recommendation if he had been present. I should just like to know from him how he is going to vote in the committee stage.

Which one?

The curious thing about the hon. member is that when he had the opportunity to say something he was away. Now when for the second time he has an opportunity to say something he wants to know why he should say anything. He will have a… third chance, and we expect that he will then tell us clearly where he stands. He is a representative of Natal. Afrikaners in Natal have sent him to the House and they are entitled to know what his attitude is on this matter. I think the hon. member has now had an opportunity to air his views, and he ought to say what his standpoint is in regard to the 800 coloureds who still have the franchise in Natal. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is glad that he has not got them in the Transvaal, and we are glad that in the Free State we have not got a single coloured person who has the vote. The hon. member for Vryheid will get his chance in the Committee stage to disclose clearly what his attitude is. I want now to come back to the Minister in connection with the second proposal appearing on the same page of the report of the Select Committee. The hon. member for Moorreesburg proposed that in the opinion of the Select Committee it is desirable that coloured voters should appear on separate lists and that they should be represented in the Assembly by separate representatives, namely three Europeans to be elected by three electoral areas into which the country would be divided for this purpose. I shall be very glad if the Minister will advise us what his attitude is, and if there are members on the other side who do not agree with him they will have an opportunity in the committee stage to declare themselves on this question. I trust that the Minister will exhibit a conciliatory spirit when we deal with this drastic Bill in the committee stage. We desire to have our electoral system placed on a sound foundation, and I want to tell the Minister that there are further amendments we wish to put. Many of our proposals were adopted unanimously by the Select Committee and in this way the Bill was considerably improved. There are others still that we wish to propose in order to improve the Bill and we hope that the Minister will be considerate in the committee stage. If he does this the Bill may possibly be improved to the same degree at the third reading compared with what it is now, as the Bill at the second reading was improved compared with what it was when the Minister introduced it originally and when it was referred to a Select Committee. I should like to take this opportunity to refer to a statement made by the Minister a little while ago when a question was put to him concerning the by-election in the Kimberley District. He remarked that the Voters’ Roll was “in such a deplorable state” that an election could not be held. I assume if that is the case in the Kimberley District it is the same throughout the country.

That is perfectly true.

The Minister admits that everything is in a lamentable state. The Government is responsible for that, and consequently it is high time that this measure was adopted in order to place things in a proper state. For that reason we are supporting this Bill, so that there may be an end to the “deplorable” condition of the Voters’ Rolls. I only want to tell the Minister this, that this side of the House has done its best on the Select Committee to effect an improvement in the Bill. The Minister has admitted that himself, and I hope that in the Committee stage he will avail himself of assistance from all quarters of the House in order to have proper legislation placed on the Statute Book, so that we may carry out our elections on a sound basis. The main idea of the Bill is that of continuous registration. Its whole foundation is continuous registration. We support it, and we shall accord it further support in the hope that we may have an electoral Act on the Statute Book whereunder every white citizen in the country who is entitled to do so will be enabled to register their approval or disapproval of the political structure of the day through the medium of a proper election.

I shall be very brief. I only wish to refer to a few of the provisions in the Bill agreed to by the Select Committee, which we cordially welcome and on which we wish to congratulate the Minister. Many of the alterations have already been mentioned. I shall not repeat them but merely mention a few that have been passed over. The first refers to the definition of the word “witness”. I wish to congratulate the Minister on the insertion of the condition that such a person must be a voter and not merely a Union national. We warmly welcome that modification because we always felt unhappy about the old provision. In the second place I wish to congratulate the Minister on his conversion in connection with the definition of non-European. I do not know to what the Minister’s conversion is due but I have uppermost in mind the numerous tussles the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has had in this House in connection with various measures in order to have that definition adopted. He was continually thwarted by the other side of the House, and I now wish to congratulate the Minister on that definition. Another amendment is that it is an offence to resort to the intimidation of voters. We welcome this because at elections one often finds the less privileged section of the population are intimidated. Another alteration we welcome is the clarity regarding the date when the candidate may commence with his election expenses. That was a bad defect because the candidate never knew when he could begin to reckon these expenses. The last amendment that was taken over is the alteration in connection with an invalid who cannot go to the polling station. Now under the law such persons may vote through the post. I want to mention a tragic case that occurred during the elections. I was called to see a young man who was on the point of death. He desired to vote. It is characteristic of the Afrikaner citizen that he wants to use his franchise. This man was in extremis and his last wish was that he should register his vote. He said this was the last thing he could do for his country. A few hours later he expired and his last wish could not be fulfilled. We must thank the Minister on having cured this defect. But what amazes me is the attitude of members on the opposite benches who having ears hear not and having eyes see not. When we began to discuss in this House the motion that the coloured people should appear on separate Voters’ Rolls and have separate representation we observed that hon. members on the other side were fidgety. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) was absent when a vote was taken in the Select Committee. I assume he had good reasons for not being present when that point came up for discussion, but if we bring forward an amendment tomorrow he will, I predict, either not be present or if he does vote he will vote against it.

You are going astray.

The members on the other side did not discuss this matter. I think the Acting Prime Minister prevented them from speaking. It is his instruction that they should not take part in this and they remained seated. What is so peculiar to me is that a Transvaal member like the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) sits there and welcomes the Government’s policy of equality. This hon. member became so nervous that he fled from one seat to the other.

You will never make me flee.

No, but your conscience makes you flee. The hon. member intimated that he was in favour of coloured voters appearing on separate lists.

When?

Then I assume that he is opposed to that. The Transvaal, and particularly Rustenburg, will settle accounts with the hon. member, because the Transvaal does not want that.

These are trashy stories.

That member is apparently in favour of it. He cannot reply now. I know that his real feelings coincide with mine, but he is under the orders of the liberalistic Government. They are supporting the Minister of the Interior, who has already intimated that he wishes to give the franchise, municipal and otherwise, to the Asiatics in Natal. I want to ask my Transvaal friends if that is what they want to do for European civilisation in South Africa. I wish to go further. They too readily allow themselves to be led by the nose by the Acting Prime Minister. He is going very far and if they continue along the road they are now travelling the Minister will lead them until they have the coloured franchise of the Cape extended to the Transvaal.

Nonsense.

I put a question to the Acting Prime Minister at a public meeting in the Transvaal in connection with representations that were made to him by certain delegates from an organisation that wished to extend the coloured franchise to the Transvaal. The Acting Prime Minister cannot deny that he was not opposed to that. The Transvaal members are allowing themselves to be used to ram down the throat of the Cape a system that they know to be wrong. They have not the courage of their convictions to stand up here and to tell the Minister that they are opposed to that. They ought to stand up and say this is a sacred ideal of theirs and there is no possibility of them supporting the system. I want to tell the hon. member for Vryheid I know his constituency as well as he does from one side to the other. The people who have sent the hon. member for Vryheid here are Afrikaners, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. They do not want this franchise for the coloureds as it stands at present so why does the hon. member for Vryheid preserve silence? The Sap votes at Vryheid will no longer be given to him. He has to get the coloured vote there and that is why he is as silent as the grave. Vryheid will deal with him. I want to ask him what a single member on the other side who is in this House as a result of the coloured vote has ever done for the coloured people? They have only used the coloured man to vote for them. They only know the coloured man in election time. I maintain that during this Session the native representatives have obtained far more for the natives than have those representatives of the coloured people. I want to tell the coloured people quite frankly that we believe that if they have three representatives in this House they will get much more than they have gained through the S.A.P. members in this House. They cannot deny this. I shall close with an appeal to the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people who share our feelings in this matter. Tomorrow, during the Committee stage, we shall make an appeal to them to carry out the principle of segregation in South Africa in this connection.

I appreciate very much indeed, and I support the reference made to Mr. Owens and Dr. Steyn in connection with the help they gave the Select Committee with regard to bringing this amended Bill before the House. I thought I had expressed my appreciation to all members of the Select Committee for the improvements they were responsible for making in the Bill which was sent to them. All sides welcome this Bill. They realise the necessity for it, and if this Bill passes, as I am confident it will, we will be able to put our Voters’ Lists and organisations in connection with elections in the shape in which they should be. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) wanted to know about amendments in connection with the Bill. I do not know what fresh amedments he may contemplate in connection with it, but if any amendment is proposed which is going to improve this Bill it will have my support. This Bill is one for which I want the support of all sections. There is no Party advantage in connection with these various sections. It is designed just to make elections run as smoothly as possible. Now, the only difference of opinion which was expressed in the Select Committee, and also expressed here to some extent this afternoon — and I presume that there will be amendments proposed in the Committee stage — is in connection with the colour question. Let me say that the main object in moving this amendment and consolidating the Bill is to get the thing to work and not to introduce into a workable measure matters which the hon. member may consider — and I quite appreciate his point of view — should be altered in connection with the Bill. These matters were discussed in Select Committee and the Committee in their wisdom came to that decision, and I accept the view of the Select Committee and I feel confident that members on this side of the House will accept their view on these questions. Do not let us jeopardise the other good provisions in connection with a Bill which you all welcome. The hon. member for Boshof dealt with a matter for which there is a motion in the House in regard to the question of maps attached to Voters’ Lists. It is not quite as easy as evidently the Select Committee thought, but I give you the assurance that every effort will be made to comply with it. Maps are provided to magistrates in connection with elections, but it is difficult to give effect to this recommendation. There is a technical difficulty, but I hope it will be realised. With regard to the second point raised, I am quite prepared to see that it is embodied in the law that women are put on the list first, then men and then coloured people, and with regard to the third point raised I have already accepted that in my opening remarks where I said that the object of this measure is to consolidate the electoral laws. He also raised the question of the 800 coloured voters in Natal. I am going to support the attitude adopted by the Select Committee in connection with this matter, that this is not a serious proposition in connection with this Bill. What I am concerned with is that we should get the machinery into working order, and these other questions can be dealt with in their proper place.

Are you in favour of that separation or not?

I am coming to the point. Then the hon. member raised the question of separate lists. Again I stand by the attitude adopted by the Select Committee. They rejected it and I will reject an amendment to that effect.

In connection with those lists, do you only reject it because they did so?

For the same reasons that they were against it, I am against it.

Which reasons did they bring forward?

The present practice is to put it on one list, and it can continue and if you do not want the coloured list you can tear it off and retain the others.

After you have paid for it, yes.

I did not think that the Nationalist Party would consider a little expense in this matter. The other point is separating entirely the Europeans from the coloureds. I think the suggestion was that they should have three representatives. That is a matter which is covered by the South Africa Act. It is true that the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) quoted the legal opinion that the South Africa Act could be altered, but I am not going into that matter, and I will not discuss it. That is a matter which is really foreign to the objects of this Bill. This Bill is one to deal with people who are entitled to vote, who have been entitled to vote, and to make it easy for them to vote, and to have these lists compiled so that everyone will be able to be on the roll, and everyone acknowledges that this is a vast improvement on the present arrangement. The other question which the hon. member for Moorreesburg and the hon. member for Boshof raised was the question of national registration. As far as that is concerned I am personally in favour of it, but it is foreign to this Bill.

Is that the policy of the Government?

It has not reached that stage. I told you what my own view is. I think it would be a fine thing if South Africa should have a national register for everyone, but it has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) again quoted the speech I delivered in Maritzburg 18 months ago. That has nothing to do with this Bill. I do not retract one word I uttered in that connection. I am still of the same opinion. I do not want to drag in the question of the Indian problem in Natal into a Bill which aims at improving the present unsatisfactory laws dealing with registration and voting. I again say that I appreciate the sentiments expressed, except on the one on which we differ, in connection with this Bill. I think all hon. members realise that this Bill is an honest attempt to put our electoral laws into a better state than they are in at present.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 24th May.

I move the following amendment—

I cannot accept this amendment. This amendment contemplates a board on which the Secretary for Native Affairs will be the chairman. I shall move an amendment that will put this into effect. But that board will be in the position that the Department of Education will do its administrative work. The Secretary for Education will be the accounting official and consequently the Minister of Education must bear the responsibility for that.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to move the following amendment—

I have no objection to the amendment as now proposed, but in order to give effect to the undertaking I gave to the House during the second reading debate and which I repeated on this occasion to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) I wish to move an amendment in a more comprehensive form. I move—

1. “(2) The members of the board shall include—
   1. (a) the Secretary for Native Affairs who shall be chairman;
   2. (b) the Secretary for Education; and
   3. (c) a representative of each province, nominated by the executive committee of the province in question.”

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Swart was withdrawn.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Education was put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

1. (f) the expenditure of, and the accounting for, any moneys paid to a Province under Section 2;

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses, the Schedule and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 24th May.

I move—

I object.

Amendments to be considered on 25th May.

I move an amendment—

I should like to move the following amendment—

This amendment was rejected by the United Party in the Select Committee, but afterwards a clause was added to the effect that the Minister can separate Europeans and non-Europeans administratively. Our point of view is that if administratively one separates Europeans and non-Europeans on the Voters’ List in the various divisions, what objections can there be either from the Europeans or from the non-Europeans to incorporate that in the Act? It will not hurt the Europeans to appear separately from the coloureds on Voters’ Lists, because today they are separate, administratively. It will not hurt the coloureds if there is a separate list for them, because they are today separate, administratively; they are dealt with separately. I should now like to hear from hon. members opposite what objection there can be to incorporating it in the Act, if Europeans and coloureds are grouped separately on the Voters’ Lists? If there is no objection to separating them in the Act, what objection can there be to placing them in two separate books instead of one book? This provision was originally approved of by the Select Committee, but later, for one or other inexplicable reason, the United Party again declared themselves to be against it. The reason for that is not clear to me even at this moment. I wish to press the Minister for this amendment and I wish to tell him that we from this side ask for a minimum number of amendments. We should like to see this Bill passed by the House because it contains principles which we would like to have on the Statute Book, just as other members opposite. Therefore we have this morning limited our amendments to an absolute minimum, but as regards that minimum we are firmly convinced, and it is our request to the Government that the few amendments put by us should be thoroughly considered before they are rejected. For that reason I move this amendment. Where Europeans and coloureds are already separately mentioned in one and the same book, we want to have separate books. Why? There are many places in the country, in the Cape Province and in Natal, where there are no coloured voters at all, or only a few, but there are other places where there are quite a number of coloureds, but where certain parties do not need the lists of coloured voters. But now because the coloureds are also included in the same list and book, the book becomes much thicker than it would otherwise have been, and we now have to pay much more for the book because it is thicker. If we can have a book containing only the names of European voters it will not be so thick. It may not be such an important matter if only one list is involved, but if one requires 40 or 50 or 100 books it makes an appreciable difference to a political party whether it needs only the list of Europeans or also that of coloureds. The Minister stated yesterday that if we do not require the list of coloureds we can tear it out. My reply is that one has to pay for it; the party buying the book must pay for it. Why should they be put into that position? It will cost the State no more to bind the list in separate covers. The costs of printing will not be increased by that. Then the coloureds can be included in a separate book under a separate cover. That is all we ask. I do not wish to waste the time of the House, and therefore justmove the amendment.

I appreciate the statement made by the hon. member that they are anxious to help to get this Bill through, but there are certain points in connection with the amendments they are putting forward which they regard as principle, but as I explained yesterday in the second reading, I cannot accept this amendment. If we continue this debate for a long time we will not ‘get any farther. I quite appreciate the fact that hon. members opposite are anxious to show that this is an amedment for which they stand, but our people are just as determined.

What is your objection?

I do not want to go into details. This thing was debated in the Select Committee and they drew up the clause as it is now and I have undertaken to accept it.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—55:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J, M.

Davis A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns G. C. S.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf F.’Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. G. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—31:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier P. J.

Stals, Á. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. F. C. Erasmus negatived.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 9,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I referred yesterday to the general recommendation on page 19 of the report of the Select Committee to the effect that the Select Committee approves of the present practice of drawing up, the Voters’ Lists, namely that the names of the voters be given in groups. In the first place the names of European men are printed, then those of European women, and after that the names of the non-European voters. The committee approved of the existing practice, and further recommended that in future the names of women should come first, and then those of the men. The Minister yesterday stated that he was prepared to adopt the proposal of the Select Committee. I discussed the form of an amendment with the draftsmen, and they find it good to incorporate the decision of the Select Committee in that manner, into the Bill. The Minister will be able to accept it and to incorporate it in the Bill in that form.

In order to expedite matters, may I say I accept the principle because it is in this report, and it is a unamimous report, and I said yesterday I would accept it. I move—

I am satisfied with the assurance of the Minister.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I should like to have just one word changed in this clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept it. It affects Clause 17 (b). I want to change the word “person”, to “magistrate” in line 51. The aim of my motion is to maintain the existing practice. At present the election official delegates his power to the magistrate. I can remember no case where he delegated his power to anyone but a magistrate. We want to maintain the existing practice, and therefore I move the following amendment—

I will accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 25,

I should like to move an amendment which I discussed with the official and I hope that the Minister will accept it. As the Bill stands now the European voter must give notice when he moves from one constituency to another. Within the stipulated period he must give notice of his having moved to another constituency. In the case of a European that is the only information we expect or which is required, because a European person over the age of 21 is entitled to vote, and we do not want to know any more than that. We however require more information from a coloured voter. When the coloured voter leaves constituency “A” to go to constituency “B”, that is not enough information to enable the officials to determine whether he will be entitled to vote in the new constituency, because he must inhabit a house worth more than £75 or earn wages of more than £50. That may perhaps have been his position in the old constituency, but when he goes to live in the new constituency we do not know whether he fulfils those qualifications, and we must therefore receive information to ascertain whether he has those qualifications or not. The European must say that he goes to another constituency, but in the Bill it was unfortunately not recognised that in the case of a coloured voter it is essential to have that additional information given to the official which is necessary in order to determine whether in the new constituency he is entitled to vote. Now I ask in my amendment only that, where a European must give this information to determine whether he is entitled to vote, the coloured voter, when he goes to a new constituency, must also notify the change, but that he should give a little more information. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, because if he does not accept it, it will hinder the smooth working of the Act. I said yesterday that we should help each other to make the law such that everybody who is entitled to vote will have the opportunity to do so, and that nobody shall vote who is not entitled to. I now direct an appeal to the Minister to assist us in this direction so that the coloured voters will also give the information which will enable the official to determine whether on going from one constituency to another they are still entitled to vote. It seems to be a necessary suggestion to make at this stage.

