I move—

This motion is being introduced after consultation with the Whips. The purpose of this motion is to comply with the general desire of hon. members to terminate the Session during this week if possible. With that end in view it is desirable that We should sit for a longer period in the mornings and what I am proposing here will provide an additional hour’s sitting in the mornings. If this motion is agreed to, the hours of sitting will be the same as for the last three or four weeks of last year. I think that last year the hours of sitting were extended in a similar manner as early as from the 15th May.

May I draw the attention of the House to the tremendous burden which is being put upon the staff who will have to endeavour to keep pace in the lightning work it is going to perform during the coming week. I cannot for the life of me see why we should not sit until the work is decently and respectably finished. At the present moment the speed with which we have to go through the committee stage of a Bill is positively indecent. It simply means that no living person can comprehend what the effect is on the legislation we shall be credited with having passed in our sound and sober sense in this year of grace. I do ask the Minister not to go to the extremes which are being pursued now. I venture to say that no man who has the most constructive suggestions to make will be listened to with patience during this week. There will be the constant signs of impatience on the part of hon. members who feel that they have been promised that the end of the present week will see the end of the Session. I am not axious to stay here any more than anyone else, but I am anxious for the reputation of this House, and I say deliberately that if we go on endeavouring to pass this legislation at the speed with which we have been doing it, we will only bring opprobrium upon ourselves in future when the public realise what kind of laws we have passed, and we, the hon. members of this House who agree to these rush tactics will bear the blame, and not the Government or the Acting Prime Minister.

I would like to assure my hon. friend that we have every sympathy with the staff and their working hours and that we try as far as possible to be reasonable in actually fixing these hours. The possible effect of the adoption of this motion will be that we shall probably sit shorter hours in the evenings, and to that extent the staff will be relieved. May I also say that in actual fact there has been much less in the way of rushing legislation in recent years than there used to be. I can remember what happened in the early years when I was in Parliament. Actually today members do give more attention to the details of legislation, even at the end of the Session, than used to be the case.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The Minister is very fond of telling us on this side of the House that our standpoint as regards his war-time taxation has a political flavour and that for that reason he cannot or may not take too much notice of it. He argues that we oppose the taxation because we are opposed to the war. Now I would just like to ask the Minister whether he has recently received representations, not from people who are opposed to the war, but from people who for the past five or six years have been whole-heartedly in favour of the war. According to my information an annual function took place recently in Cape Town of the Chamber of Commerce and at that function was also present the Minister of Economic Development. He was specially invited to this function as the guest of honour. It was a social gathering, and as is the custom at social gatherings of this nature, anything unpleasant was avoided. That is the custom at social functions of this kind, unless there is such an abundance in the heart that the mouth speaks. My information is that on this occasion there was such an abundance in the heart of the Chamber of Commerce, such an abundance of dissatisfaction over the war-time taxation of the Minister, that it spoke and that the Minister of Economic Development was asked in fairly severe language to convey a message to the Minister of Finance. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has received that message and whether he would be so kind as to tell the House what that message was.

We are anxious to know. Here we have to do with people who are 100 per cent. for the war. Their opposition to the taxation measures is therefore not politically flavoured. What was the message sent to the Minister by them? Or are we asking for too much if we ask the Minister to disclose what was contained in that message?

Perhaps the message was not delivered?

*Mr. WERTH; Judging from what is happening on the other side of the House between the two Ministers at the present moment, the message is probably only being conveyed now. Well, commerce is in a position to speak its mind freely because it is not dependent upon Government policy to the same extent as industry, but as the merchants think, so the industrialists throughout the country are also thinking. The only difference is that they dare not express their views in the same manner because in the years ahead, particularly during the next three years, they will be too much dependent upon a benevolently protective policy of the Government and they dare not be outspoken in their views; but with regard to them one can say what a Hollander said once when he was asked whether he was satisfied with something. His reply was: “I am not saying anything, but God can hear me grumbling”. That is not a flavoured standpoint. We raised this matter at the second reading. What was the reply of the Minister? I think it may be desirable to dwell for a moment on the Minister’s reply. The Minister says that we on this side of the House have been so much concerned over the loan estimates during the past five or six years and that if there had to be a reduction, it should not have been on the revenue account but on the loan account. In that case this side of the House would be consistent. It is quite true that we are concerned over the increasing national debt. Let me just say this to the Minister that we are glad that he is at last also getting slightly worried. I remember that during the past couple of years the Minister stood up here and he appeared to be proud of the ease with which he was able to borrow money in South Africa. He implied that it was actually a compliment to his financial policy that the Government could so easily borrow money at such a low rate of interest. He was proud of the fact that the money was so plentiful. I told the Minister more than once that he should be careful not to allow money to become too plentiful in South Africa. It may become so plentiful that money will afterwards be lying idle and nobody will want it. I say that we are glad to see that the Minister has now learnt something from this side of the House and that the Minister has now begun to realise that he should be careful not to allow the loan estimates to increase too much. But do not come along with the excuse that in doing that your duty has been accomplished that it will no longer be necessary to cut down expenses, not on the loan account either. Do not make that excuse and then do nothing else. If the Minister makes use of this excuse, he will be doing irreparable harm to our national economy. I think all I need tell the Minister is this: Money was plentiful and the Minister’s revenue was buoyant and he could easily borrow money at a low rate of interest. Why? Because our primary and secondary industries flourished during the war years. They produced to their full extent and because they produced to the full extent, work was plentiful and money was plentiful. That is one of the main reasons why the Minister’s revenue has been so buoyant and he had no difficulty in borrowing money for his appropriation account. That is our objection to the financial policy of the Minister today; that industry although it could carry this heavy burden of taxation during wartime, will not be able to stand the strain of the wartime taxation in the years lying ahead without serious harm being done to our national economy. This is a short-sighted policy adopted by the Minister, to contiue imposing heavier taxation than is absolutely necessary on our industries, primary as well as secondary, during the years that lie ahead. Last year we pointed out that our primary and secondary industries are the goose that lays the golden eggs and there are certain aspects of the wartime taxation which are strangling this goose, and the Minister will be acting in a shortsighted and unwise manner if he allows the goose that lays the golden eggs to be killed, just because the Minister is too lazy to revise his taxation system.

Who is lazy?