It seems as if it is consequential.

Yes, the hon. member says that it is practically a consequential amendment. I therefore move the amendment as follows—

1. (2) Every electoral officer for an area in which there is a division for which a Voters’ List of non-Europeans has been prepared shall in the month of January of each year by notice in writing require every person whose name appears upon that list to furnish on the prescribed form within the period (not being less than ten days) specified in the notice, the prescribed particulars as to his qualification by residence and qualification by reason of property, salary, wages or income.

I consulted the Department and they agree that nowhere in the Bill does it appear that coloured voters must give this information and therefore I ask in my amendment that the information should be given. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment seriously.

I am sorry I cannot accept this amendment. This is a question that was thrashed out in the Select Committee, which divided, and it was defeated by 6 votes to 3. Here again the hon. member ought to be entitled to record his view, but no useful purpose will be served in dealing with the matter. The hon. member ought to be content with dividing on it.

May I then just say that I very much regret that the Minister will not accept the amendment, and I think I should state clearly to the House what we are now going to divide on. A European voter must give details of his qualifications in order that it may be determined whether he is entitled to vote, but the coloured voter will not be required to give that necessary information when he departs from one constituency to go to another, in order to decide whether he is entitled to vote or not. It is just as well that we should clearly understand what we are going to divide on. A difference of opinion in the Select Committee is not always a true reflection of the difference of opinion in this House, and the decision of the Select Committee does not always represent the decision of the Minister. I regret that the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, just because the Select Committee voted against it.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T.

Naudé and P. O.

Sauer.

Noes—63:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson. H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann. K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B.

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 40,

This is our second last amendment and we hope that the Minister will be kindhearted as regards these last two amendments. I really feel that the Minister will meet us here because we adopted such a reasonable attitude. Clause 40 provides that the Voters’ Roll should be drawn up in serial numbers— European women,… European men and coloureds. If the constituency has 7,000 voters it will be from No. 1 to No. 7,000. The clause now provides that if the Minister thinks fit he can decide that certain numbers should vote at certain polling booths. That is optional. That is the postion today. The Minister can elect whether he will let certain people vote at certain polling stations. The only difference is this. The law today provides that if the Minister likes he can let European women vote at a different polling station from those where European men and coloureds vote. Under Clause 40, as it now stands, the Minister can determine that the European women and men can vote separately, and coloureds at a separate polling station. He can order European men and women to vote at one polling station and coloureds at another polling station, but it is optional. I want to repeat the point. Clause 40 now enables the Minister to determine or to direct that European women must vote separately and that the European men and coloureds must still vote together.

Or also separately.

Or also separately. He can still today let the European men and coloureds vote together, and European women separately. In our amendment we ask just this, that where the Minister thinks fit that there should be more than one polling station, he should direct that European men and women should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another. Really I cannot imagine a more reasonable suggestion. We do not say that the Minister must direct that at each polling station Europeans should vote on one side and coloureds on the other side, but our amendment says that when he directs that there should be separate polling stations, then the Europeans should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another, and I should like to appeal to this House and ask hon. members to support the amendment because it appears to me to be a very reasonable request. The Minister has the right to do so, but he is not always there. There may be another Minister who may say: “No I want to let the European men and coloureds vote together still”. Come, let us put this in the Act. It seems to me that the large majority of the population, if they could be here, would say it is right, if the Minister should direct that there should be separate polling stations, that Europeans should vote at one polling station and coloureds at another. I direct an appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I move—

I want to say that I do appreciate the hearty co-operation I am getting from the Opposition, but there are two or three things in connection with this Bill that the Opposition feel very strong upon and that is one of them. This matter was discussed in the Select Committee and they came to a decision on the point.

Do you not feel, as Minister, that they should vote at separate booths?

I do not feel that I should express an opinion. The position is that the amendment which appears inserted in the Bill is a Select Committee amendment.

By a majority vote.

Yes, but they went into it very thoroughly. Power is given to the Minister to have separate polling booths. I do not have to say that there will be no possible chance of women mixing with coloured people That is the action which one has taken and I would ask the hon. member, although he feels that he must have a division on it, to take it as he has done on the others. I do appreciate the action of the Opposition to get this Bill on the Statute Book, but on these points, as far as colour is concerned we will get nowhere if we proceed further with it.

May I just refer the hon. Minister to this. Hon. members may perhaps think that there was much difference of opinion on the Select Committee. If one compares the original Bill with the one which is now before the Commitee, one will find an appreciable number of amendments there of which no mention is made in the report of the Select Committee. They were amendments about which we were agreed after consultation, and therefore no mention is made of them in the report of the Select Committee. We try to make the Bill as efficient as possible.

1 have already stated that the Select Committee improved the Bill appreciably.

I know the Minister agrees with me and I also agree with him, but there are also instances in this report which indicate that certain things were unanimously adopted at the preliminary discussion, but afterwards members of the Committee made a suggestion, and voting ensued. Originally, for example, in connection with Clause 3 there was general agreement during the preliminary discussion. Later it was put and a vote was taken on it. I only mention that as a reason why I think that the hon. Minister should not just say: “Because the Select Committee did this in the final stage, therefore I think they are right.” He cannot mention that as a reason. The hon. Minister knows that at a Select Committee, especially a Select Committee of this nature, where we had to deal with very complicated and voluminous legislation, the Select Committee did not have much time at its disposal. We had to finish the work, and I want to direct another appeal to the Minister and ask him whether he is not able to accept this amendment in the spirit in which the whole discussion was held. The hon. Minister says that he does not wish to express his personal opinion about this, but surely that is unreasonable. I think the hon. Minister can at least go as far as we have asked him to go. There are not many cases; I am told that there are only 40 odd cases where in the past different polling stations were ordered in practice. Thus, when the Minister deter mines that there should be such separate polling stations, it will probably not be more than 40 odd. The administrative portion of it will therefore not be made more difficult.

It is possible in practice.

In practice there were originally only 40 odd cases. The Minister retains the power. There will perhaps again be just 40 odd, and in those cases he may deem it advisable that the division should take place. All we ask is this; when he determines that in a constituency there should be more than one polling station, he should, instead of letting the European women vote on one side and the European men and the coloured at another station put all the Europeans, men and women, together, and let the coloureds vote at a separate polling station.

He can do that.

He can do it, but who says he will?

He can do it, bur we do not know who will be the Minister of the Interior tomorrow or the day after, and the Minister’s successor may refuse to do it. I should like to have a statement from the Minister now. I think his personal opinion is also relevant on this point.

Have you lost all hope of sitting here?

The hon. Minister laughs, but there will be an election before that happens, and at that very election we want people to vote separately. I now press this point, and before we finish with this clause I wish to ask the Minister to tell the House frankly what he is going to do. I should like to have a statement from him as to what his policy will be in practice, and how he will apply the provisions of the clause in practice.

I think we have progressed very far. We… now have a prophesy from the other side that after the next election they will no longer govern the country. I can only say that I do not think they are false prophets as far as that is concerned. But I wish to return to the merits of the matter. It was said by way of interjection—and the Minister also adopts that point of view—that power is given to him in the Bill to have separate polling stations, and that satisfies hon. members opposite 100 per cent. I just want to remind hon. members that the power is also given to the Minister of Railways to have separate coaches on the railways, but the Minister makes no use of that power. It therefore does not help just to have the power. That Act would be good if this side of the House governed the country, but if that side is in power’ the Act is not so good, because they make no use of their power, and therefore it is necessary that the Minister should lend an ear to the pleas and accept this amendment.

I should also like to make an appeal to the Minister again to give this matter his earnest attention. It has frequently been our experience in this House when this question of the coloured people has come under discussion that even the Prime Minister had stood up and expressed himself in this House in favour of the principle of separation. I recall that the Prime Minister, before he went overseas, expressed his opinion on this subject in the House. We ask that the Minister should now clinch this by legislation and prove to the world that that party stands for separation. But as soon as we come to that stage they will not budge. We state this morning to hon. members opposite and to the hon. Minister that they have their opportunity to prove to South Africa today that they are in favour of separation. Today we can lay this down in the Bill, and if the Minister rejects this amendment and if he has not the courage to stand up and say what his policy is in this matter, the Government must not expect that we on this side of the House will worry ourselves any further about any assurances they may give in regard to separation, because they are not sincere. When the time comes to apply the test hon. members opposite remain perfectly quiet, they then are immovable. Accordingly I should like once again to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to take this matter into consideration and to listen to our representations.

I think this matter affects us very deeply, but you get these large crowds at the polling stations. If there is a small group then there is only one polling booth. We do not want to urge that there should be more polling booths than are necessary, but in a small town in the platteland you will have two polling booths, one for the women and another for the European men and the coloureds. Consequently it appears so natural and so just and proper that seeing there are these two booths that the European men and women should vote at the one booth and the coloureds at the other. That appears the natural thing to do. Why then are they going to institute this provision that a small group of women will have to vote on the one side while the European men and the coloureds should vote at the other box. I say that on the platteland especially it would be very convenient for us, that things will not be so offensive, if that principle of separation is applied there. Here in the towns it does not matter so much because there will always be three ballot boxes, but in the platteland, generally speaking, I think it will be very objectionable if European men and coloureds have to vote together, and I do not think it is too late for the Minister to drop that small point and accept our amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux. J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—62:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Gluckman H.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Johnson, H. A.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Marwick. J. S.

Moll, A. MMolteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 49,

I will reconsider this and will move an amendment in the Report Stage, if necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 50,

I should like to move the following amendment—

The clause as it stands is aimed at the Vierkleur. We must not forget that to us as Afrikaners the Vierkleur represents the big events in the history of our Afrikaner nation. It is also the symbol of our hopes for the future, the ideals of our Afrikaner nation and it binds us to an inestimable treasury of great deeds, of heroic figures and exalted ideals. This is a matter that is controlled for our Afrikaner nation by the highest law, namely, the law of our conscience. This is the last amendment we are going to put on this side of the House, and I would like to make another appeal to the Minister to accept it. The Minister might just as well insert a clause in the Bill prohibiting the tide to rise in the ocean. When he inserts a clause such as this in the Act it will have the same effect. Our Afrikaner people will simply take no notice of this clause. It will only cause ugly and unnecessary scenes. I myself will not allow myself to be bound by this clause in any circumstances. I shall simply have to break the law. I say it will lead to unnecessary unpleasantness, and I really hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

This clause, I have no hesitation in saying, has my support, because I have seen flags used in the manner in which they should not have been used.

Are you referring to the hammer and sickle.

It may be that, but I am thinking of the Union Jack and the Union Flag which at some of these elections in the towns where I have been were used in a manner in which they should not have been used. The Select Committee, in putting in this clause, were evidently influenced by the fact that they knew I was in favour of it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 25th May.

I want to avail myself of the privilege of speaking for 30 minutes. Last year I framed an indictment against the Minister on account of his handling of the portfolio of Justice, and there is no doubt that the present Minister in the years he has been a Minister, has committed very serious blunders, blunders which have even upset his own side and which have been taken amiss by various sections in the country. I think of his rash deed in reprieving the British soldier, Smith, who committed a murder in Durban; I think of the book he banned about the Roman Church and how he confiscated it from the parsonages of Afrikaans ministers. And so there are many other matters which one could quote. I want to say immediately that there is one case which we are desirous of dealing with, namely the Minister’s action in connection with the attack on Mr. Mentz, the member for Westdene, but owing to the fact that the case is still before the Appeal Court and therefore is sub Judice, we cannot discuss it today. We hope that there will be a further opportunity of discussing it. The present Minister’s administration as Minister of Justice has been characterised by injustice and suppression, by wrongful actions and by bias. In the past we have often dealt with the question of internments. I will not go into the matter again today, but I just want to remind the committee that throughout the years we have accussed the Minister of unjustly interning a number of people on the grounds of accusations which were totally unfounded. Time and time again this has been denied. But we had the case of Arndt Bros at Bloemfontein. It was then said that that was the only example we could mention. This year we have found an ally in the Minister of the Interior who declared in the hearing of the whole House that a number of civil servants were interned without any grounds whatsoever. The Minister of the Interior, when he was attacked by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) for promoting certain civil servants who were interned, replied—and he mentioned the names of Strobos, Potgieter and Zondagh— that they had been wrongfully interned and that the accusations against them were totally unfounded. He himself declared here in the House that they had been given promotion afterwards because the charge against them was completely unfounded. That we had from the mouth of a Minister. Our accusations against the Minister of Justice and our allegations are becoming more and more true and confirmed and even a Minister has substantiated our allegations. We now know of this number of cases, but how many other cases are there where people have been innocently interned? We have already asked over and over again what the Government has done and is still doing against those who have given false evidence. What becomes of the people who have made charges against honest citizens, against civil servants, while the Minister of the Interior admits himself that the accusations were false and unfounded? What does the Government intend doing with these people? Does it intend to allow them to wander about freely? Does it intend to let the matter rest there, namely that false evidence has been given against these people as a result of which they have had to suffer? Does the Minister not intend to take any steps? The war is now over, and we demand that the Minister should take action against the people who have given false evidence and who have committed perjury. I can quote my own case, where false declarations were made against me, where false minutes were produced to the effect that I was supposed to have participated in a subversive movement, a movement which I have never heard of in my life before. It was alleged that I had attended a secret meeting at Bloemfontein in connection with subversive activities whereas I was not near Bloemfontein when the meeting was to have taken place. I want to know what the Government is doing with such people. The Government had a large number of sleuthhounds who produced false evidence against honest citizens, and the Government is protecting them. I hope that steps will be taken against these sleuth-hounds and that their names will be made known so that we can know who they are. We cannot allow the matter to rest there. We have experienced a period of injustice and suppression and people have been prosecuted on false evidence. The Minister cannot leave the matter there. As regards internment the Minister declared a few days ago that all Union nationals have been released, except those who they think were concerned in the attack on Mr. Mentz. I would like to know from the Minister what he has done with the people who, according to his assertion, had a hand, in their opinion, in the murder of Louis Nel. Have they been released? Last year the Minister said that they had certain people in custody whom they were convinced were concerned in the murder of Nel. I would like to know whether this is so, whether the people have been interned or whether they have been released. Is the Minister’s statement correct that all Union nationals have been released, except those who they think were concerned in the attack on Mr. Mentz? As the war in Europe is now at an end, I want to make a further request to the Minister, namely that he should take immediate steps to exempt those who were interned from all the restrictions which are still placed on their movements today. In many cases these people have still to make application to their magistrate and the magistrate has to serve a report on them and they are subject to restrictions. I want to ask the Minister to exempt these people. He can no longer subject these people to such restrictions. Many of them have for a long time been out of the camps, but are restricted to certain areas, or other restrictions have been imposed on them which hinder them from making a livelihood. They do not obtain an allowance from the Government and are hampered from earning a livelihood.

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

I was practically finished with the question of internments. I would just like to say that one is perplexed in this difficult period at the Government’s attitude towards certain movements and organisations which have been declared to be subversive organisations, while others again are not so declared. We have seen that the Ossewa-Brandwag has been declared a subversive organisation. But the Commuist movement carries on with its incitement and agitation in the country without being declared a subversive oganisation. I will come back to this matter at a later stage. We also have the Grey Shrits. For a long time during the war that organisation was not declared a subversive organisation, but towards the end of the war the Government interned the leader of that organisation, Mr. Weichardt. Take for instance the Ossewa-Brandwag. I am only quoting facts, and I would like to have an explanation. The Government declared the Ossewa-Brandwag to be a subversive organisation, but when the 1943 election took place a candidate was appointed by the Ossewa-Brandwag in Beaufort West and the chief secretary of the Government Party sent a telegram to the Government candidate to the effect that he should stand back in favour of the Ossewa-Brandwag candidate, against the common enemy. I see that the Acting Prime Minister is smiling. It is ludicrous. This organisation has been declared a subversive organisation. The members of the organisation are treated as people who commit sabotage, but we find that the Government’s candidate was asked to stand back in favour of that organisation’s candidate, and then against a Party which does not indulge in any subversive activities. How can the Government adopt such a false attitude—we cannot call it otherwise—that it should declare an organisation to be a subversive organisation whereas its own candidate had to stand back for that organisation’s candidate. We as a Parliament would like to have an explanation of the Government’s attitude. This matter has been mentioned time and again in the House, but as yet no Minister has clarified the position or tried to defend it. This period of administration by the present Minister of Justice has been characterised by an arbitrary and general violation and infringement of the law of the land, so that in many respects contempt has been shown for the law in the country. The Government has not only governed by the law, but also by regulations. Numbers of regulations have been promulgated which have given rise to new crimes and infringements. All sorts of things have been declared to be infringements. But at the same time the Government has shut its eyes to the violation of laws and regulations, and it has even encouraged it. In the last few years it has become a national sport to evade the Government’s legislation and regulations. It has become a huge joke if the Governments regulations can be dodged. I blame the Government for having promulgated certain regulations, but I blame it still more for, where it has certain regulations and Acts in the Statute Book, regarding those regulations and Acts as a dead letter and simply allowing those regulaitons to be publicly violated day after day. I say that the regulations have been violated at will, and sometimes these violations are even encouraged. I will quote a few examples. Take the case of lotteries. The law is transgressed. Lotteries are held and even officials went ahead openly in encouraging lotteries in connection with the war. We find announcements in that connection in the newspapers, they are publicly carried on in the street. There have been numbers of lotteries held for war funds and all this they have shut their eyes to. The Government is wrong in encouraging this if its own laws are being transgressed. If it allows this, then it should have the courage of its convictions and repeal that Act. The next point is the question of standing drinks. The Government came along with a some what stupid regulation that nobody could stand another a drink in a public bar. For a few monts that regulation was carried out in a manner. But thereafter it was simply not takën into account any longer. It is still in force and has not been repealed. It is still posted up in public bars but nevertheless it is done everywhere. The law is simply violated and such a thing as obedience to this regulation no longer exists. The Government also promulgated regulations as regards the sale of flour. But everyhere in the shops sieves are sold. It has even become a profitable industry in the country to make small sieves with which people can sift the flour. According to the regulation people are now allowed to use sifted flour, but day after day this regulation is gaily transgressed. Take the question of the control of pertol. This is violated the whole day long. Then we also have meat control. And how gaily are those regulations not transgressed? Even members of Parliament appear in court, and it is regarded as a huge joke. What member of this House can say today that he has not at one time or another transgressed one of the Government regulations? Everyone does it throughout the country. The regulations are deliberately and cheerfully transgressed. As I said, it has become a national sport. There are regulations in connection with all kinds of things. As a result a black market has originated and it continues gaily. It is known to Ministers and members throughout the country how the black market functions. Take the case of petrol. I do not know whether it is still the case, but a year ago I was told that there was a place in Johannesburg where you could get as many petrol coupons as you wanted, if you were willing to pay sixpence for a coupon.

And everybody knows it except the Minister of Justice.

Yes, everyone knows it except the Minister of Justice.

Where is that place?

I think you know very well where it is!

Everyone makes fun of the Government’s regulations and of transgressing them. One could go on giving a long list of things which are allowed daý after day and which constitute a violation of the regulations. People no longer hesitate to transgress the regulations and the law. I am thinking of the outcome of all this. We had a law-abiding people in South Africa who were very keen on obeying the law. But I am afraid that in this manner we have brought about a contempt for the law and regulations in the country, the same position which existed in connection with the prohibition on drink in America, where it became a national sport to violate the law. What was the result of that? It did not only remain the case with the prohibition on drink, but in many other cases as well the people formed a contempt for the law of the country, with the result that transgression of the law took place on a large scale. I fear that here in South Africa we have also reached the stage when contempt is shown for the law, and reason for this is the number of Government regulations, the transgressions of which they simply shut their eyes to. But the most serious of all is what I am about to mention, namely, that the Government shuts its eyes to the fact that feelings are being stirred up in the country and that hostility between the various sections of the population is being accomplished by Communists and communstic agitators. They are given a free hand to incite as much as they want to, particularly non-Europeans against Europeans and also against the authority of the Government. The Minister of Justice is the patron of some of the communistic organisations. When last year a huge procession was held through the streets of Cape Town with large inflammatory banners, he sent a telegram saying “I wish you all success”. I ask whether the Minister should do such a thing, when he knows how these people are stirring up feeling. Never in the past few years when there has been any demonstration or congress for Afrikaans culture matters, have I seen that the Minister has sent a telegram, “I wish you all success”. But to the Communists he sends such telegrams. They are allowed to incite people. In practically every newspaper one reads reports of incitement. On the Rand recently there was a demonstration of some 10,000 people, mostly non-Europeans, and Europeans together with non-Europeans climbed on to a soap box or whatever it was and people were incited against the authority of the Government and of the European. They said that the war was now over, but that their war was only beginning. What do they mean by that? They attack Europeans, Malan and Pirow and others. What do they say? “They must be destroyed for the colour bar must be destroyed, the colour bar must disappear”. They say that their freedom is theirs for the taking, but that they will not obtain it unless they fight for it. “The time of words is past, the time for action has arrived”. This is what the non-Europeans said there and they were supported by Europeans. But the Government remains passive.

Which newspaper is that out of?

The Minister may perhaps be pleased when this side of the House is attacked, but now I will read what they have to say of the Government side. I may say that I deplore it just as much. Last year a meeting of the Communist Party was held in the Woodstock Town Hall, and it was said—

An Englishman, an Afrikaner, a native and a Jew spoke. They said—

A native by the name of Edwin Mofutsanyana spoke about the Minister of Native Affairs, and this is what he said—

Maybe the Minister of Justice will also send him a telegram, “I wish you all success”. I deplore this just as strongly as I do the attacks made upon us, but the manner in which the natives are allowed to express themselves against the Government of the country is far-reaching and it is time that we put a stop to it. We feel that it is an extremely serious matter, and we demand efficient action against this sort of incitement, particularly of the non-Europeans. The hon. Minister made a statement recently—he is an important man outside— to the effect that after the war he is going to take action against subversive movements in the same way as during the war years. I want to ask him whether he intends taking just as strong a stand against the Communists or is he going to wish them further success? Here in Cape Town we have the position that skollies are constantly committing assaults on our trams in certain neighbourhoods. The situation is alarming, crime is assuming serious proportions, and the Minister of Justice has allowed our police force to be depleted, so that there are almost 2,000 police short. The Minister should have ensured that the acts of violence were suppressed, but the Minister failed in his duty and sent the police overseas who were needed to maintain law and order. In the report of the Chief of Police there is a serious complaint as regards the shortage of police and the alarming increase in crime. The Minister has failed in his task to ensure at this stage that law and order are maintained. He has allowed regulations to be promulgated at random which are looked upon with contempt by the public. Regulations have been framed hastily and without consideration, civil freedom has been unnecessarily curtailed by all kinds of unnecessary restrictions and punitive measures, the Government has not always acted in an unbiased manner, the Government has allowed matters to get out of hand and lawlessness to take its course, the police force has been weakened and the public are not given effective protection, the Government allows agitators and illegal organisations and even encourages them, and the Government allows natives and coloureds to be incited, which is a great danger to South Africa. With a blind eye the Government allows all these things to happen and the Minister adopts an indifferent attitude, except towards his brother Afrikaners whom he is very quick to prosecute, and, as the Minister of the Interior said, he allows Afrikaners to be detained and interned on false and unfounded reasons and he does not afford them the rights which an ordinary criminal enjoys. We ask what the Minister’s line of action is going to be in the future, when he says that he intends following the same course as he has done during the war. What is his policy going to be? We see the difficulties which are being experienced overseas, in France, in Italy and in Belgium, how Communism is rearing its head and how they are becoming afraid of that danger. In South Africa we have far more reason to be on the alert and to guard against a disturbance of the relationship, the peaceful relationship between Europeans, and non-Europeans. It is a perilous matter for us as a European nation, but the Minister takes not notice of these things. Does he intend adopting the same attitude as in the past and ranging himself on the side of the communists? Is he going to wish them success and act as their patron? Or does he intend taking steps? Long ago a warning was issued against this danger. The hon. Minister need not frame an act. We have the Act of 1930. I have Hansard here to indicate how it was specially framed against communistic agitation. Mr. Pirow was the then Minister of Justice and he said that he had framed the Act with a view to combating communistic incitement, for even at that time it was serious. The speeches of the Prime Minister of today, the then Leader of the Opposition, have been quoted to support that step, and it was pointed out that he said that we ought to prevent a strong communistic movement from originating among the natives. He urged that legislation should be framed and the then Minister of Justice handed in a Bill. The legislation is there and it is unnecessary to promulgate regulations. Provision has been made. The Act is there, but it is simply not executed. To retain the so-called friendship with Joseph Stalin, they have simply allowed the followers of Stalin to go their own way. We have learned that at the demonstrations in Johannesburg there were hundreds of flags, but hardly a Union Flag or a Union Jack. There was only the Red Flag with the hammer and the sickle. They were all followers of Joseph Stalin all communists. The Government takes no notice of all this, and allows matters to develop. We have witnessed before in history that the Prime Minister of today—in 1920 and 1921 when he was also Prime Minister— allowed matters to develop to such a pitch that eventually bloodshed and a bloody revolution came to pass, which cost many human lives.

At that time you supported the Red Flag.

We are issuing a warning today against that same bloodshed. If it is allowed that tens of thousands of natives and coloureds march through the streets of Johannesburg uttering these cries, if incitement is allowed to take place everywhere, then eventaully bloodshed will be the outcome in the country. We as a Party stand for efficient action being taken to combat this incitement, and we are in favour of stronger execution of the laws, and if the laws are not strong enough, stronger laws must be made. We want peace in the country, and we want the coloureds and natives to retain their esteem for the Europeans, and that the agitators, be they Europeans or coloureds, should be punished and action taken against them. The public outside feel the injustice of this Minister’s action in throwing his brother Afrikaners into goal who have perhaps talked out of their turn somewhat, whereas those agitators are allowed to continue and stir up trouble, and the Minister still sends them a telegram “I wish you all success.”

I should like to take a little further the matter that was broached by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), namely the subject of the increase of communist propaganda in South Africa, more particularly amongst native and coloured people. I believe I am entitled to speak on this matter because as far back as the 2nd August, 1937, when I returned to South Africa, I sounded a grave warning in connection with communist propaganda, and I warned that Communism in South’ Africa should be extirpated root and branch and that there should be no dawdling over it. Now I want to take the Minister back to the 12th February, 1943. On that occasion a motion was introduced by me on behalf of this side of the House on the question of Communism and communistic propaganda in our country. The Minister replied to the debate and the standpoint he took up was this. He said—

He said further—

Finally he asserted—

He was followed by the Minister of the Interior, who is today Minister of Welfare, and that Minister spoke on the same lines, saying—

That was in 1943. Those were in the nice days when Communist Soviet Russia was still one of the Allies. In those days it was resented if any member on this side of the House said anything that could be regarded as a reflection on Soviet Russia. What is the position today? We are now in 1945. The war is over and for belligerent purposes the alliance has come to an end. What is the position today? We have the curious position that the same people who in 1943 when this motion was proposed rose one after the other to defend Russia, these people, just the same way as their newspapers outside, are extremely anxious about the position in Europe as a result of the tremendous power that Soviet Russia has got into its hands. A few hon. members on the other side are laughing. I shall now read to them an article that appeared in the “Argus” three days ago. They all read the “Argus” and believe in that newspaper.

You believe in the “Kruithoring”.

They believe in the “Argus”. In the “Argus” an article appeared under the headline “In troubled Europé”. It deals first with the position that has arisen in Europe and the steps that Russia has taken, and then it states regarding the Soviet—

That is not ten or twelve years ago but three days ago, when one of their leading newspapers in South Africa adopted the attitude of uttering a warning against those things regarding which we sounded a warning in the past.

The devil is now quoting scripture.

I take hon. members back to the 12th February, 1943. I then said what I am now going to read out, and then hon. members on the other side laughed.

We are still laughing.

I challenge the hon. member to laugh over what I am now going to read. I said—

Let the hon. member laugh now. A year later their leader, the present Prime Minister, stood up before a gathering of British members of Parliament and said—

He further said—

The hon. member no longer laughs. They cannot laugh. This is proof that the standpoint we adopted right throughout on the question of Communism and the danger of Communism was justified.

What did they do to stop it?

We were not in power. Hon. members on the other side were in power and they should have done something to stop it, and that was why we stood up and pleaded for that. They have been in authority for years. What have they done to ward off the danger? We sounded a warning against it. Now they are uneasy their newspapers are uneasy. This article appeared only this week in the “Argus” and a similar article appeared in the “Cape Times”. It is almost incredible that even the “Cape Times”, which only a month ago said they could not understand the mysterious disapproval of a certain type of people of Soviet Russia, that that same “Cape Times” last week gave a warning about the attitude of Russia. Possibly hon. members noticed last night a report from S.A.P.A. about what is going on in Rumania and Bulgaria and Hungary where they liquidated 2,000 professors and other intellectuals. Things are going on there which by comparison put Buchenwald entirely in the shade. Hon. members on the other side should read that report. It is in their own paper. They will therefore believe it.

What has this to do with the vote?

When we observe the position in Europe and read the articles concerning it, including this article which describes the political system the communists have instituted, I maintain we have every cause to be nervous and apprehensive about the future of South Africa where we have only 2,000 000 Europeans against 8,000,000 non-Europeans in the country. As a result of the alliance with Russia and the refusal of the Minister to take action in the past there has, as a result of the incitement of coloureds and natives by the communists, set in a deterioration in the relationship between the European and non-European. [Time limit.]

I wish to make a few remarks in connection with a matter which affects a certain section of the population. It is stated on good authority that crime is on the increase in the Union. When we read our daily papers we find there is an epidemic of crime in the larger towns, and in some cases it is carried out by organised gangs and the police are unable to deal with these gangs. It seems to me this is due to the absence of many members of the police force ….

May I remind the hon. member there is a vote “Police”?

I just mentioned that, I am coming to another matter. What is the cause of this epidemic of theft and crime? Is it poverty? Is it unemployment? Or is it some other matter? After investigating the position I have come to the conclusion that a great deal of our crime is due to facilities to obtain drink. From statistics I find that two years ago no fewer than 55,500 natives were charged with crimes of which 95 per cent. were associated with drink. That is very serious indeed. The drink question today is extremely serious and seems to be growing worse daily amongst a certain section of the community. It appears that in this part of the country shebeens are on the increase; in the Eastern Province we have orgies of beer drinking; and from statements in the Press it appears there is a great deal of boot-legging going on in the district of Namaqualand. I find that at the last meeting of the Licensing Board in Namaqualand the magistrate there drew attention to the fact that on secret investigation it was discovered that the number of bottles of liquor supplied to the coloured people in one year, apart from those obtained by special permit, exceeded 200,000. That is a very serious position when we consider that these people were able to obtain 200,000 bottles of wine in the one year. According to newspaper reports a tremendous trade is going on in that country by boot-leggers who supply illicit liquor to the natives working in that district. I remember in 1943 the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact, when speaking on the drink question, that the trade and the general public do all within their power to counteract the evils associated with drinking. I believe the trade have done a good deal. Looking through the report of the Director of Prisons I find that more persons were admitted to penal institutions during 1943 than ever before, the actual total being 207,196, an increase of 7.5 per cent. practically over the previous year. But 175,700 were liquor convictions. The result was that during the year penal institutions could not accommodate the number of persons who were convicted. The Secretary for Justice said some years ago that 75 per cent. of all crimes were attributed to liquor, so the House will agree with me that the question is a serious one and one that calls for drastic action.

I hope the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) will lend me his ear. He talks about what happened in 1936. Will he tell the House whether it is correct or not that when he was representing South Africa he asked the other ambassadors representing this country to work hard so that Russia should be a member of the League of Nations.

No, I deny it. You are wrong as usual.

No, you did.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member gave an explanation and that hon. member does not accept it.

The hon. member denies it, but Dr. Van Broekhuizen himself said that he did not trust Russia.

On a point of explanation I absolutely deny every word of what the hon. member of Hospital (Mr. Barlow) says. If Dr. Van Broekhuizen told you that he was telling a deliberate untruth.

Under the rules of order I must accept that. Dr. Van Broekhuizen is a member of your Party and you sent him overseas. It is a strange thing that he should tell this story.

And a story it is.

It is only in recent years that the hon. member has become so antiStalin and anti-Italian. I just want to deal for a few minutes with the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). I want to congratulate the Minister on the patience he has shown during this extraordinarily difficult period in which he was Minister of Justice. There have been times during that period when the Minister’s life has been in danger, when he has had to be protected by the police.

Has the Minister of Finance been after him?

There is not a single young man who has been interned whose family has not come to him to thank him for what he has done.

Rubbish.

I have got more men out of the internment camp than any member opposite. Let any of them give me the names of five men whom they got out. Let them produce the lists they have signed standing good for those men.

How many did you have interned?

That is a cheap remark. Hon. members can go to Sir Theodore Truter and ask him for the names of any man I had interned. Let me go further. When the Ossewa-Brandwag Commandant-General asked the newspapers to assist him to subscribe funds to assist the families of men in the internment camps the Nationalist Party point-blank refused to publish a single advertisement. £34,000 has been subscribed and I challenge any man opposite to show that he ever gave £1. They fought against the O.B. Fund and did not subscribe a penny. They are using the internment camps as they used the war, for purely political purposes. Now, frightened of Commandant-General Van Rensburg ….

Your friend.

Yes, my friend, although I do not agree with him. He used to grow up before me. His father was a good man in the old Republic. Why should he not be my friend? I totally disagree with his outlook and his policy, but as a man he is my friend. We are so friendly that I am the only man in this House who has had his office bombed twice. Once at Bloemfontein and once at Johannesburg they threw a bomb in my office. Let the friendship remain on that basis. Frightened of what is going on in their own constituencies they want to hurry on the Session of Parliament and they now attack Van Rensburg. Will they tell me of one thing that the Minister has done against them? Will they tell me that it is the Communists who took my hon. friend over there out of his house and thrashed him? Was it the Communists who blew up the Benoni Post Office and who broke into Sir Theodore Truter’s house to try to steal certain documents?

Ask the Minister of Justice that.

The Communists have done an enormous amount in Johannesburg at night in the civilian guard to protect the homes of Nationalists. [Laughter.] The member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) who always reminds me of the disappearing grin of “Alice in Wonderland”, whose grin disappeared into the trees, has he ever done anything in this wär to protect the property of fellow Nationalists? Has he gone out at night like the Communists to protect the property of Nationalists. He has taken advantage of the fact that these people are away, and the only trouble that has been made during this war has been made by the people who support the Nationalist Party. [Time limit].

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has already brought to light a whole series of sins committed by the Minister of Justice, and for my part I should like to supplement those accusations with which he indicted the Minister. Today I wish to advance a matter of urgent importance, a matter affecting the policy of the Minister of Justice in reference to the appointment of certain individuals on boards for which he is responsible; and then I should like to dicuss the policy of the Minister in a practical way in reference to the appointment of individuals on the Liquor Licensing Board of Brakpan. The charges I am bringing against the Minister are: (1) That he is misusing the powers he enjoys as Minister of Justice; (2) that he is interfering with justice in a disastrous manner; (3) that the appointments he is making are political appointments. In the past I have put questions to the Minister in reference to these matters. I have asked the Minister whether in August or September last year the Municipality of Brankpan were invited to nominate members for the Liquor Licensing Board of Brakpan, whether the town council made recommendations, who the individuals were they recommended, and whether the Minister accepted those recommendations, if not why not? I should like in the first place to inform the House of the answers the Minister gave. In the first place his answer was this: Yes, the Municipality of Brakpan did make recommendations. His reply to the second question was they recommended Joseph Freel and Johannes Petrus Vorster. The third question was whether the Minister appointed these persons, and if not why not. The Minister’s reply was that Joseph Freel was appointed on his own recommendation, and this despite the Minister’s own reply that Freel was recommended by the Town Council of Brakpan. Furthermore the Minister replied that Johannes Petrus Vorster was not appointed, and he added to that—I am not prepared to disclose my reasons for refusing to appoint him. Why did the Minister not say why he refused to make this appointment? This is in the interests of the public of Brakpan. What is behind it all? Furthermore, the Minister was asked by me whether persons were appointed who were not recommended by the Town Council of Brakpan. He said: Yes, Mr. Rabie, who served for 12 years as, member of the Liquor Licensing Board, an exemplary man in Brakpan, has not been re-appointed. Vorster was also not appointed by him. But in Rabie’s place he appointed a certain Summerson, and in lieu of Vorster he appointed a certain James Douglas Mitchell, as the Minister of Justice has said, on his own recommendation. Apparently he knows all the people right through the country so that he can appoint them on their own recommendation. I now want to go a little further. The Minister has taken this step in opposition to the wishes of the Town Council of Brakpan who entered a unanimous protest against the Minister’s action.