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is suddenly very talkative. On Saturday when he should have been talkative he was tongue-tied. I repeat that our primary and secondary industries are the goose that lays the golden eggs. As long as they produce to their full capacity, the Minister will collect his revenue and there will be funds for the loan account. If he, however, harms our primary and our secondary industries with his wartime taxation, then he will be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I wish briefly once more to state very clearly what our standpoint on this side of the House is. I can do so in a few words, but it is desirable that it should be stated once more. We are against spending money unnecessarily and we maintain that it is not necessary to spend one penny more this year than last year. Not a single sound reason can be advanced why we should spend more this year, in the coming year, than in the year just past. I am not referring only to the revenue account, but also to the loan account. What was the position? On revenue account last year something more than £114,000,000 was spent and on loan account approximately £64,000,000. Altogether the expenditure was in the neighbourhood of, let us say, £180,000,000 for the two estimates. This year the Minister is asking us to vote more than £190,000,000. He is now asking £20,000,000 more than last year. The attitude adopted by this side of the House is this, that it is not necessary for the State or for the Minister to ask for more if he wants to carry out his duty in any way. At the third reading of the Appropriation Bill I am going to tell the Minister in what manner he may easily save £10,000,000. I have already told the Minister that our policy is to make money available for demobilisation and for housing. But the Minister can do that without having to increase the expenditure for the current year to more than that of last year and we will quote him chapter and verse to prove that. I merely want to draw the Minister’s attention to this matter once more. The Minister always declares that he must impose taxation because he should not give too much money to the public, it is not a good thing for the public to have too much money. The danger is equally great if the Minister of Finance has too much money. If the public has too much money there is a danger of inflation, but if the Government has too much money and spends too much money, then he facilitates inflation, and that is what the Minister is doing. We know that it is impossible to abolish all war-time taxation measures all at once, but it is the duty of the Minister to remove, now before any harm is done to our primary and especially our secondary industries, the hampering restrictions which exist. We did not call for a division on the second reading because we asked the Minister, if possible, to call a Session of Parliament in September. The Minister did not refuse point-blank. He said that he would have to consult the Prime Minister. For that reason we did not call for a division of the House. We hope that the Session will take place in September. It is the duty of the Minister to do that. I want to leave it there for the moment. The attitude of this side of the House is that not a single penny more should be spent by the Government than last year and the Minister should immediately remove the worst of the restrictive features of the burdens imposed by it. I do hope that the Minister will not again use the childish argument that we should not save one penny on revenue account.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister if the amendment which was made in Clause 4 will meet the case of a company which is in process of being wound up and is very anxious to dispose of levy savings certificates which they have been given during the past two or three years. I notice in another clause it is stated that levy savings certificates are payable only six years after issue. I feel that something very much better can be done than to tell people that they should keep these certificates for six years before they can use them, and I would like to suggest to the Minister’ that if he can possibly do it, it would be a very great improvement if he could, with the idea of encouraging saving, make all levy savings certificates available as cash on application for a new loan. I would strongly recommend a special savings loan on which these savings certificates can be handed in as cash. Many taxpayers have their levy savings certificates attached to their receipt for income tax, and it is merely a slip of paper, and if they have to keep all these slips of paper for several years before they can use them many of them will be lost. I know the Minister does not wish to gain an advantage as the result of that, and I think that a suggestion such as I have made, would encourage saving, and would certainly prove a very acceptable form of converting these savings certificates into permanent savings.

May I reply to my hon. friend first. In the first place I would point out that this position in regard to the non-convertibility of the levy savings certificates for six years is only with respect to the future. It therefore has no bearing on certificates which have already been issued. It is only in future that there will be this non-convertibility. Levy certificates at present in the hands of the taxpayer may still be converted on the old terms. The other point raised was in regard to the possibility of using levy savings certificates as part subscription to a new loan. That I will consider when we come to the stage of issuing new loans.

†*The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) referred to a meeting of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. The Minister of Economic Development undertook on that occasion to bring certain remarks made there in connection with taxation to my notice, and that he has done. As a matter of fact, I had already seen the same remarks in the newspaper, and my reply naturally is that I will take into consideration the views expressed in connection with the matter when the proposed taxation modifications are considered. Then I also wish to tell him this, with regard to the question of a possible saving on defence expenditure which he has raised once again, that in so far as it will not be needed for expenditure in connection with demobilisation, it will be, this year, at any rate, more in our own interests to place this saving to the credit of the loan account than to credit it to the revenue account and to use it for reducing taxation. I say that it will be to our greater advantage and also to the greater advantage of the national economy as a whole. I am saying this in respect of this year and not with a view to the future. As far as the future is concerned we will consider the position in connection with the proposed revision of our taxation legislation. My hon. friend has promised at a later stage to tell us how we could save £10 million without reducing our expenditure on demobilisation and housing. I am looking forward with pleasure to that occasion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

On Saturday I referred to the National Road Board and drew attention to the lack of co-operation between the Road Board and the various provincial administrations. The Minister then said that I should wait for the loan estimates to raise the matter because, he said, then I would be in a position to discuss the matter with the Minister responsible for it. I have since looked through the loan estimates and there I found, on page 26, that an amount of £1,700,000 will be made available to the National Road Board, but it appears under the Public Works Vote.

But the Minister of Transport will be here.

Does the Minister give us the assurance that that will be so?

Yes. I will see to it that he is here.

Otherwise we would not have an opportunity. This vote is a general vote and it comes under the Minister of Finance.

It is a general vote containing various items and which therefore comes under the Treasury. But we shall see to it that the Minister of Transport is present to take care of that matter.

Then I will not go into it any further now.

I now come to chapter 2, concerning Natal. On a previous occasion I discussed the question of the pupils in the various schools of Natal. The Minister of Finance then stated that we should not resort to force. Well, I hope that he will use all his power during the recess in order to remedy this state of affairs. He himself admitted that the position existing there is unsound. He can remedy it by means of the Consultative Committee, where the representatives of the Government meet with the administrators and the Executive Committee. I hope that on that occasion the Minister will use his influence to raise this matter and to have it put right. I now come to another matter and I do hope that the Press of Natal will give its attention to it. This matter does not concern the Afrikaans-speaking child only but all sections of the population and especially the status of the teachers. I want to point out that as far as the status of the teaching profession in Natal is concerned, the position is critical. I want to quote from the Ordinance of 1942, viz. Section 43 (1) which deals with the appointment of teachers. This section contains the following provision—

This is contrary to the system in vogue in the other three provinces. If an appointment has to be made in one of the other three provinces, applications are called for. Several persons apply for the position, and at a meeting of the school committee a decision is taken in regard to the matter. From there it goes to the school board and from the school board to the Department of Education. Usually the recommendation of the school committee is accepted by the school board; and usually too the recommendation of the school board is accepted by the Department of Education. In Natal they have nothing of this nature. There the appointments are made from the top—the appointment is made by the Administrator-in-Council. There they simply declare that a certain post is vacant and they appoint A or B. No applications are called for; there is no consideration of the parents. The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) said that Natal has a democratic system. I want to ask him where democracy comes in in this system when the appointments are made directly from the top. There is no recognition of the rights of the parents. The people of the area where the school is siuate have no say in the matter. It simply is what we might call an autocratic or bureaucratic system but definitely not a democratic system. It simply is a question of the Administrator in Council having the highest power and acting from the top and appointing whom he likes. This is an unhealthy principle. I want to remind the Minister that a very important principle is involved in this matter and I want the Minister to give his attention to it in order to effect improvements. All the other three provinces have other provisions in regard to the language medium of instruction. Natal is unique in that respect; also in this case, in the appointment of teachers, its provisions are unique and the reason therefore is fear of the public voice, especially of the voice of the Afrikaans-speaking parents. They do not like to allow those people to make their voice heard; they want to have all the say and a monopoly in regard to appointments and similar matters. I want to go further on this point. We have the Broome report which was compiled after the enquiry which took place between 1936 and 1938. Mr. Broome at that time was an advocate and he is now a judge. He is a prominent person and in collaboration with a few other persons he travelled through Natal and enquired into educational events of the past sixty years. He reported in 1938 and in consequence of that report the ordinance of 1942 was passed. What do they stipulate in regard to the appointment of teachers? First of all they say that there will be a “staff clerk” who will be responsible for the appointments. The Minister himself will understand that no administrator can always be fully acquainted with educational matters and conditions in every part of the country. In regard to the appointment of teachers the Broome report says that there will be a staff clerk—

That means in regard to the appointment of teachers. The report continues—

Then they refer to the qualifications which he should possess and in connection with which they say inter alia that he should be a teacher—

If that is their recommendation for the future, what must have been the position in the past? They think that it will be an improvement on the former system. They say that he should be a man with a wide experience as a teacher in Natal and that he should have been a principal. He will be the organiser in regard to the appointment of teachers in Natal. Thus we see that the power is left in the hands of a subordinate clerk. Of course he is responsible to the Director of Education and the Administrator. But still the power is in his hands. Why is no recognition given to the parents and the public and why are no applications called for? The system in Natal is arbitrary. I go further. I want to point to a very important principle in regard to this matter. On principle and historically the school belongs to the parents. The parents established the school in the first instance. When a child is baptised the parent promises to take care of the education of the child. In the first instance the parents provided for the schooling of the child, as is still taking place among primitive peoples. We find, however, that Natal is entirely ignoring that tradition. In our Dutch Reformed Churches—take for instance the Synod of Dordrecht—the consistory and the parent are responsible for the system of education. That is the principle prevailing throughout the world. But in Natal the opposite policy is being followed. Natal has broken away from the normal state of affairs. We find there the doctrine of devolution. Some years ago a Devolution Party was founded in Natal. They do not proceed from the bottom to the top. They only want to break down and they want to arrange matters from the top downwards. Here we have definite proof of that. What is their motive? With all due respect for the people who drafted this Natal Ordinance, it is clear that the motive behind the Ordinance of 1942 is the wish of the administration in Natal to gather all the power in its hands and in regard to education to do just as it likes. This reminds me of the Bill, the second reading of which was passed here last week, and in which the Minister of Welfare and Demobilication asks for powers to become the dictator in regard to housing matters.

The hon. member cannot refer to that matter now.

Well, I shall not go further into that point. In Natal they would like to have full powers to do as they like so that they need not listen to the voice of the public. I furthermore should like to point out that in spite of this ordinance there are thousands of children in Natal whose parents do have their rights. These are the children in the private schools. In those cases the parents can elect the teachers and all these matters pertaining to education can be done by the parents. They do not come under the Director of Education, under the Administrator or under the Ordinance of 1942. In that case too, especially the English-speaking child is protected against these arbitrary actions by the Department. That is another case of discrimination, of a system where they are measuring by two standards. There are hundreds of private schools and they are entitled to appoint their teachers with the approval of the parents. As far as the State schools are concerned, the schools attended by Afrikaans children, they do not possess those rights. I definitely want to make the charge that the policy of Natal in regard to education and especially in regard to the teachers, is a sectional policy. If a deputation goes to the Executive Committee or to the Administrator—I do not know what the position is under the present Administrator but it was the case under the previous Administrator who has now become one of our Ministers abroad—if those deputations wanted to make representations to the Executive Committee, use had to be made of an interpreter if those people wanted to submit their case in Afrikaans. It will be obvious that a body with such an English outlook and with an Administrator like Mr. Heaton Nicholls must be sectional and will carry out a pro-English policy and that the Afrikaans-speaking child and parent will have very few rights. I raise the matter in this House so that hon. members and the Press may obtain this information and in order that we may watch what the future reactions thereto will be. I now come to the transferring of teachers and in that regard we find that the Administrator has the same powers. Section 47 of the Ordinance of 1942 reads as follows—

This is an extreme provision. A man may be teaching for ten years at a certain school and the Administrator simply can determine that he shall be transferred to another town or even to a lower grade position. Most probably it will not often happen that a person will be transferred to a lower grade and there is moreover the provision that if he should be transferred to a lower grade he shall have the first chance to be again placed on the grade which he held before. This power of transferring people we do not find in the other provinces. In the Transvaal a limited power of this nature is in existence but it is very seldom made use of. This arbitrary power existing in Natal is an unsound principle. The argument may be advanced that it will be made use of only in exceptional cases. I want to mention an instance where it was made use of arbitrarily for a special purpose. I shall not mention names but I can give the name and address of the person concerned. A certain person taught for 6½ years in Std. VI in a certain school. In 1940 the Reddingsdaadbond began organising there and he became its organiser. Suddenly without any previous notice he was informed that he would be transferred and he only got one month and three days’ time to be transferred to an East Coast district. This man and his wife both had been suffering severely from malaria in the past and now they were transferred to a district where they would suffer anew from this disease. He asked for an extension until the end of the year; the parents signed a petition asking that he be allowed to remain until the end of the year so that the children might first finish their Std. VI under him. All that was of no avail. He had to let his house in a hurry and make provision to obtain accommodation on the East Coast. He could not get a house there and he had to live in an hotel. The result was that at the end of the year he resigned from the service. That is the treatment which this man received in Natal after 6½years’ service and today he is out of the service. That is what can happen under this Ordinance which was passed in Natal and I maintain that it is an unfair and unjust provision. As I see it, the whole Ordinance should be revised. I just want to quote what the Broome Report says in this regard. I could quote pages and pages in which this system is condemned but in spite of that it was passed in the Ordinance. The Minister of Education has been Administrator of the Transvaal for a number of years and I now want to ask him whether a department can have full knowledge of all the capabilities of all the teachers and of all the requirements in the various parts of the country? He will agree with me that the Department and not even a single official can have full knowledge of the requirements and circumstances of a certain locality. That is an impossible thing. It is a very sound principle that the district’s own people should advise the Department. But here we get a staff organiser in the Department and he cannot know everything. I want to suggest strongly that these matters should be revised and afterwards I will suggest what the Minister should accept. I should like to read a few quotations coming from a prominent person in Natal, first of all in regard to this system of transfer and appointment of teachers. He writes inter alia—

He becomes an automaton. He afterwards is like a robot which is simply moved about, and he has no aspirations or ideals left—

Years of service and salary govern the appointments. When a person has had twenty years’ service he receives preference above a person who has had nineteen years of service. In education, as I know it and as the Minister of Education should know it, this certainly is not a sound principle. It may be a sound principle for the public service but certainly not for the teaching profession. Some teachers are better in certain subjects than other teachers although they may have less experience. Teachers are born, not made. His case is not the same as that of an official who is simply trained for automatic work. It goes on—

They have to compile statistics; to see that their assistants do their work and at the end of the month they receive their salary. This person points out that they have to maintain discipline, that they have to see that the assistants help the children in their work and the writer declares that the result of that is—

It is obvious that under such a system the idealism and initiative of the people will be undermined. They can be transferred or even dismissed at any time according to the whims of the Department. That is the result of this system. It very much savours of the Russian system. If a man does not fit in with his surroundings he is simply carried off to Siberia. Here we had the case of a person who did some work in regard to the Reddingsdaadbond and he is transferred. This kills all enthusiasm and idealism of the teachers, and it deters other people from entering’ the teaching profession. One can almost say that this is a Gestapo or Ogpu system. Now, however, I come to the worst aspect and that is the question of discharging teachers. Section 55 (3) of the ordinance is a section to which the teachers in Natal strongly object, and I should like to bring it to the notice of the Minister—