They are all Nats.

Not only the Town Council of Brakpan but also the citizens who are so upset over this appointment of James Douglas Mitchell that they themselves organised a protest.

Nats again.

At the protest meeting a resolution was taken to send a deputation to the Minister. The Town Council itself sent Mr. Van der Walt and Mr. Freel and Messrs. Papenfus and Steenkamp were sent on behalf of the protesting public. They explained the whole matter to the Minister, all that was going on, and Mitchell’s record. The Minister said to this deputation: Look I am very grateful that you have placed all this information before me; I have not had it all at my disposal but now I can give you the assurance that I shall investigate the matter and remedy the injustice. What happened was just what I expected from the Minister—until now he has not budged.

There was no injustice.

I come now to the injustice that there was. This same James Douglas Mitchell was previously a member of the Brakpan Town Council. He was the mayor; he served on the Liquor Licensing Board. Applications were submitted for a bottle store licence, one of his brothers being amongst the applicants. And this highly placed official of Brakpan, James Douglas Mitchell, whom the Minister now wishes to appoint ’ to serve on the Liquor Licensing Board, sat as a judge to dispose of the application made by his brother. His own brother applied and he remained as a member of the Liquor Licensing Board to deal with that application. It seems very peculiar to me the way in which the Minister acts and how he virtually repudiates his own judge. I have before me the judgment of Judge Solomon in reference to James Douglas Mitchell. The Minister should understand that this judgment was given on the 25th January of last year. It was a case of Liebenberg and seven others versus the Brakpan Licensing Board as the first respondent, and George Allen Mitchell, the brother of James Douglas Mitchell, as the second respondent. In this case the judge in the course of his judgment criticised strongly James Douglas Mitchell.

The brother of the Mitchell who got the licence.

Yes, and on his recommendation. I want now to read out a few observations the judge made in the course of his judgment to indicate to the House the seriousness of this matter—

It is the same man. I read on—

Now we come to the second respondent—

This is the man the Minister knows so well that a few months later he re-appointed him to the Liquor Licensing Board. I read on—

This is a scandalous thing, and this is the man the Minister on his own recommendation appointed as in preference to an honourable man.

He is now deep in thought.

Yes, his conscience will make him reflect more deeply still. The judge went on to say—

The judge could not have expressed himself more strongly. I should like the Minister to remember that oh the 25th January of last year we had the judgment. In August or September of that year he asked the Town Council of Brakpan to furnish recommendations. In December he disapproved of the Town Council’s recommendations, and he appointed this person. What does the judge say further—

The Minister repudiated the judge by his apointment of James Douglas Mitchell. At the close of his judgment the judge said—

I think the first step the Minister took borders on being one of the biggest scandals imaginable. If it were Parliamentary to employ such language I would assert that it borders on corruption. Judge Solomon finds here that James Douglas Mitchell is an undesirable person to sit on the Licensing Board. He expressed himself in the strongest terms against Mitchell as a member of the Liquor Licensing Board, and immediately after that the Minister refuses to appoint men like Vorster and Rabie. But he appoints Mitchell despite the judgment.

He was right.

These are their methods. Can the Minister now stand up here and assert that he has not tampered with justice in a disastrous manner. Can he do this honestly? No, he cannot. Now the Minister in view of this scandal, should stand up and tell us the reason why Vorster and Rabie were turned down. I accuse the Minister of having made a political appointment, and I hope the Minister will give me a reassuring reply and not oblige me to state later why this is my opinion. I say that this is scandalous conduct on the part of the Minister of Justice, and that the inhabitants of Brakpan want to know what the position is. The Minister promised to go into the matter and to remedy the injustice. He has done nothing. I imagine what the Minister contemplates telling me is that he did not appoint Rabie because he is the sheriff. My retort to that is that Rabie served for 12 years on the Licensing Board as an honourable man, and throughout that period he was sheriff. So that is no excuse. If Rabie committed any offence let the Minister stand up and tell us. But the Minister has his knife into Mr. Vorster. Vorster is the mayor and because Vorster is a Nationalist and takes a leading part in the Nationalist Party the Minister has no time for him, and I say if the Minister can give me no other reason against an honourable man lkie Koos Vorster, apart from the fact that he is a Nationalist. He is a decent Afrikaner through and through. He is the mayor of Brakpan. The public of Brakpan are dissatisfied. They have recorded their protest. The Minister cannot say that there have been any protests in the town council against Vorster, but he has to tell the House that unanimous protests were made on account of his having appointed Summerson and James Douglas Mitchell. I hope that the Minister will now have the matter settled. The accusations I have made against him must stand until he can refute them, and I say that he cannot refute them. It is a matter that needs no further emphasising. During the rest of the time at my disposal I should like to associate myself with previous speakers on this side who had observations to offer in connection with Communism. I think it was two years ago when we discussed Communism in this House the Prime Minister rose in his place and represented that it was an innocent little thing, and that it had nothing to do with the Communism of Russia. Today the Party opposite acknowledges the danger of Communism. They see the danger, and those who do not perceive it are just those who stand for the communist ideal. I should now like the Minister to give me an answer to this question. In connection with the communist demonstration on May Day last year did he instruct the police of the Witwatersrand to give protection to the processions, or did he not? It seemed strange to me. Incidentally I was there. The police were obliged to accompany the communist procession. One of those officials said to me; I have been busy since seven o’clock, it is now 3 o’clock and we may not return until we have seen the natives back safe in the locations.

What is wrong with that?

My hon. friend asks what is wrong with that. I will tell him what is wrong with it. He should go to Johannesburg, and then he will see what is wrong.

If, the Minister did not do that you would have blamed him then as well should any trouble have arisen.

There are emergency regulations in the country that prohibit you from inciting the races against each other.

Yes.

That is what you are doing now.

What is the responsible Minister doing?

What is he doing?

If that is not incitement of the worst sort I do not know what is. I shall now quote to the Minister the words in a pamphlet that was circulated amongst thousands of the natives on the occasion of the procession.

Where did you get that?

The Communist Party gave it to them. The pamphlet reads—

Does that not represent the greatest degree of incitement that is possible in respect of our native races Who in the Transvaal are already unfriendly to the white man to tell them that they must prepare for civil war in the country? I put a question to the Minister in that connection and what was his reply? He said: “Yes, the matter was passed on to the police inJohannesburg but they refused to prosecute.” Is the head of the police in charge of the emergency regulations or is this the responsibility of the Minister? The Minister could have stopped them. This demonstration was allowed when 10,000 natives were incited against the Nationalists, against hon. members in this House, against people like Mr. Pirow and the Ossewa-Brandwag. The Minister addressed a meeting the other evening and he said he would continue with his policy of internment. I want to ask him: What leaders of what organisation is he going to intern?

What organisations have told him to do this?

, I want to tell him that he dare not intern communists, because if he did so he would have to intern the first man amongst the communists, and that is their honorary president, namely the Minister himself, and of course he cannot intern himself. In the House we have heard how natives are being stirred up in the platteland. I have not yet noted that the Minister has done anything in this matter. I have wondered whether he has arrived at a gentleman’s agreement with the communists that he shall take no action against them.

Who is the “gentleman” in the “gentleman’s agreement”?

I maintain that the Minister is playing with fire. He does not care a hoot what is going on in South Africa today. The Minister will recall what occurred on the 5th November in my own electoral division. On that day I got into touch with the Minister by telephone. He said that he was glad I had remained there to calm the feelings of the people. But what did the Minister do to stop it? I live there, I am amongst these people, and I know what is going on. You had all these difficulties as a result of communistic agitation.

Nothing of the sort.

I say it is so.

But you can say anything.

I discovered them at my own house, where they came to tell the domestic servant: You must not work tomorrow, you must strike.

Are those the people who gave you a hiding?

And so it is going on throughout the country. I wish now to relate to the Minister what happened the other day at Alexandra. Of course he will tell me that these people would not carry out the order of the court. The native is already hostile to the white man. He will not listen to anything from the court. The result was about 30 policemen landed in hospital with injuries. It is scandalous that affairs should be so handled in this country. The only man who can protect them is the Minister and he does not do so. On the contrary, he is encouraging these things.

On a point of order. Is the hon. member justified in using those words, that the Minister is encouraging rebellion?

No, the hon. member may not accuse the Minister of encouraging rebellion.

On a point of order, if the object of the word was to show that the Minister encouraged it by doing nothing is not that another question?

Was that the accusation made by the hon. member?

I have said repeatedly that the Minister did not stir a finger to stop these things, and I maintain that owing to his having done nothing he encouraged the trouble. I repeat that, and I shall reiterate that until the Minister proves that he is going to act in the „interests of South Africa and that he will impose restrictions on this communistic movement. [Time limit.]

The hon. member is one of those types of people who one finds in “Alice of Wonderland”. He believes that if he says three times a thing that is untrue, then it is true. I also live in Johannesburg, and it is an extraordinary thing, but it is so, my office happens to look over the place where the so-called Communistic meetings are held in front of the Town Hall. The hon. member has told the House that thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of Communists hold meetings there. Well, what always makes me laugh in Johannesburg, is that Communists cannot get meetings. They hold those meetings in front of my office, and you will see a red banner: “Staan vas by die Nasionale Party” and they have probably a hundred people attending the meeting, and then some poor unfortunate fellow comes along and he talks Trotsky Communism. But the chief whip of the Nats says there is a gentlemen’s agreement between the hon. Minister and the Communists. Well, there was a gentlemen’s agreement, and it took place at the last election, and my friends of the Opposition know about it. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) knows that when the fight took place in the election we found that only Communists were fighting us. My friend, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) had to fight Mr. Boshof, and my friends over there told all the Afrikaans-speaking people to vote for Mr. Boshof. “Julie moet by julle mense staan; julle moet by julle eie bloed staan”, and they did not help the hon. member for Hillbrow. This excellent young man from Hillbrow came along and laughed at the Communists. The Communists used to come along and talk at the meetings and he used to wipe the floor with them. In every constituency in Johannesburg where a Labour man stood a Communist was put against him. Then my friends thought they would knock the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) out and they deliberately put a Nat in to take away his votes, hoping that the Communist would win.

You are talking nonsense.

Of course, that all stands in the Chronicles and the Kings of Israel. That is what my friends did.

You are talking nonsense.

I do not talk nonsense. I just give the ordinary quiet, simple truth that every man who runs may read. The hon. member talks about a gentlemen’s agreement. Then I want to return to the leader of the Nationalist Party in the Free State. How my old province has gone back. I want to say a few words to the leader of the Fascist Party, the gentleman who passed on a letter to Kadalie from the late Gen. Hertzog.

Who did that?

When was that?

If you will look up your diary you will find it. I will tell you when it was. It was just when you were the first secretary of Gen. Hertzog, and it was denied in this House.

Tell me the date.

It was denied by Mr. Swart in this House, so I looked up a book written by …. perhaps the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) can give me the name of the author.

What has this got to do with the vote?

What has this got to do with the vote? Everything on earth, Mr. Chairman. Because Kadalie was the first black Communist. That is what it has got to do with it, and the first black Communist was the greatest supporter of the Nationalist Party and you cannot get away from it. Unfortunately I cannot think of the name of the book. But Vera Brittain’s book has got the whole story.

Who is she?

If the hon. member does not know who Vera Brittain is, then I am sorry for him. Let him ask the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer).

I know, but you do not. She did not write the Testimony of Nonsense we have been hearing from you.

You know I gave you a smack last year and you are still crying about it and I will give you another smack. I come now to this honourable leader of the Nationalist Party in the Free State, this great man, the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He says to us that 2,000 policemen were taken overseas. What a terrible thing. 2,000 young Afrikaners went to fight the Italians so that he could sleep safely in his bed. 2,000 young Afrikaners were taken at Tobruk, and when they were captured, he and his friends did not say that they were sorry. They held a dinner, and they drank and they said: “Thank God, those 2,000 policemen have been captured”.

That is a lie.

Order, order.

They held a dinner and drank at that hotel in Parys when the hon. member’s leader was also present, and that leader drank with them.

I say that is a lie.

On a point of order, this is an absolute untruth that the hon. member has stated, and I ask that you request him to withdraw it.

The hon. member may refute it, but as I understood the hon. member he does not accuse the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) of having deliberately stated an untruth.

I do not know where he gets his facts from. I know he usually obtains his facts from sources on which one cannot rely. I assert that what he is saying is absolutely untrue, and I ask that you request him to withdraw it.

Unless the hon. member is prepared to go so far as to say that the hon. member for Hospital accuses him of having deliberately stated an untruth I cannot take the matter any further.

The hon. member for Hospital alleges that we were supposed to have given a dinner at which we drank toasts in regard to the South African troops having surrendered at Tobruk, and what I say is that the hon. member stated an untruth and under the rules of the House he must accept my word.

Did the hon. member for Hospital accuse the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) amongst others of taking part in such celebrations?

I did nothing of the sort; I never mentioned any names. What I said was this that they celebrated in Parys.

You said that the hon. member’s Leader was present; who did you refer to?

He mentioned my name.

I quote from a Hansard speech made by the late member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Louw Steytler). Unfortunately he is not here today or else he would be joining me. This was the last speech he made in this House, speaking alongside my friend, the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet).

Come back to the point; don’t run away now.

In any case this is not out of order.

On a point of order the hon. member was mentioning my name and he was insinuating that I was present at something of that sort. I say that the person who told him that told him a foul lie.

Does the hon. member for Hospital seek to impute that the hon. member for Winburg was or was not present at such a function?

I am not interested in the hon. member for Winburg.

Now he is running away.

I never mentioned the hon. member for Winburg. It is common knowledge that when Tobruk fell, the member for Winburg was under his bed.

The hon. member may proceed, but I must request the hon. member not to be so personal.

He is incapable of doing anything else.

You know, Mr. Chairman, it is a most difficult thing for me to make a speech in this House, because my friends won’t let me make it.

It is your stock in trade.

The hon. member for Winburg is so timid and so pure. I doubt his purity of motive in what he said this afternoon about the natives. Let me say this to the hon. member. He attacked the hon. Minister of Justice on the alleged ground that he had attended communist meetings. I make bold to say that the hon. Minister has never attended a communistic meeting in his life. What my friends are mixing up with Communism is the Medical Aid for Russia, and at these meetings which are held for the purpose of giving medical aid to Russia, at which I am pleased to be present, they have collected thousands and thousands of pounds to send over drugs to Russia to look after the wounded people of Russia and the children who have been ill-treated by their friends the Germans. That is what has happened. And may I say this to hon. members opposite? The hon. member for Humansdorp would not know about it because his father was not fighting, he was sitting in Cape Town. And the other gentlemen’s fathers did not fight because they were also sitting in Cape Town. [Time limit.]

We have becoine accustomed to the tactics of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) in coming to the House and making filthy, untrue and wanton allegations. That is all his stock-in-trade. He cannot rise to speak without making these filthy, untrue and wanton allegations.

On a point of order ….

The hon. member must withdraw that.

Is the hon. member in order in saying that I make filthy and untrue statements in this House?

I have already ordered the hon. member to withdraw.

On your ruling I withdraw the word “filthy”, and I put it in this way that the hon. member for Hospital has made a habit of standing up here and making untrue and distasteful allegations as he has done here today.

And then he usually runs away.

I am now going to challenge the hon. member in order to expose him. I think the time has arrived when that hon. member should be exposed, apart from the fact that he has dragged the debates in this House down to a very low level. No one in this House has ever dragged the debates down to such a low level as the hon. member for Hospital.

And you are a good second.

He asserted here that when I was leader of the Union Delegation at Geneva to the League of Nations I made propaganda for the admission of Russia as a member of the League of Nations. That is what he said. I assert that what the hon. member said is an absolute untruth. I challenge him to accompany me to the offices of the Department of External Affairs—and I hope the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of External Affairs will accord the necessary permission for us to inspect that particular file in the Department of External Affairs, where the question of the admission of Russia to the Leauge of Nations was the subject of an exchange of cables between myself and the then Prime Minister. If the Acting Prime Minister grants that permission I challenge he hon. member for Hospital to accompany me and there he will find the cable I sent to the then Prime Minister, a code cable in which I advised, in the strongest way, that South Africa should have nothing to do with any invitation to Russia to become a member of the League of Nations. The hon. member does not need to pretend that he is not listening. He is pretending that he is not listening, but he is listening very attentively. Now I ask the hon. member whether he accepts that invitation.

No, he is too cowardly for that.

As usual, as the American expression goes, “He hides in his funk hole”.

“Funk hole” or “skunk hole”?

I challenge him to accompany me to the Department of External Affairs. Let us turn up that file. The time has come when that hon. member should be exposed in this House for the continual untrue assertions he makes in this House. I come now to another allegation which he has now made for the umpteenth time in the House, and which I denied and which he has now made in reference to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart), namely, that old story he has repeated several times regarding Kadalie. He stated previously that the hon. member for Winburg had some hand in the cable or telegram that was sent to me in connection with Kadalie when I was candidate at the Queenstown by-election in 1920. I assert that this is absolutely untrue. Such telegram was never sent to me.

It is a lie.

Were you also under the bed?

I was not in a funk hole. That hon. member is continually in a funk hole. Now I want to know whether he will accompany me to the Department of External Affairs and we shall see whether I have stated untrue things in this House. We revert now to the question of Communist agitation. I should like to direct a word or two to the hon. member. He seeks to create the impression that the thousands of natives that held a demonstration in the streets of Johannesburg on the day that peace was celebrated were there for one purpose only, namely, in connection with “Medical Aid for Russia”. That is what one would infer from his remarks.

Did you see it?

Yes, there are photographs.

Where did they come from?

These are photographs that were published in “Die Transvaler”.

In “Die Transvaler”?

Yes, “Die Transvaler” not a paper like that family Hansard of the hon. member’s, “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly”. Here is a photograph, and if the hon. member wants to prove that this photo is a fake he has the fullest opportunity to do so. This photograph shows where natives are selling the flag of the Soviet Union to other natives in the street. Is that “Medical Aid for Russia”? Incitement is being indulged in, and when I say this I call as witness the late Secretary for Native Affairs. I ask the hon. member to look up the evidence that was given last year before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, when the then Secretary for Native Affairs referred to the serious results of the activities of agitators amongst natives in the native areas, and when the question was put to him whether Senator Basner, one of the colleagues of the native representatives in this House, had anything to do with it, and he refused to answer the question. He did not say yes and he did not say no. But we know full well that Senator Basner who is an acknowleged Communist, was really there.

He is not a Communist.

If he is not a Communist we should like to know what a Communist is. The hon. member will tell me that Solly Sachs is also not a Communist and that Sam Kahn is not a Communist.

And that Arthur Barlow is not a Sap.

Here we have a little paper that was published by the Communist Party of South Africa, a paper called “Inkululeko” and here you see the Communist propaganda that is made by the returned native and coloured soldiers. Here you have a photograph—any member can see it—of an elephant. The story is told here of a so-called elephant—the elephant is of course the native who had been overseas—and I read here—

That was before the war.

What are you referring to?

I am not referring to a pigsty, I am referring to an elephant—

Incitement. Here is a photograph of it pushing against the wall that is being supported by the Europeans. It is possible, if you have the time, to trace numbers of these pamphlets in which the non-Europeans are inflamed. Anyone who goes about in the" streets today can observe the impudent attitude taken up by natives and Coloured people in the streets of Cape Town and other towns. We saw what happened in Jurgen’s Park where a Communist Jew by the name of Sam Kahn led a number of coloured children from Signal Hill to Jurgen’s Park and said, “This is your park, you can play in it”. The white children had to clear out. These things are occurring under Communist-Jewish agitators. There was fisticuffs and in this way the relationship between non-Europeans and Europeans is impaired. [Time limit.]

If the Bolshevists are such wonderful people and are going out into the world to give all the peoples freedom, why should we fight them in South Africa?

What did the “Argus” say?

My hon. friends backed the Germans, who wanted to take freedom away from the people. That is the difference. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) on two occasions said he was backing the Bolshevists because they talked with the same tongue as his own Party and were out to give the world freedom. Let them put that in their pipes and smoke it. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said: What an example this is to the blacks all over South Africa, what an example these Communists are. The work of the Minister of Justice, of the police, during the past five years has not been to endeavour to catch the criminals who committed ordinary crime, but to catch the people who cut telephone lines and telegraph wires, who blew up pylons—which carries the electricity to that great industry on which we live— who were killing people, shooting decent South African citizens, beating women, beating a Nationalist secretary. That is what the time of the police has been taken up with—not on Communism. And was that an example to the blacks? Hon. members on the other side have never said anything against those people. They have never protested in a single instance against sabotage in this country, against the bad way in which these people have insulted women. [Interruptions.]. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) must also take his medicine; he was also under a bed. During the whole of this war not on one occasion have they assisted the police to catch the men who were sabotaging the war effort. They sat quiet and they have sympathised in their newspapers. And the hon. member quotes “Die Transvaler” to us; A judge of the Supreme Court in Johannesburg not so long ago said that “Die Transvaler” is a Nazi newspaper.

The judge was a Jew.

Is the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg in order when I am speaking about pur hon. judges to make the remark: “Ja, maar hy is net ’n Jood.”

Did I understand the hon. member aright?

I say the judge was a Jew.

I do not regard this as a reflection on the conduct of a judge.

On a point of order, this is a most serious statement to be made here whereby the hon. member has attacked a judge.

I cannot regard that as an attack on the judge.

It was the way it was said; but you have given your ruling.

The Chairman is wiser than you are.

I ask the country and I ask the House, was that an example that my hon. friends set the blacks?

Did you not also say just now he was your friend?

The hon. member is also trying to get out of it. During the last five years not a single word appeared in “Die Volksblad,” “Die Transvaler” and “Die Burger” against the men who cut wires, blew up telephones, killed men, shot citizens, murdered a man at Lichtenburg, broke out of gaol, killed warders, fought ’ their own people through thick and thin with knuckledusters, whipped a distinguished member of their Party and whipped him well, and will whip him well again if he is not careful— not one word has been said by those gentlemen in this House against the crimes which have kept the police busy for five years. Instead they attacked the people running the Medical Aid for Russia, whose only object is to assist the Russian soldiers who have been maltreated by the German devils. They come into the House and that is the only cry they can put up.

Reply to my challenge.

The hon. member challenges the world. The man he has to challenge is Dr. Van Broekhuizen [Interruptions]. Hon. members do not want me to speak; but I want the country to know that in their anger; in their hatred of the hon. Minister of Justice they are attacking one of our great men and a son of one of the greatest men who lived in South Africa. He is a man who stopped hon. members on the other side making a neutrality pact ….

He is your bosom pal.

Yes, and I am very pleased to say that. The hon. member can be certain he would never be my bosom pal. The hon. Minister has been patient during the war. He has been thanked by hundreds of internees whose lives have been in danger during the war. These hon. members are attacking the Minister not because he has not played the game during the war but because they are filled with hatred for any decent Afrikaner who helped to save his country during the war.

I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister the manner in which justice is being meted out and applied by his Department. We listened to the remarks by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), and when we hear of such instances we cannot be surprised that the public outside are beginning to believe that one cannot expect justice from the Department of Justice. A feeling is growing that there is one kind of justice for certain people and another kind for other people. I am one of those who believe that when a person has committed an offence, he should he punished, but the deplorable aspect in our country is that if a poor railway worker perhaps opens a box of apples or if he takes a few apples which have fallen out, then he has to appear before the magistrate in the open court and if he is found guilty he is discharged from the service. Of course he has lone wrong and he must suffer for it. But it seems to me that the more important a man is and the higher the position is which he occupies, the better are the chances that the law will be ignored. It is my opinion that the more important the man who has committed an offence, the greater is his offence, and the richer the man is who committed the offence, the higher should be his penalty. There are cases where poor people steal things out of sheer want. The circumstances lead them to steal. They have to appear in a court open to the public. Now I should like the Minister to give an explanation why, for instance, in the case of a district surgeon which I will mention, a different procedure was followed. That district surgeon committed a low and mean theft. I will tell you how it happened. One day he passed a farm and noticed a certain article there. That night he travelled 72 miles in his motor car in order to go and steal that article. It was an article which was very scarce during the war-time and he travelled 72 miles in order to steal it. I want to show you what was in this man’s mind. When he came home, he hid the article in his lavatory under the seat. That is not the usual place where you keep that particular article. There he hid it and the police found it there. That person was summoned but he appeared in court behind closed doors. I now ask the Minister why in this case of a district surgeon who was not a minor, but a person of advanced age, why in this case the trial took place behind closed doors.

In how far does this come under the Vote “Justice”?

I am speaking of the mander in which justice is being meted out. If a man commits an offence then one would expect that all people will be treated alike. If a district surgeon commits such a theft and is found guilty, then one would expect the Attorney-General to report him to the Medical Council. Why was that not done in this case? I want to know why this case of the district surgeon was heard behind closed doors.

Does this not fall under the Vote “Supreme Court”?

No, it came before the magistrate. I am dealing with the policy of the Department.

How can that be the policy of the Department?.

I want to know the reason why this case was not reported to the Medical Council. Was it perhaps because the person concerned is a supporter of the Government or because he is rich or because he occupies an important position? Is that why he was protected and why no steps were taken in his case? I should like to hear from the Minister whether he will have the matter investigated and whether he will take care that the case will be reported to the Medical Council. A few moments ago I said that the more important a man is, the greater is his offence. A man who does wrong should be punished. There should be no discrimination in order to protect an important and rich person. That is the reason why there is dissatisfaction in the country and that is the reason why the feeling is growing that for certain persons there is a certain kind of justice and that to other persons a different kind applies. I think that our administration of justice can at least be expected to treat all people on the same basis and not that a rich man or a person in a high position should get away with it more easily. I therefore want to know whether this case will be reported to the Medical Council and why it was heard behind closed doors.

I should like to hear from the Minister what he intends doing with the political prisoners who are still being kept at Baviaanspoort. It costs us £550,000 per year and as the war is now over I do not see why they should be kept any longer under lock and key. They did not commit any crimes. We can understand the reason why they were originally interned, but why should they still be sitting there? I assume that in other countries such political prisoners have now already been set free and I should like to know what the attitude of the Minister is going to be. Is he going to keep them there still longer or is he going to set them free? Furthermore I should like to know from the Minister why the leader of the Grey Shirts was arrested and interned. All these years, since the beginning of the war on the 4th September, 1939, he was a free man. Only a few months ago when the war was approaching its end, the Minister gave instructions to arrest the leader of the Grey Shirts. Today he is being kept in the internment camp. Why?. By means of a question to the Minister I tried to find out why Mr. Weichardt, the leader of the Grey Shirts, was arrested and why he is still being detained. The reply of the Minister was—

I should like to hear from the Minister what Mr. Weichardt has done in regard to the public interest. What crime did he commit for which he is today being detained in the internment camp. Why was he not arrested when the war broke out? Then it would have looked more like a case of public interest, but now that the war is over the Minister comes along and on the station suddenly has Mr. Weichardt arrested who was on his way to Piet Retief to address a few of his followers. Why did that happen?

Why not Senator Basner?

Exactly. I should like to see the Minister get up here and give us an explanation. We feel that is not only an injustice towards this person, but that it is a crime. If he had held inflammatory speeches or if through his influence incidents and disturbances had taken place, one could understand that the Minister would take such a step. But this person kept quiet and did nothing which caused trouble or disturb the peace. He has been arrested and put into an internment camp. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he will now, as the war with Germany has come to an end, release Mr. Weichardt from the military camp within the next few days. He has done nothing wrong and his followers want to know what is going to happen. They insist on him being set at liberty. At his meetings Mr. Weichardt stated that he would to nothing to obstruct the Government in its war policy. All those years he was a free man and now all of a sudden he is arrested. Why?

I should like to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done to produce more intelligible and better drafting of regulations and proclamations appearing in the Gazette. Unfortunate laymen and lawyers have to deal with these proclamations and regulations, and in one of them I personally had to handle there was a string of about 200 words without a single fullstop. Even for a lawyer who is trained to the job it sometimes entails hours of work to disentangle what a proclamation means. I do think it would be in the interests of the general public if something could be done to ensure a simpler and more intelligible wording of these proclamations. This question of simplicity and intelligibility might also be applied to statutes. As the Minister is aware, when we amend a statute the Parliamentary draftsman simply says: Amend Section so-and-so of Act so-and-so; in the amending Act that is how it stands. Often a lawyer may have to delve into half-a-dozen statutes before he finds the original statute sought to be amended, and there is an enormous and unnecessary waste of time and labour. I would suggest to the Minister when a section in a statute is amended the section should simply be given as amended in the amending statute. Then you could have a clear statement of what Parliament meant, and you could find out at once and quite simply what is intended by the new amending section without having to delve into a dozen statutes. I would like the Minister to consider seriously adopting this simpler method of stating clearly in each statute what Parliament desires to be done. Another point I should like to ask the Minister is whether he would not consider setting up a law revision committee as exists, for instance, in England, a standing committee of, say, ex-judges of appeal or of judges who have retired from the benches of the provincial divisions, to work as a permanent court of revision of obsolete law and statutes and to bring statutes up to date. It would function very well as the Minister has at his disposal an excellent body of men of the higest judicial experience who could very well be employed and who could have their talents exercised instead of being wasted as at present, in seeing our statutes are kept up to date and that any law that particularly needs revision is brought to the attention of the Minister’s department. Such a committee could also be used for gradually codifying our law which it very badly needs, and their aid would be of great value to the Department of Justice. I would urgently ask the Minister to consider that suggestion and see what can be done about it, more particularly as peace has come and this excellent body of retired judges might well be used in the service of their country. Finally, I would suggest that his department might well be employed also in drawing up a list of those magistrates’ courts which should be rebuilt. I am more particularly concerned with the magistrate’s court in my constituency of Jeppes; that building is one of the oldest in Johannesburg, and it is so antiquated that it is almost falling to pieces. While I admit that housing for ex-servicemen should be given priority I would ask the Minister whether his department might not very usefully meanwhile direct its attention to these magistrates’ courts buildings which need to be reconstructed.

I feel it is my duty to reply to certain accusations by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). The country outside should know that we deny those charges. In the first place he said that we did not contribute a single penny towards the fund of £34 000 which has been collected by the Ossewa-Brandwag for the support of the families of internees. I maintain that a large part of that collected money has been contributed by us. I personally contributed. I further point out that an appeal was placed in the “Volksblad” in the Free State and that a large sum of money was collected. That money was placed under the control of a commission which used it ‘to give support to the wives and children of internees. That fund still exists and it is still supporting people. In the second place the hon. member said that all of us who did not take part in the war and who were not at the front, were hiding. It is dangerous for people in glass houses to throw stones. When the bombs burst at Magersfontein and Welmoed, when that hon. member should have been fighting, I suppose he was also one of those who hid under their beds in Bloemfontein? He was not there and according to his own statement a person who remains neutral is hiding. He should apply that to himself. Furthermore he said that we are ungrateful towards Russia. We are very grateful towards the Russia of 1902 and towards Czar Nicholas for the ambulance he sent us.

The hon. member should not wander too far from this vote.

But the hon. member denied that we were grateful.

The hon. member should not go further into that matter.

Then I only want to say that we are grateful for the ambulance which we received during that time. I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister of Justice. In the rural areas and in our rural towns a great number of thefts are taking place. Farms and houses in villages are being burgled, and we want to ask the Minister, seeing that the war has now come to an end, to strengthen our police force. Up till now we have realised his difficulties for making available sufficient policemen but now that the war is over we want to plead with the Minister to increase the police force and to protect us against these impudent burglars.

The hon. member should raise that under the Police Vote.

In that case I shall go further into this matter on a future occasion.

This afternoon we heard a great deal about Communism from the other side of the House. We on this side are also against Communism just as we are against Nazism. That cannot be said about the members on the other side. One day they are in favour of one thing and the next day again they are in favour of another thing. There was a time when they were supporters of Communism. In 1920 their Leader stated the following at Vryburg—

Where are you quoting from?

The members on the other side cannot deny it. That is what their Leader said. We did not hear them say anything against Communism when Communist Russia was Germany’s friend. Then Russia was their best friend. I know it and they know it. I wanted to say, however, that we should not deal with such matters in this House in such a manner. We know the dangers of Communism. We know the dangers threatening the European population in South Africa. Who is now the greatest enemy of white civilisation in our country? It is the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), for he is opposed to immigration and if we do not get immigration on a large scale, white civilisation in our country will disappear.

When did I say that I was opposed to immigration?

The hon. member knows that he is opposed to immigration and he is opposed to it because he knows that when mass immigration should take place, it would mean the end of the Nationalist Party, for their votes would disappear. As a white population we should stand together. The representatives of the Nationalist Party and the voters supporting them should support us and help us to save the European civilisation in South Africa, instead of carrying on as they are now carrying on. They pretend that salvation lies in the establishment of a Nationalist Government. That will be no solution to the problem. What will they do when they come into office? We must have immigration of the right kind, for we have to build up a large European population here. That is the only salvation and the sooner we accept such a policy the better it will be for us. It concerns the whole future of South Africa.

What has that to do with this vote?

It has a lot to do with this vote. It has just as much to do with it as Communism has to do with it.

Do you want Communists to settle here.

Just as little as I want Nazis to come here.

On a point of order ….

What is the point of order?

Whilst the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) was making his speech, the hon. member on the other side asked him what his speech had to do with the Justice Vote. I think that is a reflection on the Chair.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member for Middelburg may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have finished what I wanted to say.

I am always in a quandary after the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) has spoken, because I do not know whether I should take notice of him or not. One does not want to be unkind, but it really looks as if the hon. member is always out of his depth. He does not know what is going on here. Under the Justice Vote he is now talking about immigration.

But still I had my say.

They I will assume that the hon. member is not as dense as he looks. When we attack the Minister of Justice, because he allows Communist propaganda to flourish in this country, as it is flourishing now, the hon. member gets up here and quotes from a speech by the Leader of the Opposition which was made I do not know how many years ago, in any case shortly after the revolution in Russia. I cannot find anything wrong with what he said then. He said the Communism or Bolshevism at that time gave Russia freedom after the people had been trodden down under the tyranny of the Czar. That is quite correct. That has nothing to do with Communism as we find it today in this country. What we are concerned about is the development of Communistic agitation at present going on in this country.

So am I.

The hon. member says that he is also opposed to Communism but in spite of that he gets up here to defend the Minister of Justice who is the patron of the Society of the Friends of the Soviet Union.

What is wrong with that?

Those hon. members maintain that they are opposed to Communism, but nevertheless they defend the Minister of Justice who is the patron of an association which wants to promote and establish Communism here. Does he know that the Prime Minister and other Ministers as well as members of his Party were the patrons of a conference held here a few weeks ago in order to strengthen the bonds with Communism.

I do not know.

That is why I said that the hon. member does not know what is going on; and that is also why I say, that, however kind the hon. member may otherwise be, one never knows whether one should take notice of him when he speaks in this House. I now want to deal with the Department of the Minister. In the first place I want to ask him whether it carries his approval that police constables are being told or are being used in their spare time to collect from house to house in the streets of Johannesburg for certain wär funds? That is taking place and it cannot be denied. The Minister may say that no such instructions have been given to the police. He may tell me that the police constables are doing this voluntarily. On behalf of those policemen I want to tell him that they are not doing so voluntarily, but that indirect pressure is brought to bear upon them by higher officers. Whether a policeman wants to do it or not, if he does not want to fall into disfavour with his officers he has to go out to collect that money. That is not what the police are being employed for and the Minister should protect the policemen against officers who are abusing the influence which they have over those people.