In other words this section of the ordinance overrules all the other sections of the ordinance. There is a meagre comfort to be found in the words “if he thinks fit”. He can simply, if he thinks fit, give three months’ notice to a teacher and then that teacher is struck off the register. A person who chooses teaching as a career devotes years of study to it; it costs him much money and devotion and his aim is to make a living as a teacher. In Natal, however, such a person can simply be given three months’ notice and then he is off the register. He may have given many years of service to education; he may have done good work and his inspectors’ reports may be favourable. Suddenly, however, he receives three months’ notice and has to leave the service. The feeling in regard to this section is running very high in Natal, not only among the Afrikaans-speaking section but also among the English-speaking section. I will now give you a few quotations from the journal of the Natal Teachers’ Association, the association of the English-speaking teachers. This is an association with an English outlook and they express themselves as follows about this section of the ordinance—

Then they go on and say that this ordinance—

Then they say that that clause must go—“must go now”—and they underline “must go” and print the “now” in heavy type—

I do not know what is exactly meant by “Chamber methods”. I take it what they mean is that everything has to be kept secret. For a moment I thought it might have something to do with the “Chamber of Horrors.” I leave it to the Minister to judge what kind of “Chamber” is meant here. Those are the words of a Natal English teachers’ union. On the 28th July five teachers were dismissed in this way, amongst others Miss Muller and Dr. Wittman who had had 12 years’ and 33 years’ service respectively. They were unable to find out at all why they were dismissed. I even tried to find out here in Parliament what offences these people had committed but I was not allowed to discuss the matter here. I asked the Natal Administration directly why Miss Muller and Dr. Wittman were dismissed but they simply replied that they were not prepared to give the information. They keep it a secret by “Chamber methods”. This is simply scandalous. These teachers were accepted in other provinces and there can therefore be no question of misconduct. They were simply given notice of their dismissal. I suspect that during the war years they may possibly have been somewhat Afrikaner minded and that some jingo extremist reported them and they were dismissed summarily. Is it just that a man who gave 33 years’ faithful service should be dismissed in that manner. It seems to me in Natal a teacher can be dismissed for no reason at all. I may tell you what happens in the other provinces. If a charge is laid against a teacher there, such charge must be signed by a director and the charge must be submitted to the teacher. I have been charged myself once and if it had not been for my right to have the matter submitted to an impartial investigation, things might have gone wrong for me. What is taking root in Natal is a sort of spy system, in spite of the fact that the rights of public servants are safeguarded in an Act of Union. Their rights are protected by Act No. 27 of 1923. A teacher is regarded to be a public servant, but in spite of that protection under a Union enactment their summary dismissal is allowed in this case. I say that this an unheard-of scandal and a glaring injustice. I think that even Comrade Stalin would blush if he heard of such cases. Here a teacher is simply discharged and that is the end of him. I want to go on. I have here a newspaper article in connection with the conditions in Natal. They are talking here of the terrible chaos in the Natal educational system. In one school in Durban even refugees from England have been appointed to teach South African children. In another school the principal is a senior clerk of the Department. That is what is happening there and the reason is that they have those powers. I do not know whether the senior clerk who was appointed there has ever taught before. We are now asked to vote money for that kind of thing and I mention these facts so that the House and the public outside may know what is going on. I should like to ask the Minister whether it will be possible for him to investigate this matter during the recess. I believe this is something which definitely affects the future of South Africa, I mention a few things in regard to which investigations can be made. The first one is in connection with the mother-tongue instruction, since in Natal the parents have the choice of what shall be the language medium, instead of the mother-tongue instruction. Furthermore there is the fiftyfifty system under which children from Standard II onwards are educated by the dual medium. Although in the other provinces this starts at Standard IV, in Natal it starts in Standard II. In Natal they no longer have single-medium schools. Everything there is parallel medium. Then there are the appointments and the conditions of service of teachers which might be investigated and also the question of discharging teachers. Another matter which might be gone into is the fact that there are so few Afrikaans children in the secondary schools. The Minister is the intellectual father of those children. He is the patron of those teachers.

He cannot be the father of anything.

But all the same he is their intellectual father.

Not in my capacity as Minister of Finance.

But certainly as Minister of Education.

I am now Minister of Finance.

But the money is asked for the Minister of Education.

No, the Minister of Education has nothing to do with it.

But surely 70 per cent. of this money goes for education, and we are today asked to vote this money for that educational system. I want to ask the Minister in his capacity as the patron of those teachers and as the patron of every citizen in the Union of South Africa by Virtue of his capacity as Acting Prime Minister to investigate and find out what is wrong and thereafter to correct what is wrong. Our country cannot continue to bear the stigma that such an injustice is done to some persons. I want to come back again to what I said last time in regard to the children. When an injustice is done to small children, to children who are in the minority, to the Afrikaans-speaking children, then it is more than ever our duty to come up for their rights. If an injustice is done to a majority we can still argue that they are strong and that they are capable of looking after themselves, but in Natal the Afrikaans-speaking children are in the minority and the teachers who are so badly treated are only a small group and their rights should be protected. I shall give the Minister all the information I possess. I have investigated this matter fairly carefully. The Minister told me last time that we should not act too drastically. I was given the same warning by the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp). I want to tell him that a desperate disease requires a desperate remedy. If you do not act drastically in this case the trouble might spread and afterwards also affect the other provinces. At present it is already becoming noticeable in the Transvaal. The Transvaal has already degenerated to such an extent that it has taken over many of those bad ordinances. The Minister has a seat on the provincial committee; he can approach the executive committee; he can approach the Administrator. He can throw in his weight and make his influence felt. Let him do so. We will give him a year to do it. We will investigate and if we find that there has been an improvement we will pay him compliments and if we are fully satisfied we will heartily congratulate him. I just want to point out that the Nationalist Party in Natal has no say in the council. I could not obtain any information, for instance, from the Department and for that reason I am compelled to raise the matter here today and to advocate the rights of those people before this tribunal. We hope that the Minister will do something in regard to this matter as otherwise we shall simply have to proclaim the Natal people to be rabid racialists and racial instigators. In that case we shall have to make use of strong and insulting language. At the moment we do not want to go as far as that. I hope that an improvement will be effected. At the present moment there is a certnin measure of confusion in the whole of South Africa in regard to educational matters. I think it would be very useful to have a Union conference in regard to educational matters, a conference where the question of dual medium instruction may be thoroughly thrashed out. In the Transvaal the Labour Party is completely standing aside; the Nationalist Party is going the same way. The whole policy there is in confusion and I notice that the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings movement there has announced that they are going to fight this matter tooth and nail. These things will give rise to racial hatred and I believe we should do something to put the matter in order. Here we have a new method of providing money. Perhaps the Minister may be able to press for a new start to be made in the field of education in South Africa. He has the power in his hands.

My hon. friend, the member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) devoted his speech to certain aspects of the provincial educational system in Natal. May I say that the points he raised here are in fact points which should come before the Natal Provincial Council? That is a body which has its rights under the Constitution. It is a legislative body and what my hon. friend really wants is a change in the ordinances promulgated by that body. My hon. friend says that Natal is out of gear as far as these aspects are concerned but as long as we have the provincial system we will find certain provinces who will be in that position in regard to certain aspects. As long as those people have their rights undér the Constitution and as long as they can make their own ordinances it is obvious that we will always have provinces who will be out of line in some aspect or the other. If we want uniformity in all respects we shall have to do away with the provincial councils.