Which fund is that?

The fund for widows of R.A.F. men. I have now mentioned the fund to the hon. member. Then I want to raise a further matter and I want to ask the Minister whether that is his policy. It concerns the position in regard to bilingualism as it exists in certtain courts of law in this country. I am not dealing with the courts as such, but with the instructions which are given to officials by the Department of Justice. Last year a certain Mr. J. Dupisani was chosen to serve on the jury in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg. In the first place the jury members are being asked in the ordinary manner to reply to the roll call in order to see whether they are present. Bilingualism in the Department of Justice goes so far that this question is put to the jury in English only. One would swear that there are only English-speaking people in South Africa. Nobody dreams of asking those people in Afrikaans whether they are present or not. Thereafter the jury members are asked to take the oath—again in English only. Not the slightest attempt is made to be fair and polite towards the Afrikaans-speaking people. Politeness towards Afrikaans-speaking people does not matter—we must only be polite towards the other section. Mr. Dupisani refused to take the oath in English and then the officials started looking around. And do you know what? There actually was not a single Afrikaans oath form in the whole Supreme Court of Johannesburg and neither in Pretoria. They looked all over the place but in the year 1944 there was not a single Afrikaans form in the whole court; and those are the people who profess to be in favour of bilingualism. That is how they apply the Constitution in South Africa. Then an exchange of correspondence took place between Mr. Dupisani and the Department of Justice. Thereafter he was sworn in time and again as a jury member, but then objections were raised against him. For a whole week he went there every day, but because there was no Afrikaans form available, objection was made against him so that he could not serve on the jury. The Minister must not come and tell me that they objected against him because most of those people were English-speaking and because they wanted to conduct the case in English only. The question was not that it would be difficult to interpret every time. The position briefly is that bilingualism in the Supreme Court in Johannesburg is put into practice in such a way that there is not even an Afrikaans oath form available. I know that the Minister may not be personally responsible and that the blame lies with his officials. But even in that case the responsibility still rests with the Minister to supervise matters. I now want to know from the Minister whether he is going to rebuke these responsible officers with a smile or whether he is going to take steps to prevent that Section 137 be violated in this manner. I do not know when the Minister is going to reply.

No, he is waiting for Barlow to reply.

Perhaps the Minister still needs a night to ruminate on this matter. If he is only going to reply tomorrow, I just want to tell him that if I am not here when he replies it is not because I want to be imploite, but because I cannot be here tomorrow.

I have noticed that the hon. member for Water-berg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) once or twice tried to speak, and I merely waited to give him an opportunity to speak. I shall at once deal with the points he broached. The first relates to bilingualism. It is our policy to apply bilingualism. In regard to the taking of the oath, this is often done on the platteland. Hon. members opposite know that frequently on the platteland the oath is only taken in Afrikaans. In Johannesburg where the work is mainly English, it is taken in English.

But anyone on the platteland may ask that the oath should be taken in English.

Yes, that is so.

The point is here that they have not had a form of oath in Afrikaans.

That must be put right, but it is a mistake that dates prior to 1924. If the Afrikaans form of the oath is not available now it was not at that time.

No, no.

That is the position.

But you do not now wish to attack the late Mr. Tielman Roos.

But Pirow is not dead. In any case it is a mistake, and it must be rectified. We shall see to it that there is a proper form. In regard to the summoning of the members of the jury, the hon. member knows that it frequently occurs on the platteland that exception is taken to an English-speaking person or the converse, an Afrikaansspeaking person, in order to eliminate the necessity of employing an interpreter. Sometimes it is resented when we do this. But as far as the other point is concerned, I agree that it should be put right.

When?

Immediately. As far as the police are concerned there is nothing of the nature of them being compelled to go round collecting money. Their private time is their own, and if they want to go round and collect money they can do so. No pressure is exercised on them and the Department will see to it that nothing of the sort is done. I thought it best to reply to those two points immediately. Then I come to the speech made by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). He referred to people who had been interned without there having been any proof against them and without there having been any grounds or reasons for this. This has happened in exceptional cases. I shall not go into some of these cases, and I am doing so in the interests of those people themselves. But because I have to reply here and because the matter has been mentioned here I shall refer to the case of Strobosch. He was interned and he was released because as a result of subsequent investigation it appeared he was innocent. But Strobosch will not deny that he was negligent in not exercising strict supervision over the section of the Department for which he was responsible.

But you are not going to intern a man for that.

Allow me to explain the position. I do not want to do this individual any harm in order to defend the Department. But ammunition disappeared. That was a dangerous thing in view of the conditions prevailing in the country, and Strobosch was responsible for it. After we had gone into the matter and after he had been interned, his case came before the court, where it was thoroughly investigated and he was found not guilty. Another man in the Department was found guilty and sentenced to fourteen months’ imprisonment.

I have no complaint regarding a person who was punished by the court because he was guilty.

My point is that Strobosch could not take offence in the circumstances that steps were taken against him in the first place. The matter was thoroughly investigated. I know nothing about the case of Potgieter. The hon. member must have got hold of a wrong name. As far as Sondagh is concerned I do not want to say too much about his case. There were circumstances that justified the internment. If the hon. member will see me privately I shall give him the facts.

But the Minister of the Interior told us here that the charge against him was quite unfounded.

Neither can he take umbrage at the fact that we interned him. Let me take another case. I do not want to mention the names of individuals. Let me take the case of A. He was sworn in as a stormtrooper. He acted in collusion with the other stormtroopers in the neighbourhood. Subsequently violence was committed. The hon. member will admit that the onus rests on A to prove he was innocent, and he could not take exception to us having interned him. Later it transpired he was not guilty of the specific offence that had been committed.

But why was not the head of the stormtroopers interned?

We only intern people when they are guilty.

Then the information was erroneous in the case of the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)?

You did not ask whether they were interned, but whether they were in our hands.

Then they have not been interned?

No, not interned, but they are in our hands.

Is their number a secret?

No, I can give no further information on that.

What do you mean by being in your hands?

These are people who have been sentenced in connection with other saboteurs and they are still serving their sentence. At the moment two other persons have been interned who have had nothing to do with the investigation into the case of the hon. member for Westdene. One is still being detained because the case against him depends on evidence that can be produced but in respect of which we still wish to protect the people.

Does this apply to the hon. member for Westdene?

No. I have referred to one, the case of the other is still sub judice.

What about Mr.

Weichardt?

His case is sub judice, as I have stated. He has noted an appeal with the appeals officer.

Then it is not sub judice.

Yes it is. We have always followed that policy. The appeals officer fulfils an important function and he must be able to go into those matters, and form a judgment, without being influenced by an expression of opinion either by me or by anyone else. Then in addition there are six fugitives; they were internees. The one interne was arrested in connection with the investigation into the attack on the hon. member for Westdene.

Why was he not brought before the court?

In the public interest we have not done that. We are dealing here with a very serious matter and we have to be cautious. We have to protect members on the other side from violence. Those hon. members know what I mean. Members of Parliament are not the only people affected; we have also to protect members of their Party. The hon. member for Westdene will agree with me ….

No, I will not agree with you.

The hon. member is not aware yet of what I wish to say but still he says he will not agree with me. He knows he was threatened before he was attacked.

Yes, I know that.

Why then did you say that you did not agree with me?

I did not agree with your statement that you had to protect members on this side.

I spoke about members on the other side and their supporters. Some of them have already been threatened. In the second place, there are other members, also members of Parliament, who have been threatened, members of the Party on the other side; we as a Government cannot tolerate violence, and we have taken steps to suppress this new procedure and we are going to suppress it.

But no one can tell me that the danger is past. Will any hon. member tell me that no other member of their Party is in danger?

The Minister of Lands is also threatening me.

Observations have been made in reference to a speech I made and in which I stated that we would ensure that the regulations were enforced, and that we would act after the suspension of hostilities to ensure that law and order are maintained. This is one of the cases to which I referred, that hon. members must be protected.

What others are there?

There was the case of violence in Pretoria against the watchman at the office of a control official in order to take articles away with violence. That was after my speech. We cannot allow things of that sort to develop. At that time when sabotage was committed I had already voiced my thanks to the Opposition for the assistance they had given us.

Why do you not say that to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow)?

I expressed my thanks before, but you will agree that the new sort of violence must be suppressed. The attack on the hon. member for Westdene was a very serious one. It was carried out in an unmerciful way and he might easily have lost his life as a result. Hon. members therefore will not resent the fact that until we know the result of the case we shall detain these ten who have been interned.

Will they be tried later?

It depends on the information we get. In connection with most of the cases we have had conclusive information. In reference to sabotage practically 99¾ per cent. of the cases have been solved and the persons concerned have been convicted. Many of these young lads were misled and today they are serving long sentences.

And those who misled them are at large.

If hon. members on the other side will assist in bringing those who are responsible before the courts, we shall not hesitate to act. On the other hand, there are also certain organisations in our country which believe that seeing that things in Europe are now taking a different course they can achieve something in an underhand manner. That, too, will not be tolerated.

What organisation?

It is not in the public interest to mention it.

It certainly is not in the public interest to say why you supported the Ossewa-Brandwag candidate at Beaufort West.

I think that matter has been widely discussed on other occasions. I do not know anything about it except from hearsay. The hon. member further complained about the emergency regulations, that we did not enforce them as strictly as possible. These emergency regulations were adopted in time of war. We took this course and it was necessary, and it was better to do this than to introduce martial law, which could easily have beep done in view of the condition the country was in. But the Government did not want to bring in martial law, so we adopted the emergency regulations and enforced them in an intelligent although mild form. If we had acted drastically under the emergency regulations ….

You would not have been able to stand me a drink.

If we had acted drastically many people who made speeches from a public platform, representing the party on the other side and other parties, would have landed in difficulties, because there were technical breaches, but we took the view that the emergency regulations were there to protect the country and not to be used as a weapon against political opponents, and where the country was not really endangered we did not apply the regulations. We were strongly condemned by our own side, but I think hon. members on the other side admit today that the mild method of application was better in the long run. In view of the fact that this was the course adopted in certain circumstances, we had to follow the same course generally. You could not apply the regulations mildly in the case of one man and rigorously in respect of another. Hon. members, on the other hand, made speeches, for instance, which if they had been made in any other country would have been followed by strong measures against them. That was not done here.

Nonsense.

Could anyone in Germany have stood on a public platform and said that the salvation of Germany depended on a British victory?

What about Joe Stalin?

You would not venture that even in Russia.

In no other country have regulations been enforced as mildly as in this country. I think the policy was right, but seeing that hon. members thought it was right in certain circumstances they must not now ask that we should apply them in the strictest manner where the law has not been ‘transgressed. Their attitude is that we must proceed mildly against nazism but drastically against communism. That will not work. There is another point. The hon. member spoke about regulations and referred to lotteries. The same thing applies to lotteries. The hon. member knows that for years and years there have been raffles at church bazaars and other bazaars.

When were you last at a church bazaars? It never happens at a church bazaar.

I have been at many church bazaars where raffles were run.

These must have been Synagogue bazaars.

These have never been prevented. In any case during the time of the Nationalist Party from 1924 to 1932 such raffles were actually run at church bazaars, all churches being concerned and no ’ steps were taken against them. During the war the policy was indeed not to permit lotteries on the streets, except where money was being collected for war purposes and war charitable institutions. We did not intervene there unless it was clear that a profit was being made or a big commission was being paid out. Then we took immediate steps, and hon. members need merely look at the records of the courts to see how many prosecutions have been instituted in connection with that. Strong supervision was exercised in this connection by the police. Hon. members speak about Communism and what they describe as the communist danger. It appears that if anyone is a communist and he speaks, they want us to prosecute him. The communists form a political party who have a perfect right to exist so long as they act within the limits of the law. If they do not transgress the law there is no action we can take against them. It is obvious, however, that should the law be broken action will’ be taken. If the law is broken it does not matter whether it is the communists or any other party, but I have always said when allegations have been made against the communists: Point out to me where the law has been broken. Now we hear about speeches, communist speeches in connection with their cause. Well, I want to say that the communist speeches have not been nearly so strong as the speeches that have been made by certain hon. members of the Opposition in connection with the war. Incitement!

We let you have it, that is all.

And if a communist wants to let you have it, in turn, you do not want to allow that.

We did not run round amongst the natives and run you down amongst them

I do not want to go into that, but the Nazis did in fact go round amongst the natives in the country and inflamed them a good deal.

What has our Party got to do with that?

And what have we to do with the communists?

How many Nazis have been arrested for inciting the natives?

Many have been arrested.

Why do you not arrest the communists who have done the same thing?

The communists are not doing it in a subversive way. The Nazis are doing it subversively, with subversive purposes, and hon. members know that as well as I do. The communists, as such, are a lawful party and the department can only be asked to take action where they infringe the law.

You are shutting your eyes.

Why do you not bring your charges so that they can be investigated? Why do you not mention instances?

When we bring a complaint to you you say: “Go and see Wyley.”

The hon. member for Westdene spoke a great deal here about the Brakpan case. He knows very well that for a certain reason Mr. Rabie was dischaged from the Licensing Board. Until that time he served and he was messenger of the court. He was messenger of the court and he was appointed to the Liquor Licensing Board, and I regard that as very undesirable. Such a messenger is an official of the court.

He serves under a magistrate. He is dependent, because his engagement is on a monthly basis, and it is not desirable that such people should serve on a licensing board. The fact that this was the case before is no justification. I have laid down the policy that as far as the Department is concerned absolutely no messengers of the court may serve on licensing boards.

When was this policy laid down?

The minute I discovered that Rabie was a member of the Liquor Licensing Board.

It was a policy against Rabie.

Twenty years is as a minute in his eyes.

In other instances it was also laid down at the request of the other side of the House, although not in connection with the Liquor Licensing Board. It was brought to my notice that a messenger of the court was chairman of a branch of the United Party, and I took immediate steps that he should resign. Now there is the other case of Mitchell. I want to say here clearly that Mitchell was for a long period Mayor of Brakpan. He was a member of the Licensing Board. The question then came up whether he could sit as a member of the Licensing Board when an application by his brother was being dealt with. He sought information himself. He consulted a magistrate, and a magistrate advised him not to take the session. He then approached the Department of Justice, and the Under-Secretary also advised him that he ought not to attend the session but he did not say that he might not sit.

Because he could not say that.

Exactly. He took his own opinion and sat. There was nothing secret about the matter. Everyone of them knew about it. He made a mistake there and the judge ticked him off strongly. But it was not done in secret, and in future he will not sit. But for a long time he was a member of the Licensing Board.

What do you mean when you say he will not sit again?

Not if the case of his brother comes up. That is all that the court decided.

The court said it was very improper for him to have sat.

I accept the decision of the court entirely. However, it was no secret, but really to make a test.

Come, come!

The Department cannot say that he may not sit. In the future he will again be able to sit. His information was, and I believe he also took legal opinion, that he could sit. The judge stated quite explicitly that he sat not by way of a test but to try to further his brother’s case.

The judge stated very clearly that he sat not to test the matter but to try to advance his brother’s case.

Well, apparently he did not advance his brother’s case very much, because his brother lost., The case was widely discussed. Mr. Mitchell had a good record.

You call that a good record?

He was Mayor of Brakpan for a long time,

Was he recommended by the town council?

He was always a member.

After the court case?

No, that time he was not recommended. Then another political party got the upper hand. Then someone had to be appointed, and here was Mitchell who otherwise had a very good record.

“Otherwise.”

He was then re-appointed. He had long experience, and the point on which they differed was decided against him and the case will not arise again, but neither the Department nor anyone else told him that he could not sit. He went to the magistrate, and there was no secret about that.

You have only spoken about Rabie, who was not re-appointed. What about Vorster? Why did you refuse to accept a recommendation to appoint him?

I am free to exercise my discretion, and after going into the matter I regarded that as undesirable.

Do you regard the judgment of the court as a reflection on Mr. Mitchell’s bona fides?

Not on his bona fides.

Did you hear what the judge said?

It was a reflection upon his action. He made no secret of the fact that he was going to sit. I accept that as being the case. Hon. members on the other side cannot complain that I did not accept the recommendation of the Town Council of Brakpan. During the years when the Nationalist Party was in power and when the South African Party had a majority on the Town Council of Brakpan, Brakpan made a recommendation then that was not accepted.

Was it in connection with a man with a record such as this?

Was the man condemned by the judge?

He was not condemned by the judge. He acted wrongly in this case, but if he had not sat he would not have been condemned.

Of course not.

The charge against him was this, that seeing his brother was an applicant he should have recused himself in connection with the application. That was the point. The reflection upon him was only that he sat in this specific instance.

Do you know that the judge said: “The only honourable way would have been ….”

I know the judge expressed himself strongly and condemned him for having sat.

In other words, it was a dishonourable thing for him to have sat.

That is what the judge said, but he did not do it mala fides; he did it openly and everyone knew about it and otherwise he had a very good record and had always been recommended.

The judge said: “Mitchell has a mind which cannot see that the honourable way ….”

I admit he expressed himself strongly.

If I commit a theft in such a case am I a thief?

There was no theft committed. He did not commit any offence.

But it was a dishonourable thing.

He did it under a misunderstanding.

No.

He was advised and thought he could still sit. If the United Party had obtained a majority at Brakpan they would again have appointed him.

That would have been a reflection on the Saps of Brakpan. No wonder the United Party did not get a majority.

It is an ugly reflection on the United Party.

I want to go further. In connection with this matter judgment was given on the 25th January the year before last, and he continued to sit for a whole year, and neither the Nationalists of Brakpan nor the members of the United Party, nor the Brakpan municipality on whose behalf he was appointed, nor anyone else had any objection.

You must know that they could not do that.

No one took exception to him sitting. No one said that he should be taken off. Not once were representations made against his re-appointment.

But they only sit once a year. How could they have raised an objection earlier?

It was only after he was appointed when he could no longer be removed that an objection was made. Not the slightest censure was passed on him in the town council. That could have been done. There was not the slightest objection by any member of the Nationalist Party at Brakpan. But after he was re-appointed ….

How could they have objected; under what Act?

Very easily. What prevented them from asking him to resign? What prevented them from passing a vote of censure?

Do not be so stupid.

Why were no steps taken? They could easily have introduced a motion of censure in the Brakpan Town Council and asked that he should resign. But nothing was done until he was appointed. The first time that I heard that anyone at Brakpan was raising an objection was after he had been re-appointed. They all knew that new appointments had to be made and they did not stir a finger to say that the department should not appoint him again.

Did the town council recommend him?

Was it only Nationalists of the town council who registered a protest?

No objection was made before he was re-appointed.

Please answer my question. In reference to the deputation that called on you did these protests come only from the Nationalists of the town council, or were the protests also on behalf of the public?

They were not all Nationalists. They spoke on behalf of others.

I said that this was an insult to the Saps at Brakpan. I thought they knew better.

When hon. members talk about this matter I should like them to tell me why no objection was raised in the town council, why no motion of censure was proposed? But it was after his re-appointment and after Rabie was discharged that it was first brought up. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. G. P. Steyn) also mentioned the question of the Germans as did the hon. member for Wakkerstoom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk). Weichardt’s case is still sub judice, and I consequently cannot deal with it here. In regard to the Germans, the war is over, the fighting is finished, but no one knows yet what the position is going to be. The war against Japan is still in progress and provisionally the present procedure will be followed.

I spoke about the theft by the district surgeon.

As far as that matter is concerned it has never been brought to my notice. I have asked for information, and I will go into it. At the moment I do not know anything about it.

Will it be referred to the Medical Council?

I shall first have to investigate the matter.

Will you carry out the law?

Yes, that is always done in my Department.

Will you not make another emergency regulation?

I think I have now dealt with all the points and that hon. members will agree with me.

I want to turn to another point, but I promise the Minister we shall come back to his answer. I should like him to have time, however, to reflect on the matter I shall bring up because it is a matter of great importance to the sound administration of justice in our country. I refer to the application of War Measure 57 of 1941. That war measure has placed a special power in the hands of the Minister of Justice, and that is the power in certain circumstances to take any person into custody and to question him, to lock him up and keep him locked up until he answers questions to the satisfaction of the Minister of Justice. That is a very exceptional power that has been given to the Minister. It is a power that is unknown in ordinary circumstances. It is a power the granting of which can only be justified by war conditions. It should only be applied and strictly applied, in conformity with the terms of the regulation itself. I shall now tell the House briefly what powers it gives. In the first place it is restricted to people who are guilty or suspected of being guilty of a specified offence. That is the first qualification. Only three offences are mentioned, and these are acts of violence towards persons, damage to property, and theft. It is restricted to these three cases only, but ordinary cases do not fall under it. In addition to those another element is required, and that is that one of the three offences must have been committed with the intention of hampering the Government’s war effort. That is what is essential. In the circumstances the Minister can place in custody a person whom he suspects of taking part in any of the offences concerned. It must be with the intention of hampering the war effort. Remember the words “offence concerned”. Consequently he can detain anyone he considers as taking part in that; and in the second place any person who is in possession of information in reference to the “aforesaid offence”. You see in each case it is nicely ringed in with the provision that it must be something in connection with an offence that is here described. He can question a person he has taken into custody in these circumstances, but here again only in reference to the offence mentioned, and nothing else than the offence mentioned— and he can detain him further at any place he thinks suitable until the Minister is convinced—the discretion rests with the Minister—that that person has answered fully and truthfully all questions that have been put to him in connection with the offence mentioned. This is a very extra-ordinary power that is given to the Minister of Justice. One would have expected that that power could only be exercised strictly in terms of the proclamation, and that the Minister would have been at great pains to see that that measure was not applied in circumstances described in the proclamation itself. But my complaint now against the Minister is that he is applying this proclamation to cases that are not covered by the language of this war measure. That is my first complaint; and in the second place where he applies this, whether it is rightly done or not, the treatment he then accords people who taken into custody in terms of this regulation is of such a character that, to say the least—you know that I am not prone to exaggerate—it is a shock to any person’s sense of justice. Here we have the exceptional case. I want to say in the first place, and I have already mentioned it here on the occasion of a motion that was proposed by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), that this measure is used in respect of cases that it was never intended to cover, and it is not only a single case that I am referring to; there are many cases of this sort, cases of infraction of the diamond laws, not cases of personal violence, not cases of damage to property and not cases of theft; and in every case there has been no suggestion that that particular offence was committed with the intention of hampering the Government in its war effort. In a number of cases it has been applied outside the scope of this section. I think the Minister will not deny that he has used this measure to bring to justice people he suspected of transgressing the diamond laws. Now I want to ask the Minister: Where does he get the right under this war measure to take people into custody in those circumstances and to hold them for examination when it is not one of these offences that is involved? But now I want to go further into a particular case, the case of Mr. Botes that was recently heard at Upington. He pleaded guilty and on that he was sentenced. I want to present his case to the House from these two standpoints. In the first place there was no question that it was one of those offences. There was no suggestion that it was the intention to hamper the Government’s war effort, so in any event this war measure absolutely did not apply. But suppose for a moment that his case did fall under this, then I want to read out the sworn evidence that was given in the circuit court in the presence of a representative of the Attorney-General together with a challenge to the Crown to contest the facts mentioned there, a challenge that was not accepted. I may say that I have done everything in my power to check the facts that I have today submitted to the House and see they are absolutely correct, and that there is no question of exaggeration. Here is the evidence that was led. After that evidence was given by Mr. Botes he was cross examined by the representative of the Crown and during the cross-examination no doubt was thrown on the facts that he gave in his evidence. Now I should like to read the evidence out to you and then you can judge for yourselves. I only wish to add that the person was held for examination in connection with information which he was supposed to have in his possession in connection with a Mr. Kallie Kahn and Barney Diamond and Jack Feinman. I only want to add as a background to the picture that those people were all before the court and the statement that was eventually obtained from Mr. Botes had so little reference to their case that he was not even called on by the Crown as a witness. Consequently he was detained because he was in the possession of information, and yet the information they elicited from him was of such a character that the Crown did not consider it worth while calling him as a witness at the trial of these people. This evidence was led not only in the presence of the representative of the Attorney-General but also in the presence of the official who was in charge of this whole investigation with reference to diamond offences in the North-West. My time is nearly finished and I would rather read this evidence as a whole. [Time limit.]

There is just one point I would like to raise with the Minister and it arises as a result of a statement that the Minister issued recently wherein he requested the municipality of Durban to extend its present Civilian Protective Services in regard to the Civilian Guard to the end of October. I would like at this stage, firstly to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Minister with regard to the praises he extended to this particular service in Durban which was conducted during this war, not for the sake of looking after the safety of Durban but in the national interest of the country. And, Sir, in undertaking that service in the national interest, the municipality of Durban have been put to considerable financial expenditure as a result of which there have always been negotiation between the Government on the one hand and the municipality on the other hand. The Minister did indicate in that statement that agreement had been reached in regard to a subsidy until the end of June. I would like the Minister to indicate, in view of the fact that he has asked that this service should be extended to the end of October, to what extent the Government is prepared to assist the municipality of Durban. I hope that in view of the trouble that existed in the past, in arriving at an agreement, and in view of the fact that we have been unable to come to an agreement in the matter, and as it would appear that agreement has been reached in so far as the extension of the service is concerned, the Minister will indicate to what extent the Government is prepared to extend further assistance to the municipality of Durban.

I will now read the evidence to which I referred, in the case of the Crown versus Nicolaas Botes. The advocate put this question to Mr. Botes—

Then he said what it was in connection with namely the cases of Kahn, Diamond and Feinman. The evidence reads further—

You were then in the charge office and said that you did not have the information? —Yes, then Rademeyer said they were going to take me to Kimberley and they would detain me until I spoke—they would keep me in custody until six months after peace had been signed.

They took you to Kimberley?—The same time.

Did they allow you to see your wife?—No, my wife was not at all well; she was under doctor’s treatment and she had to undergo an operation. I requested permission to visit them but he would not allow me to.

How did you get your clothes?—Police were sent to fetch them.

Were you given the opportunity of making any financial provision for your family? —No, I requested permission to go to the bank to inform the manager to give my wife money if she needed it, but Rademeyer said I could not see anybody.

Were you taken to Kimberley that evening?—That day we went through and at 6 p.m. we arrived there. On arrival they took everything away from me and locked me up in a cell.

Remember this is someone who was not condemned. This is a person who was detained for interrogation but he received the treatment meted out to a condemned prisoner.

Did they also take your cigarettes away? —Everything. I had my clothes and sleeping kit and a handkerchief and except for them I had nothing.

Were you allowed a shaving set?—No.

How long were you in that cell?—I arrived there on Saturday at 6 p.m. and 14 days after that I was released.

Disgraceful!

The advocate put the further question—

In August he was taken into custody, as hon. members will remember.

Except for the police, did you ever see other people in the cell?—No, except for the police I saw no private people; I requested to see a lawyer and was told that it was not permitted.

It sounds like Russia.

It goes on—

Did you tell the police that you were a man who suffered from high blood pressure? —I asked them whether they would give me a special cushion. I offered to pay anything for it. According to the specialist my head is very sensitive and I find it very difficult to lie comfortably without a special cushion.

You were prepared to pay for the cushion?—Yes, any amount.

Did you have money?—Yes, a few pounds.

You were in the cell for 14 days, were you given a bed?—No, I slept on the floor.

Disgraceful!

The question was put to him—

What month was it?—It was the 18th August in Kimberley.

Was it cold?—It was abnormally cold.

Did you have any conveniences apart from the blankets on which you had to sleep?—Absolutely nothing else.

It sounds like Siberia.

The following question is—

You asked for a cushion and this was refused?—Definitely.

You say it was very cold; were you allowed to sleep undisturbed at night?— No, not during the night.

Why not?—During the night at intervals of an hour or less one or two policemen came in and switched on the lights and looked round the cell and then went out again and slammed the door making a terrible noise, and then as I was about to go to sleep again, they came in again and so it went on right through the night.

Did this keep on for 14 days?—Yes.

Could you sleep in the night?—I suffer from insomnia and I could not sleep.

In those 14 days were you ever taken out for exercise or for a walk?—The only exercise I had was on the 12th day I was there.

What happened then?—I then asked Detective Grobbelaar to allow me to walk when he came to fetch me to go to the detective’s office and this request was granted, and I walked to the detective’s office.

Were you taken now and again to the detective’s office?—A few times, but always by motor.

When you arrived there did they interrogate you?—Yes, they asked me to make a statement and when I did not I was taken back to the cell.

Were you given any reading matter while you were in the cell?—I asked repeatedly for something to read. I said they could take my, food away and give me something to read.

Were you given something to read?—I hope I am not letting out secrets, but through other channels I managed to get a Bible and a “Kerkbode”.

This was smuggled to you by one of the police?—Yes.

Did you ask for something to read?— I repeatedly asked them to give me something to pass the time.

As regards food, did you ask for food from an hotel and offer to pay for it?— Yes, I did so.

What sort of food did they give you?— In the morning one spoonful of porridge.

With milk and sugar?—Just a little milk and sugar. In the morning I did not get early morning coffee and then with the porridge I got coffee. For lunch, about three slices of ordinary brown bread with half a cup of tea, and in the evening the same again as at lunch-time, that is to say two or three slices of ordinary bread and half a cup of tea. I may not eat the ordinary bread and I cannot drink tea. I repeatedly told them that I could not eat the bread and was also not allowed to drink tea.

You were forbidden under doctor’s orders to drink tea or eat the ordinary bread?—Yes, I have stomach trouble.

Was there ever a change in the meals? —On Sunday we got a little meat; I measured it and it was about the size of my thumb.

Anything else?—Then a small helping of vegetables, to this day I don’t know what they were. That was on Sunday. Then on the following Thursday two eggs were sent in with the two slices of bread, but there was another fellow in another cell and he was sick.

He then said that he sent the eggs to the man who was sick—

Did you find it easy to walk?—Grobbelaar can vouch for this, I swayed in the street.

Did he have to help you?—Practically.

On the 14th day you made a statement, why?—It was the only way of being released from imprisonment and going home.

The police went to see you at Upington; have they now made provision for you? —I asked Grobbelaar what the position was and to come to the house, and he said: “We release people and they must make their own provision.”

And then just this bit—

Thus here you have officials who apparently did everything in their power to be helpful; but in all probability there must be instructions issued. People who want to be friendly cannot at the same time act as inhumanly as this man was treated. I assert that a man who is detained under those circumstances, even though it is a case where the Minister is justified in detaining him for interrogation, cannot be otherwise treated than as an ordinary uncondemned prisoner, in other words, just as a person who is not yet condemned. Now I just want to refer the Minister to his own regulations. What is the treatment afforded to a person who is arrested for a crime, who is detained pending his trial? He has not yet been examined, and it is one of the basic principles of our criminal law that a person is deemed innocent until such time as his guilt has been proved. What is the treatment to be meted out to him? In the first place I will refer to the Act itself. Article 17 reads—

Therefore when a person who is arrested for committing a crime, he is entitled, until such time as he is condemned, to demand to be able to get food and bedding from outside, and it was refused this person who was not even arrested as a result of his having committed a crime. [Time limit.]

I want to revert to the story of the man who took the wrong turning, as the judge says here. He calls him: “The first citizen of Brakpan who took the wrong turning”. I should not have gone into this were it not for the astonishing answer given by the Minister today in connection with this matter. The Minister said very clearly here that this is a political matter. He clearly signified that if the United Party had been in the majority in Brakpan, in the town council, they would have re-appointed the man. He said that the Nationalist Party have acted similarly in the past, in other words, he is now turning it into a political matter. I have no strong objection to the fact that he should appoint a Party supporter, but my question to him is why he should appoint a person like this, “the first citizen of Brakpan who took the wrong turning”? He says here: “Otherwise Mr. Mitchell has a very good record”. But it is precisely in this matter, where he is appointed, that he has a bad and black record. I am once more obliged to read a few extracts from the court case. For the rest of the sitting of the board, he was suspended by the court. I will read further from the Judge’s remarks—

In other words he acted improperly—

The Judge says—

Thus in this respect he did not follow “the path of integrity”, but on the contrary a dishonourable path. Then the Judge says—

In other words, the Judge declares here that Mr. Mitchell was prejudiced in his decision. In other words, he was not unbiased. To wit he proved that he was biased. Then the Judge says further—

We must remember that the word “scandalous” is a serious term for a Judge to use. I believe that there are members on the other side of the House—I do not know how many—but I believe that there are members on the other side who still have some feeling for right and justice and for efficient administration in the country.

For clean government

Now I want to say this. Say for example that the man who was ejected was a Nationalist and we raised objection thereto. How would the Minister not have quoted from this finding to us, and then he would have said to us: “You want me to appoint the man whom the Judge described as ‘dishonourable’”? But today he pushes it aside. What I want to know is this: Who put pressure to bear on him; who recommended to him that Mitchell should be re-appointed? He is now hiding behind the Town Council of Brakpan; yes, they have not moved a finger to prevent Mitchell from being appointed. I take it that the town council members of Brakpan are honourable men who did not expect the Minister to do such a dishonourable thing and to appoint the man who shortly before was branded by the Judge as somebody who behaved “dishonourably”.

But the public held meetings of protest.

Can anyone possessing a feeling of decency imagine that the Minister would come and eject a man who has a clean record and then appoint Mr. Mitchell? The Minister says that otherwise he has a clean record, but he puts out a man whose record is unblemished and he appoints a man who does not possess a clean record. I say that there is somthing behind this matter, the cause of which we would like to know. We are not satisfied. I appeal to hon. members on the other side who also have a feeling of decency, to tell me whether they think it is right that the Minister should go ahead and act in this way. Can there be any confidence in the liquor licensing boards which are appointed by the Minister if such things happen? What guarantee has he that tomorrow there will not again be an unworthy deed committed by the same man? No, the hon. Minister’s defence is very werk. He is completely at sea and says that because Mitchell has a good record otherwise, he will appoint him again. He is appointing him on a case in connection with which he has a dishonourable record. There are just a few other things which the Minister has not replied to, and I insist on the Minister’s informing us what the position is. His Government will never tell us what they are going to do with people who furnished false information during the war to the Government, those cases where it has been proved to their own satisfaction that false information was given. The Minister refuses to say anything about that. We still want to know whether they are simply going to allow those people to walk about freely and say to them: “You gave us false information; you have received your reward; proof has now been furnished that that evidence was false, but you can go”. I would like to know what the Minister intends doing. Hon. members in the House spoke about our viewpoint in connection with acts of violence. I thought the objection against the Hon. Leader of the Opposition was always that he warned against acts of violence and gangsterdom. He uttered an early warning. We on this side, both in this House and outside and in our newspapers, warned time and time again against acts of violence. We urged our supporters to have nothing to do with acts of violence. Now hon. members come along and ask us whether we still protest against acts of violence.

They attacked me for that.

Yes, they said here that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition first of all supported the Ossewa-Brandwag and now he is accusing them of gangsterdom. Time and again the Leader of the Opposition issued a warning against acts of violence and gangsterdom and we did so as well. The Minister of Justice accuses us today of having delivered vicious speeches in this period and of having incited people against the Government.

Quite right.

Can the Minister not draw a line between a political opponent who attacks his Government and people who on the sly have incited the kaffirs and the coloureds against the white man, against the Government and the country? Does he not differentiate between the two? Can he not see a difference between his political opponent who openly expresses his opinion of the Government on public platforms and the man who quietly and slyly goes and incites the non-European population and antagonises them against the European population? Does he not see any difference in that? They have done nothing to prevent those dangerous happenings taking place. The Minister’s own leader, the present Prime Minister, issued a warning as early as 1929 and he said—

Those were the present Prime Minister’s words in 1929. He said—

[Time limit.]