These are fundamental questions.

If these are fundamental questions then we shall have to take away education from the provinces. That is what my hon. friend perhaps would like to see. There are many questions in regard to education which are fundamental. That matter was entrusted to the provinces not by this Parliament but by the persons who drafted our Constitution. As long as they have those obligations under the Constitution they also have the right to make decisions on those fundamental questions. You cannot get away from that. Therefore as long as provincial councils exist differences of this kind will probably remain. It is a question of provincial ordinances. We cannot make provincial ordinances here. As Minister of Education I cannot interfere with provincial educational matters; as Minister of Education I have nothing to do with the education under the provinces.

But surely you are a member of that commitee.

Only in so far as there might be a possible overlapping in regard to provincial matters and Union educational matters, and only for that purpose. There are certain aspects of education which have been entrusted to me as Minister of Education under the Constitution. There are certain educational matters which in the Constitution have been entrusted to the provinces and I, in my capacity of Minister of Education, have as little right to interfere with their matters as they have to interfere with my duties as Minister of Education.

Has Parliament no say over them?

Parliament has entrusted that right to them and Parliament can take it away from them. In that sense Parliament has the final say.

Can I not criticise them at all?

I do not say that my hon. friend may not criticise them. I only say that my hon. friend cannot appeal to me to use this legislation as a means of forcing them to do certain things.

The ordinance which is now being put through in the Transvaal, will you be able to sanction or to refuse it?

I have not yet seen it.

Do you have the power to sanction or to refuse it?

Not in my capacity as Minister, of Education. Of course the Governor-General has certain rights in regard to provincial ordinances, but the provinces are entitled in the first instance to promulgate their ordinances and we have no right to tell them to change their ordinances as long as the Constitution remains as it is. I regret that I am unable to reply to the points raised here by the hon. member. Perhaps my hon. friend will have achieved his purpose by making these matters publicly known, but there is nothing I can do in regard to it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

May I first move an amendment as printed in the Order Paper—

The sole purpose of this amendment is to bring this Bill into conformity with the Bill which has been read a third time a few moments ago.

I should like to ask the hon. Minister a question. It really concerns our expenditure, but the Minister’s reply may determine our attitude in regard to the matter. The Minister is asking us here to approve of a tax on the gold mines. He expects to derive £9,600,000 from that tax this year. The income tax on persons will yield £9,200,000; the company tax will give him £5,450,000; the super tax will yield £7,000,000, altogether taxation to an amount of nearly £32,000,000. Before we approve of it we should like to ask the Minister a question and he should see whether he is able to reply to it. We have made an agreement with the British Government in regard to the provision of food, clothing and ammunition and similar articles in Italy—in the Middle East. The agreement says that we shall pay £1,000,000 monthly. The war in Italy is over. We are not using much ammunition any longer; our tanks are not using so much petrol any more and our aeroplanes are no longer flying about so much. Can the Minister just tell us whether we will continue to pay that £1,000,000 or not?

My hon. friend is quite correct in saying that we have that agreement with the British Government in terms of which we pay £1,000,000 monthly for the land and air forces. It was part of the agreement that this payment would be revised as soon as an important change would take place. Since that agreement was made there was an increase in the number of our troops but the amount we paid has not been increased. Up till now there has actually been no large decrease in the number of our troops up North but there has been a decrease in the expenditure as a result of the fact that hostilities have ceased. We informed the British Government that in our opinion we should after the present month no longer pay on that basis of £1,000,000 per month, but that of course does not mean that we shall have to pay nothing at all in future. It will be a matter for negotiation. That is the position.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I wish to move the amendment as printed, which gives effect to the undertaking I gave at an earlier stage, namely—

The effect of the adoption of these amendments will be that pension funds, where the contributions of the employer and the employee are applied to the payment of insurance premiums, will no longer automatically be disqualified for recognition for income tax deduction purposes. That is the effect of this amendment. But since the matter as a whole does need further consideration, since I am not entirely satisfied with that aspect of the matter, and since we propose to consider the matter as a whole in connection with the revision of our law next year, I propose in Section 6 to move that there shall be a ceiling to the amount of such contributions so as to prevent possible abuse. That is, of course, only a temporary arrangement. The whole thing will be considered de novo next year. In the meantime we do not rule out these funds completely, because they serve a useful purpose, but the whole matter will be considered anew next year.

I should like to ask the Minister a question in regard to (b). We know that there were large companies who pretended to establish pension funds.

That will of course still come under this provision.

That is correct. But supposing you had a company which established such a fund during the last few years, which was not a permanent fund and which was not a bona fide fund in terms of this Act. The company as it were paid monies into the fund and deducted them from its taxable income, but its intention was not to transform it into a permanent or bona fide fund. What is the position in regard to such companies going to be in future? I should very much like to know how they will be affected.

In future that type of fund will either have to be transformed into a permanent bona fide fund or the contributions will not be deductable for purposes of income tax.

And the money that has been paid into it?

That of course we cannot help. They had the advantage of it but they will have to choose now.

Supposing they have in fact evaded taxation as a result of it but that in 10 years time they notify their workers that such agreement will lapse. Will that not automatically become a criminal offence when they now evade the payment of taxation and afterwards say that it is an agreement which they do not consider as binding. Will he then go back to them and tell them that they have to pay taxation with retrospective effect?

Of course we can do nothing as far as the past is concerned, when those people legally obtained this reduction in their taxable income. We cannot go into that matter now but if in future they should not fulfil their obligation, then the common law will of course be there to force them. The position in regard to that remains undisturbed.

Will the taxation which they would have to pay be of retrospective effect?

The tax concession which they received in the past is a matter which belongs to the past.

I do not think the Minister has understood me properly. Let us suppose that they claimed rebate of taxation because they have given that money to make provision for a pension fund, but that at some future date they say that such agreement will lapse. They may then say that that agreement between themselves and their employees is no longer valid. Perhaps they only used it as a method to escape taxation. If afterwards they take up the attitude that such aagreement is no longer valid, will the State then be entitled to ask for retrospective payment if they declare that they are going to make no payments to the employees.

They have already paid taxation for the past.

You mean they have already evaded the taxation.

In the majority of cases the funds were to all intents and purposes legitimate funds. They paid their taxes. If they do not fulfil their obligations in the future then the ordinary procedure is there to compel them.

Will you make it retrospective?

If it is the wish of hon. members we can go into that matter further, but I realise their difficulties.

We understand that very well. There is no written contract. That is the mistake which was made in the past. No written contract was concluded. As it appears to me all that the employers have to do is to refund to the employees a certain amount by way of the fund. In such a case I do not think there is any ground for a criminal action. In the meantime the employer has hidden a large proportion of his profit in the fund and evaded the Excess Profits Tax. He had to pay 15s. in the £. The provision for the 15s. Excess Profits Tax was always there but the moment the 15s. tax is repealed he takes the money out of the fund and puts it into his own pocket and only pays the ordinary income tax and super tax but he evades the Excess Profits Tax. Is it not possible that provision can be made where that is done that such a person shall be subject to Excess Profits Tax in the future?

I will go into the matter. Hon. members will see that this is a matter which demands a great deal of thought and as a result of which the legislation will become involved. I cannot give a definite reply to it at the moment.