When I spoke last I said that the position of the people detained by the department for questioning could be more or less compared with the position of people who in the ordinary course of the adminis tration of justice are detained for trial or as witnesses. The law prescribes that people so detained are entitled to food and clothing and to visits from their legal advisers from outside. The prison regulations provide for that, and I would like to mention a few of those regulations. We find, for example, that Regulation No. 605 provides that such a person’s legal adviser may visit him, something that was refused in the case of Botes. Regulation 608 provides for bedding, which was also refused in the case of Botes. Regulation 609 says that none of the person’s property may be taken away except dangerous weapons or articles that may be used to facilitate his escape. No. 612 provides that he may smoke; but this was denied Botes. No. 613 lays down that reading matter may be received by him, but this too was denied Botes. In every respect we find that the man detained for examination in this case did not even get the treatment that a criminal would get when awaiting trial. This is the least that such a person may expect, and I should like to know under what authority the Minister acted in dealing with these people in this way, because it does not redound to the credit of his department even if they did this to a prisoner who had already been convicted. It is a very serious matter, and there was an occasion when the Appeal Court had reason to express itself on the treatment of persons detained for trial, because such treatment as was meted out to them corresponded to a certain extent with the treatment Botes received. I refer to the case of Whitaker versus Roos and Bateman heard by the Appeal Court in 1912. This man’s complaint was that before conviction he was not permitted (1) to take any exercise except two hours a day. In the case of Botes he had one hour’s exercise for the first time after 12 days; (2) that they were not allowed to smoke for 12 days; (3) that they were not allowed to receive newspapers; (4) that they were refused an interview with their legal advisers. I have already shown this also happened in this case. (5) That other articles besides those that are prohibited were taken from them. Then (6) the person complained that “he was tormented by the sound of corporal punishment” that was given to other offenders. In the same way in this case it was complained that the person could not get any rest at night because every hour people were coming in so that he was not allowed to rest. What did the judge say in that case I have referred to? I want to say that this is not a matter that affects this side of the House or that side of the House. It is a matter that affects the citizens of the country because it affects our administration of justice, which we have always regarded with pride and we are exceptionally jealous that nothing should be done to endanger its foundations. In his judgment Lord De Villiers said—

In this case we are concerned with a person who was detained and who after 14 days made a statement in which he admitted his guilt. I do not want to say anything here about the offence he committed. This opinion of the judge’s has also no relation to the nature of the crime. It has to do with the question of the treatment of a person before he has been convicted of the offence. I should also like to refer to a remark by Sir James Rose-Innes in regard to people who were concerned in sabotage. Inter alia, he said—

The person may be a criminal or someone who wanted to use dynamite against his fellowmen, but that has nothing to do with the requirement that a man’s personal rights may not be impinged on before judgment actually is given. Lord De Villiers stated further—

I assert that the methods employed in the case of Botes closely approximate the third degree and the methods of the Gestapo and the Ogpu, which are unknown in a civilised country like South Africa. I have presented the facts and the Minister of Justice is unable to state that those facts are not correct. I have checked the facts as far as possible, and I say that so far as I cap check them they are correct. These things must have occurred in pursuance of instructions, because the officials themselves were sympathetic, and I say that this reveals a state of affairs that we may not tolerate in our country. If these facts are in any way true then it is a matter that must be immediately rectified. We have always had confidence in our administration of justice in this country, and one of the foundations of our administration of justice is that a person must be regarded as innocent until his guilt has been established by a court. He may not be punished before he has been convicted. A definite encroachment has been made here of what must be regarded as a sacred and inviolable principle of our administration of justice. I have stated I appeal to hon. members on the other side who have any sense of justice still, that they should not allow the foundations of our administration of justice to be tampered with. Their sense of justice must surely have received a shock by these revelations, and they will agree with me that we dare not allow conduct of this nature to occur in our country, and that there should be immediate restitution in respect of the injustice that was done, and also that those persons should be punished who were responsible for the instructions that people held for questioning should be treated in this way. This is certainly not the first instance. This is the instance that I checked, but my information is that there are other cases besides this. Now I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is. If this is the way he is going to apply this regulation and this principle then I maintain that it is high time that War Measure No. 57 should immediately be repealed.

I wish just briefly to repeat what I said a little while ago. I want to deal with this matter on its merits and not from a Party viewpoint. Hon. members on the other side have the right to make as much propaganda with it as they wish. My duty is to deal with the matter objectively here. We have here to deal with a case that is known to all the people in that neighbourhood. It was known to everyone in that neighbourhood that this person who was a member of the Licensing Board proposed his brother’s application. This individual also did not immediately attend the session. In the first instance he asked the opinion of the magistrate, who did not tell him that he might not sit, though he advised him not to. Then he consulted the Secretary for Justice.

And they all told him not to sit.

They did not tell him that he might not sit. They told him it was a question of whether it was advisable whether he should sit, and from that angle they advised him not to sit. He also took other advice to the effect that he was appointed, and that he was perfectly entitled to take his seat. Everyone knew that the case would be a test case.

Can you tell us who gave that advice?

I do not know that, but that is his affair.

Why did he not submit a sworn declaration to the court?

I do not know. I only know that he took advice and he must then have thought he was entitled to sit. If he did not think that he would not have attended a session, because then he would have known that he would have spoilt the whole case. He made a mistake. But everyone knew that the matter would go to the court. The Judge strongly criticised his action.

He said it was disgraceful.

I must accept what the Judge said. He gave his finding on this one point. The Judge only suspended him on this one point, as far as his having sat is concerned, but he did not do more. He did not condemn his action in connection with any other matter. The Judge only said that he acted wrongly in connection with having sat on that one occasion.

But the court could do nothing more, and the Judge said that in that case the man had acted disgracefully.

Yes, on that point he was punished. The Judge made no further suggestion that the man ought to resign or that he was not competent to sit. If the Judge would have done that then he would not have Said that a person should only be suspended in that one case.

But the Judge could not do that because only that one case was before him.

Although it would have been much better if he had not sat he did so openly and honourably and why should we go beyond the punishment that the Judge imposed on him?

But there was no further application.

The Judge suspended him and left it at that. He made no further observations. Everyone knew that this person was appointed for a year and the Judge passed no reflection at all on the rest of his conduct. Nor did the town council at that time make any objection to it. The first time they made an objection was in December when he was re-appointed. He had been punished in connection with the one case, but there was no suggestion that he should not attend any further sitting, or that he could not again be appointed. The further facts of the case are that this man had done public service for a long time and had behaved well. On this one point his judgment was wrong; but he did it openly, and why should we now continue to punish him? I think this is a complete answer to this case that members on the other side have mentioned.

But if a man has such a weak judgment that it is possible for him to make such a blunder, it must be obvious that he is not fit to serve on such a board.

But even a magistrate cannot say that he might not do that. He acted in the open and he made a mistake as far as his judgment was concerned. For that he was rebuked and punished, and it is not for us to punish him further. It was not a question that was clear and there was no previous decision. After that finding there was not the slightest objection made against him from any quarter to his continuing to serve on the Licensing Board. No one asked him to resign. It was only when he was re-appointed they made an objection.

They did not recommend him again.

No, the town council did not recommend him. He was re-appointed, and that is the whole explanation and the reply as far as that case is concerned. I may not have convinced members opposite, but I myself am absolutely convinced about the position. Now I want to come to the point that has been broached by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I shall not discuss the facts and I shall only deal with the matter generally. As far as the general principles of justice are concerned, I agree with him. I have not the facts before me, and therefore I do not want to go exactly into the merits of the case nor to go into those facts. I shall go into the facts later, because I have never had them before me. I wish to confine myself more particularly to the general principle. Let me admit at once that no one likes that sort of regulation, and that sort of measure. No one wants them in normal times, and it was only the state of emergency in the country that brought us to the stage of instituting those regulations. The police have acted absolutely well in terms of the regulations. The hon. member is now pointing out that those regulations are very rigorous, but he loses sight of the circumstances under which they were enforced. He is judging them from the angle of ordinary circumstances of the country, and that is absolutely wrong. He must remember that the country was passing through a period of war, and in a period of war we have to deal with martial law. He therefore should not compare those regulations with the normal regulations in peace time but he should compare them with the regulations we would have under martial law, and which other countries apply under martial law.

Where it is stated in Regulation 57 that power has been granted to treat people in this way when they are detained?

The regulation is perfectly clear that such a person can be detained as we have done.

No, that is not there.

The hon. member will find I am correct. These regulations were introduced in connection with sabotage. We had a very serious state of affairs in the country. The police knew well what people were involved in this sabotage. They knew where to find those people, but they knew that they would also involve other people in danger if they followed the usual course. In the meanwhile dynamite was used.

But in this case there was nothing of that sort.

I am coming to that. The object of the regulations was to deal with the very difficult and serious situation in the country. The regulations related to sabotage, and they had to be strictly applied, and they were also absolutely effective. They complied with our requirements. Because we published those regulations at that time and carried them out we saved many people in the country from being the victims of violence.

We are not talking about that now. You are now setting up skittles in order to bowl them over.

No, I am not doing that. It was done because the war policy of the Government was at stake. We could not allow the war policy of the Government to be wrecked, and the enemies of the country and of the Government to be assisted.

But who complained about that?

If the hon. member admits that it makes it easier for me to reply. Then I come to the question of diamonds. I want to say at once that the point has been rightly mentioned by the hon. member for Fauresmith, and I do not take exception to him having done so. I will also see that these regulations are not applied except where it is necessary. In this case they were applied because there was theft of diamonds.

Not theft, there was an infraction of the diamond law.

I shall give you information about that. We discovered that not only were diamonds being sold illegally on a large scale but that those diamonds were being sent out of the country. We found that the diamonds were going to North Africa, from where it would have been very easy to transfer them to enemy countries. We knew that the enemy was short of diamonds for industrial purposes.

Was there any indication that these were industrial diamonds?

Yes.

Where has there been any suggestion that these were industrial diamonds? No such suggestion has ever been made.

I admit that. When we discovered this matter, before we knew who the accused were we knew that diamonds were being smuggled to North Africa on a big scale, and from there they could easily get into the hands of Germany. We did not know whether they were industrial diamonds or not. We knew that diamonds had gone out and that they could get into the hands of the enemy, and to prevent that, and perfectly rightly, after thorough consideration we made this regulation applicable.

Was there any theft?

No, it was I.D.B.

They were unlawfully in the possession of diamonds but it was not theft?

They came into the possession of diamonds in a secret way in order to smuggle them to the North. We had a strong suspicion that the diamonds were being conveyed to Turkey, from where they could easily go to Germany.

Did they go by air to North Africa?

No, I do not want to talk about that. We could not know what sort of diamonds they were. The risk of industrial diamonds was there. What is more, it is not only industrial diamonds that can be used for industrial purposes.

How can the other diamonds be used for industrial purposes?

It is true industrial diamonds are much cheaper, but the other diamonds can also be used for industrial purposes. If the hon. member had thought of that he would not have made this attack. We must take that into account.

But were these diamonds conveyed to the North by American or British aircraft?

We knew that the best way to stop it was to take action in our own country, and aucordingly we did so. If we had not taken those steps diamonds would have been exported on a large scale, and those diamonds would eventually have gone to Germany, where they were highly necessary for war purposes.

But tell us what subversive organisation there was to export the diamonds.

Tell Us whether one of those diamonds was discovered beyond the borders of the Union.

Yes.

Where?

Many of these diamonds were never recovered by us.

But did you get them beyond the borders of the Union?

Those that we did get were in this country, but the fact is that we found people in the country with great quantities of diamonds in their possession, and I believe it is certain if we had not taken those steps industrial diamonds would have been exported on a big scale, and they would eventually have found their way to Germany I said that the hon. member for Fauresmith apparently did not know this or otherwise he would not have mentioned this matter. No one is more keen to maintain the law of the land than this Government. But we must take into consideration that we are dealing with a period of martial law. In a time of war strong action has to be taken in such matters. I say that in comparison with martial law, and in com parison with what has been done in other countries where martial law prevails, the Government of the Union has acted leniently. I think we all should accept that a Government has no right to deal gently with people who assist the enemy and especially with people who help the enemy to make ammunition and to kill our own lads with it.

When a little while ago I mentioned communistic agitation amongst the natives the Minister of Justice stated that they were German agents or Nazis who were engaged in this agitation and that he had either put them in gaol or interned them. The Minister also issued a challenge, stating that we on this side could mention not a single instance where a person was guilty of agitation of this character amongst the natives. Last year I brought to the attention of the Minister in this House that Senator Basner was personally one of the causes of the rebellion of the natives in the Pietersburg district. The Minister is aware that this is the case. At that time the Minister made no reply. Subsequently I mentioned the matter for the second time, and again the Minister ran away and gave no reply. Now for the third time I make the allegation that Senator Basner was responsible for that rising, for that rebellion, it was not a question of an ordinary riot. It was a rebellion, a question of sedition or of high treason that was in progress in the Northern Transvaal and he was responsible for it. The documents are in the hands of the Minister. He is in possession of the proofs, and nevertheless no steps were taken against that man when he allowed the natives to rebel against the white man. Nothing was done to him and he is still holding meetings and collecting money for medical aid in Russia. We protest against that. I say the Minister knows that Senator Basner is guilty. He has the documents in his Department, and he does not even give a reply. Then he comes here and says that we cannot mention a single case. The last persons who were guilty in South Africa of a rebellion of this sort were hanged at Slagter’s Nek, but this person is allowed to remain at large and to continue with his meetings. The question of the diamonds has been broached here. It is very interesting. Arrests were made under War Measure No. 57 of 1941. The Minister made the accusation here today that those people apparently sent the diamonds to Germany. I entirely agree with him that he should stop that sort of illegal action. But has the Minister properly investigated it? Has he not investigated whether the largest diamond dealers in South Africa have provided Germany with diamonds during the war? Has it occurred to him to institute an enquiry of that sort? The information has been given to me by a well-informed source that some of our largest diamond dealers sent diamonds to North Africa and Turkey by air. It was undertaken by the biggest diamond buyers who made a good sideline out of it during the war. Not one of those individuals has been taken into custody. The people who were taken into custody transgressed the ordinary diamond laws of the country. They ought to be prosecuted. But if we use war measures to apprehend such persons they are still entitled to the protection afforded by the ordinary law of the country. We cannot do otherwise than protest strongly that when such persons are taken into custody they are treated under the war measures as has been indicated. We have our courts in the country and before those persons are punished they should first be found guilty by the courts. Accused persons are, however, being wrongly treated outside the scope of the law. This is a leaf out of the book of Siberia we are applying in practice. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give any reasons why persons who are still interned—there are still a large number of Afrikaners in the camps—are not released? Here is a letter, and I have made representations in connection with a man who has already been five years in a camp. He is a German who is not naturalised. He is not in good health. Together with an Afrikaner, his brother-in-law, he had a garage business. He is in the camp and the result is that his business has been closed and his whole family has become a burden on his brother-in-law. The man is an invalid and has already been operated on three times in the General Hospital, Pretoria. In the camp he is continuously in hospital. He was in South-West Africa from 1925 and in the Union from 1931. In 1937 he applied for naturalisation but it was refused because he was not completely fluent in both official languages. When the war broke out he was interned because technically he was still a German subject. The war against Germany is over. Why do we still keep these people in the camps? Can the Minister give any reason? It is not only that these people are being quite unjustly detained but it also involves the country in considerable expense in feeding them and in keeping them in the camp. They can be sent back to industrial life and to the work of producing. I feel that something must be done in the matter. Why is South Africa always more afraid than other countries? Why are they releasing these people in Britain and rescinding the war measures, while here we have not abandoned the war measures to any degree at all, as if we were still in real war danger. Then another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is the position in the magistrate’s court at Pretoria. Complaints are frequently made by individuals that when they are summoned to give evidence in the court they are ordered to appear at 10 o’clock …

May I remind the hon. member that there is a vote “Magistrate’s Courts”.

I should like to comment on what the Minister has stated. He has attempted to evade the first complaint. He has stated that these cases do fall under a war measure. I do not want to analyse his reply in detail, but I ask: Where are the acts of violence against individuals where is the theft; where is the damage to property? Supposing there was the intention of harming the war effort, not the effect: The measure does not say, the effect of which will be to hamper the war effort, but the intention must have been there on the part of Botes to hamper the war effort and he must have been guilty of the crime. The Minister must show that Botes’ intention was to hamper the war effort. Otherwise it does not fall under this war measure. He can alter the war measure, but so long as this is not done the Minister is not entitled to say that is has been rightly carried out. I do not want to take the point further. That is the Minister’s defence. He is landed with it. It is, however, not the only case. The Minister will also no doubt say that the theft of petrol coupons was also committed with the intention of hindering the war effort. Very well, but he then has to go further. If a loaf is stolen out of a baker’s shop it can also be said that that harms the war effort. Additional police must be maintained. Fewer police would be necessary if no one stole and more people could be sent off to fight. In that way there would be less for the ordinary administration but more for the war. That is the nature of the Minister’s defence on this point. But then I turn to the second charge, and there the Minister has preserved what may be a sanctified silence. Now I want to ask a relevant question. Assume for a moment that this is a case in which the regulation might well be applied. Suppose that is so. Does he approve that under the circumstances a person should be treated in this way before any guilt is proved. Does he approve of that or not? Assume the facts are right and this is the correct position. Then I put thé pertinent question: Does he approve this conduct or not? The second question is this. Is it an instruction by his Department or by him that these people should be treated in this way, yes or no? And if that is the case, there is a third question: Under what powers? The Minister has stated it is in the regulations. I make him a present of his regulations and I ask him to show that Regulation 57 of 1941 may be so applied that a person who is held for interrogation may be placed in a cell alone, with no exercise, that he may not say goodbye to his wife, that he may make no arrangements for her support, that he may not smoke, that he gets no bed and has to sleep on the cement floor. I ask how the Minister can justify that. It is now late, but I have intentionally mentioned this this afternoon, and I hope the Minister will seize the opportunity to go into the matter carefully so that he will be in a position tomorrow to make a defence which cannot be so simply and so easily torn to shreads. If that is the way of thinking of the high priest of justice in our country, that he may come and argue in this way, then I say God save South Africa.

I move—

Agreed to

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 25th May.