There are businesses which are paying their employees pensions from a pension fund, and they have been wondering if they give these pensioners extra cost of living allowance, whether that amount can be deducted from their income tax.

I am afraid that does not fall under the present Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

1. (c) by the insertion, after paragraph (i) of the said sub-section, of the following paragraph:
2. “(i) bis any sum contributed in pursuance of a legal liability during the year of assessment by the taxpayer by way of current contribution to any pension fund or benefit fund established for the benefit of the employees of the taxpayer: Provided that the total deduction allowable in any year of assessment under this paragraph shall not exceed a sum equivalent to ten per cent. of the total amount of the remuneration which accrued during the year of assessment in respect of their employment by the taxpayer, to the employees who are members of any such fund;”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

The MINISTER OF FINANCE; I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 2, 6 and 11 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 5th June.

There is an important question which I want to put to the Minister, but before doing it, there is another question which I want to put and that is in connection with the granting of supplementary petrol by the controller. I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister the fact that certain employees who are compelled to use their motor cars to get to their work can receive a supplementary allowance of five gallons per month, and as a result they have to purchase a 1s. revenue stamp for the five gallons, for merely five gallons. In addition to that there is also the 3d. stamp and consequently they have to pay 1s. 3d. to obtain five extra gallons of petrol. I consider it is not reasonable that they must pay 1s. every month for the supplementary petrol having regard to the fact that they receive such a meagre amount. It is outrageous. The price of petrol is already very high. There is yet another point in connection with the granting of petrol. Why must such a long time elapse before a decision is taken in connection with supplementary petrol? Sometimes people have to wait more than a month for a few gallons of petrol. It happens in cases of sickness and there is no time to wait for a final reply from Pretoria. Before it is granted the person concerned may be dead and buried. I ask the hon. the Minister to give immediate instructions to expedite the granting of supplementary petrol. I also hope that the hon. the Minister will now, once and for all make a statement in this House in regard to the economic development in our country. I see it still resorts under the name of “Commerce and Industries” but the Minister has the high-flown title of Minister of Economic Development. I want to ask the Minister to make a statement today and tell us in what direction South Africa’s economic development will go. The question which we all ask and to which we should like to receive a reply in this House is whether we are now going to embark upon State undertakings in connection with industrial development or whether private undertakings are going to be encouraged. We have now reached a dead end. The people outside do not know whether the policy of the Government is to promote State undertakings or whether private industrial development will be encouraged. If we want to proceed on the old system, namely private undertakings, then we want a statement from the Minister in which an indication will be given that the person whom we expect to invest his money will be encouraged. He must have the guarantee and assurance of the Government that local industries which sometimes have to compete with overseas industries will enjoy the necessary protection which they deserve. We must admit that if it had not been for a number of our secondary industries South Africa would have been in a sorry plight during the war. We must admit that during the war period industrialists tackled various undertakings with great success. They made a success of it in spite of the contention that we in South Africa could not achieve any success with secondary industries. During the war they achieved success and we now want to know whether the Government is going to continue building on the development which has taken place or are we going to follow a policy of again nipping in the bud that which has come into being, so that they cannot proceed any further. If we are going to establish new State industries then the time has arrived that the Government should realise that we are faced with the possibility of grave unemployment in South Africa which must follow if many of the industries are crushed. What undertakings do the Government intend to keep going and what undertakings does it intend to start? I want to point out immediately that we have now at long last heard the announcement, the glad tidings, that a wool factory will be established in our country. If South Africa takes that progressive step then in the first place attempts must be made to prevent a clash of interests arising between the woolgrowers and the manufacturers because otherwise we will again have the position in South Africa that the price to the farmer will be forced down as far as it possibly can be. The cane planters for instance have an interest in the sugar industry and our producers should also have the same interest in the wool factory. In that case the factory will be a success, but if you create a division between the wool factory and the producers then an economic war will again break out between the two groups and the manufacturers will be inclined to force down the price which the farmer receives to an unnecessarily low level. The farmer must have an interest in the factory. In that case the industry will face a prosperous future. I understand, however, that there are considerable limitations, that an effective attempt is being made to eliminate the producer. I see the hon. the Minister is shaking his head. I am pleased that he denies it and I hope that he will also make a statement in that regard. We want to make sure in the first place that the interests of the wool producer will be protected and that he will have an interest in the factory. That will be the best method of promoting the matter. The undertaking will probably otherwise be crushed by people who have an interest overseas in connection with the manufacture of wool and they will invest capital not with the idea of making a success of it, but of making it a failure, as was the case years ago at Harrismith. I think that factory was a milestone in South Africa which proved that such an undertaking can be a success and this factory must be encouraged on the right lines and then it will also be of great benefit to the producers. Not only will it be the first occasion in the history of South Africa that the wool producers will be placed on a fixed basis, but it will also be one of the biggest sources for providing work which South Africa can have.

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

I assume that a large number of questions will still be put to the Minister but I hope that he will not overlook the questions which I asked him this morning, and that he will make an attempt to inform the House something in regard to them. Another matter I wish to raise is in regard to the board dealing with war supplies. I will be pleased if he can inform the House what supplies that board now has at its disposal for sale to the public or which it wants to dispose of. I should like to know from him what supplies there are that the public can buy. We know that there must be large quantities of uniforms, shirts, boots and such things—articles that the public have to pay the highest prices for today, and I should like to know what articles will be made available to the public. I see that there is also an item here in connection with price control and the hon. Minister is therefore also responsible for that. I should like to know what is intended with this price control whether it is just talk or whether the intention actually is to carry out price control. I cannot understand price control if a suit of cothes is three times as expensive today as it was before the war. The prices of a large number of things, practically all things have risen, and certain prices are still rising now. What is intended by price control if prices can soar uncontrolled, on such a scale that the public are not in a position today to purchase the things which are required. Price control is of such a nature that the salary and wage increases and the cost of living allowances which the professional man and the worker receives, cannot counterbalance the increase in prices. I cannot understand what price control means when prices are doubled and doubled again in comparison with what they were before the war. As far as I know there is only one article which is a foodstuff in respect of which the price has not risen during the war. I say it is all to the credit of that industry, and I wish that we were able to say the same about more industries. It is the sugar industry. It is controlled so effectively that there was no rise in price. The Minister must tell us, seeing that sugar can be controlled in such an effective manner, why it is necessary for prices to rise so considerably in connection with other things that the increases in salaries, wages and allowances practically had no effect at all. It does not help the people at all. A pound is only worth 6s. or 7s. today as a result of the increase in prices, and that is why I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will tell us what he intends to achieve with price control and how much success he has achieved. So far as I am concerned price control is just mere talk. Up to the present it has had no effect on the country. It remains just mere talk and the country is alarmed about the position that has developed. We find that now and again the owner of a small backstreet shop is heavily fined because he has perhaps charged a ½d. too much for a tin of milk. Surely that is not price control. Where is price control exercised. If we walk down the main street here and we see the unheard of prices being asked for clothes, shoes and similar articles we want to know where price control comes in. When we see those prices then we immediately ask: Where is Waterson, and why cannot we apply price control to those goods? I trust that the hon. the Minister will endeavour to give us information in regard to these few questions besides those which will still be asked.

I want to raise one matter with the Minister and I very much regret that the opportunity has not been given to the House to raise the much wider issue, as was suggested earlier, on a notice of motion dealing with the various Government corporations. I do not particularly want to cover that ground but I do wish to ask the Minister some questions in connection with Iscor. Iscor is a corporation which was almost entirely financed by the Government. I think the private shareholders have contributed only something like £117,000. That corporation, Sir, has during the last few years been extended very widely. It has played a very important part in the war effort of this country and I think it is fit and proper that the House should on this occasion pay a tribute to the work done by that corporation. But it seems to me that the House is justified in asking whether there is that strict control over the spending of the corporation which should really be required in a case of money spent by the State. I understand that today the capital is roughly £10,000,000 which was put up by the Government. If that were an ordinary Department of State its finances would come under the very close scrutiny of our Public Accounts Committee, and where money was spent, perhaps not irregularly but wastefully, there would be an opportunity for this House to consider whether that was right or not. But I want to deal with some of the other activities of that corporation. The corporation is designed to deal with the development of the iron and steel industry of this country. That was its original purpose, but since then it has very widely extended its activities, and during the last year or two they have extended their activities not only into the sphere of farming, but also into that of ordinary trade and commerce and hospitalisation. Only in the last year or 18 months this corporation bought out one of the big private hospitals in Pretoria and on the face of it I think it is fit and proper that such a corporation as the Iron and Steel Corporation should have proper hospitals for its members. But far from that hospital being used only for that purpose, when it comes to a question of any of its members being injured while on duty, this corporation sends those employees to the General Hospital for treatment.

Is it because the hospital is full?

No, it is used to take in also private patients in the town and it is used as an ordinary private hospital for the benefit of whoever is willing to pay these particular fees. There may be very good Reasons for that. I am not going into the particulars of it so much, but I do want this House to have an opportunity of going into the question to satisfy itself that the money put up by the State is being used in a proper way. Personally I am not at all happy about that particular course of action. I want to give another instance. Only this last year I was informed that this corporation paid some £60,000 for a farm as a going concern with cattle, and I believe—I have had it questioned—that the value of the farm was too high. I am not prepared to argue about that but I do know that the milk supplied from the farm is so much that it has to be disposed of amongst the dairies of the town. There was talk of this milk being used for the benefit of the employees at Iscor, but far from that being the case it is now used to supply the ordinary dairies of the town.

But that is against the Act.

I want to submit that that is hardly a proper function for Iscor. I have another point which I have already mentioned to the Minister. In 1942 a company was registered called Iscor Utility Stores. The capital was £20,000 of which £1,000 was subscribed, £999 by Iscor and £1 by one of the directors. All the directors are members of Iscor and are appointed by Iscor. The manager is a member of Iscor and no director is required to have any share qualification. They have to do exactly what they are told by Iscor, and this corporation sets out to buy, sell, barter, trade and carry on business in all kinds of merchandise and property of whatever description. If they say it is for their employees it is a matter for a proper concern. Here is a firm with capital supplied by the corporation. I am informed a big block of land has been set aside near Iscor township, and on that block of land it is proposed to build a very big department store, which is supposed to supply not only the needs of the Iscor people but also the needs of whoever cares to go there, because Iscor by itself could not keep a big department store going. I bring these things up because the feeling is growing, especially in Pretoria, that Iscor far from being exclusively an iron and steel corporation is fast developing into a general utility corporation willing to launch out into any line of business the directors may fancy, and without any responsibility towards anybody who is putting up the money. This House has no opportunity to question what the corporation is doing. It has no opportunity even to check what they are going, and what is more, there is a feeling that this corporation today is making very vast profits indeed. They are making these vast profits not out of these subsidiary concerns but out of the prices they charge for steel, and certainly when you see the developments that have taken place in respect of grounds and sporting facilities for the employees—I do not grudge the enormous expenditure in this direction—it is due to this House that it should be given some opportunity, by some form of Select Committee, to go into the activities of this corporation, and to see in how far the capital expenditure put up by this House is being used in terms of its original charter, and what check is applied to that expenditure. I do not wish to go into other matters. I know other members wish to do so, but this question of Iscor is causing very grave concern to many people, especially in Pretoria. We see many things going on around there and if there are developments that turn out to be not satisfactory Pretoria citizens will bear the odium if having seen all this, they failed to bring the matter to the notice of the House.

May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege? With the termination of the war every country in the world is drawing up its post-war plans. They are occupied with plans for post-war rehabilitation. There are various rehabilitation problems, as for instance the task of demobilisation, the task of finding work for returned soldiers, the problem of housing accommodation, and the reconstruction of factories and dwellings that have been destroyed. But there is also another important problem of rehabilitation, and that is trade reconstruction, whether it be internal trade or foreign trade. If there is one thing that has been tremendously dislocated by the war it is trade, and it will be necessary, as part of our post-war plans and post-war rehabilitation, to convert for peace production such factories as have been used for war production in countries like South Africa. Internal trade will again have to flow in normal channels. In view of the fact that to a large extent home trade was subject to control other arrangements will have to be made. But that applies not only to home trade but also to foreign trade, especially in regard to our export trade. There must be reconstruction and rehabilitation. Consequently I maintain that rehabilitation in all its bearings is one of the greatest post-war problems that confronts every nation in every country. During the time at my disposal I should like to discuss this matter of foreign trade, that is to say international trade. It is also realised that in this respect reconstruction must occur. For this reason we have already observed for a considerable time clear indications of intensive competition in the realm of export trade during the months and years that lie ahead. Of that there cannot be any doubt whatever. Anyone who follows the newspapers and the magazines can see what is in progress. Modem wars, as well as those in the past, usually had an economic background. If we examine the position carefully we shall see that the cause of most wars is to be discovered in economic competition, economic causes. We heard, especially before the outbreak of the recent war, the use by the Germans of the expression “lebensraum”. That referred not only to more room for excess population, but it also referred to scope for trade, and markets for its surplus products, whether raw materials or manufactured goods. Just as in the past, so in the future, wars will have an economic background or cause. There will be an incessant struggle between those who have and those who have not, between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. That has been the cause of wars in the past and it will be so in the future. Consequently that is the case also as concerns this war; every one of the countries that took part, and especially those who emerged as victors, are preoccupied in deriving the greatest possible economic advantage from the war. The end of the war had not yet come about, the end was only in prospect when we saw preparations being made for post-war economic competition. This was especially the case with America. America was not in the same position as England and other countries who were open to air attacks, and even before the end of the war great preparations were made. Hardly a week had passed after the end of the war when we received a Sapa notice from New York to the effect that preparations were being made for American trade representatives to operate in Western Europe, and more particularly in. Western France, Holland and Belgium. Last week, too, we had reports from America that a start had been made before the end of the war with the manufacture of motor cars and that motor car factories have been reconverted to peace production. Though we believed it would be a long time before motor cars would be available for the civilian population we are now assured that within a few months there will be 200,000 motor cars on the market—I think that is the figure—for the use of the public, and that production will steadily increase. We see also that on the British side reports are continuously appearing in the newspapers about new aircraft for civilian aviation. It is clear that on the British side as well feverish preparations are being made for post-war competition. A long time ago a declaration was made by the American Admiral Emery Land that the United States mercantile marine was twice as large as the combined mercantile marines of all the countries of the world. There was also the failure—in certain circles it was held that it was not a failure—of the Chicago Aviation Conference. The failure, in so far as it was a failure, was to be ascribed to one reason and one reason only, namely competition in the economic sphere. Thus the economic factors are there. Every country in the world, especially those that have taken part in the war is seeking economic advantages for itself. There is trouble at present in Syria, in the Levant. The reason for the difficulties in Syria is not that France does not want to give political independence to the two Arab states. The reason for all the difficulties is to be found in the economic background—the strategic position of Syria in relation to the trade with India, the Far East and Australia; there is the oil position in that part of the world. The importance of the Near East from an economic viewpoint ständs behind the difficulties in the Levant, difficulties which may have far-reaching consequences. And now I come to South Africa. South Africa will also have to re-establish its trade. In South Africa too before the war trade did not flow in normal channels, whether it was inland or foreign trade. Our trade has also been dislocated by war conditions. South Africa is a market for certain products which we do not ourselves produce, as for instance machinery, tools, electrical equipment and a whole series of articles I could mention. There will be intensive competition between America and Great Britain to collar the South African market. But what is to us a matter of greater anxiety is that South Africa is also a manufacturer on a fairly large scale. Tremendous progress has been made in regard to the development of our industries. When this intensive economic trade competition commences we shall have to take into account efforts, whether on the part of England or on the part of America or on the part of other countries, to bump our factories, in their anxiety to find markets for their own products. That is a matter that will have to enjoy the earnest attention of the Government and of the Minister of Economic Development in the months and years that lie ahead. We would like to ask the Minister whether he has considered the matter. What steps do the Government propose to take to protect our own industries against such competition? Will it do this by way of import duties? Will it perhaps have to intervene with stronger measures, as for instance by import permits? Does it appreciate the danger to which South African industry will be exposed as a result of the intensive economic warfare that will occur? I should like to refer further to another aspect of our foreign trade, and that is the aspect that I shall describe as “Imperial trade”. Here I am touching on a matter on which there is a difference of opinion between this side of the House and that side of the House., Actually, if we accept what hon. members on the other side have frequently proclaimed, namely, that they also stand for South Africa’s interests first, there ought to be no such difference of opinion. Still it is there. There are two views. One view is from the angle of a strong South African national attitude—in the widest sense of the word—not in a political sense. On the other hand there is what I shall describe as the Imperial view, the Imperial attitude. The difference has existed in South Africa from the days of Milner and Rhodes. It always had been there. In the meantime we had certain constitutional developments whereunder as a dominion we obtained so-called independence. There was first the Balfour Declaration and later the Statute of Westminster. But in spite of the constitutional development there were always those who clung to the idea of Imperial unity. In the speeches of British statesmen and also of certain statesmen in this country stress was continually laid on the idea if Imperial unity. There was talk of invisible bonds, and we have seen that a large proportion of the community, especially those attached to the Party on the other side, have remained firm to the idea not only of political Imperial unity but particularly to the idea of economic unity. This is a policy which we on this side of the House cannot agree with. The policy of Imperial preference has always been the cornerstone of Imperial economic policy. That policy is incorporated and has obtained substance in the Ottawa Agreements. On a previous occasion when I mentioned the Ottawa Agreements someone, I think it was the Minister of Finance, let fall the observation that the Ottawa Agreements were entered into by the Nationalist Party Government. Perfectly correct. They were entered into by the Nationalist Party Government, but today I want to make the statement that the Ottawa Agreements, according to all the information that I have, do not represent the policy of the Nationalist Party but it was really the policy of the Minister of Finance in the Nationalist Party. I say this today on behalf of this side of the House: We repudiate the policy of Imperial preference, with the exclusion of other countries, as embodied in the Ottawa Agreements. Imperial preference has become the cornerstone of the policy of Imperial unity. But with the lapse of years, and especially, curiously enough, since the commencement of this war, there has been perceived in other dominions, just as in South Africa a tendency to loosen the bonds of empire. That tendency has been especially noticeable in Canada, but remarkably enough there have also been clear indications in Australia. So much so that Mr. Winston Churchill was obliged a year or two ago, in view of these tendencies in Australia and. Canada and elsewhere, to make a pronouncement which so far as I can remember was as follows: “I am not called upon as His Majesty’s Prime Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire”. That is why we had this new campaign to form an economic policy for the Empire, the policy of an economic wall ringed round the British Commonwealth of Nations. But not only has the tendency been revealed to loosen the bonds of empire, but the problem has also arisen of post-war economic competition to which I have already referred. The first utterance in regard to this problem was heard by us two years ago in a famous speech made by Lord Halifax in Toronto, which has been repeated on various occasions by other British statesmen. We see clear indications of intensive post-war competition, and we must watch particularly what occurs on the continent of Europe. We on this side have been speaking about this for months, but now the Press of hon. members on the other side is beginning also to admit that the war took such a turn that Russia will have political authority on the continent of Europe. Russia will have a still bigger say as a result of the difficulties that have arisen between France and England. But this is not all. Apart from political influence Russia will also exercise strong economic influence on the continent of Europe. Great Britain is faced with the difficulty not only of Russian economic influence on the continent of Europe but it stands in the presence of a still graver danger of intensive trade competition with the United States of America. That is why we have these desperate attempts to make an economic unity of the British Commonwealth. We can accept that this is the British policy, and it is interesting to observe that the Labour Party in England, in their election manifesto, clearly emphasise that in this respect there exists no difference of opinion between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. We can therefore accept this is the British policy, whatever government has the reins of power at the next General Election. We can also accept that strong pressure will be exercised on the governments of the dominions, including the Government of South Africa, to take part in the British policy that has been indicated. I want to put the question to the Minister whether he has reflected what the acceptance of such a policy would signify to South Africa. We are speaking now as South Africans, not as British subjects. What will it signify? It will mean a restriction in the choice of our import markets. It will mean a restriction of the choice of our export markets; it will mean a limitation in regard to competition. It will have a hampering effect on the development of our industries in South Africa. Now I want to ask the Minister where the Government stands. This question was mentioned by me previously in this House, but the Government has never vouchsafed a reply as far as this great and important question is concerned. Where does the Government stand? We have the right to expect we shall get an answer to the question. We have received certain indications. There are certain provisions in the Standards Bill. There are also certain provisions in the Shipping Contract. The Air Conference recently held in the Union also presented an indication of the lines along which the Government is thinking. But I maintain we are entitled now to ask the Minister not merely to give us indications but to state where the Government stands in connection with this matter of Imperial economic unity. An answer cannot longer be avoided. The time has come when a statement will have to be made on the attitude of the Government. Our standpoint on this side of the House is clear, namely that we are strongly opposed to anything which will curtail even that measure of freedom and independence we received under the Statute of Westminster. We are absolutely opposed to any policy of an economic wall around the Empire. Our policy is that we want to keep our hands free, to buy and sell in the best markets and in the best interests of South Africa. Our attitude is that we want to keep our hands free to make separate bilateral agreements with countries that can offer us the best terms in regard to exports as well as imports. We are hostile to a system that excludes other countries, that is to say we are against any Imperial preference. In other words, we want to have a free hand to enter into any agreements that are in the best interests of South Africa. It is interesting to read what was recently written by Sir Victor Wellesley previously Under-Secretary to the British Department of Foreign Affairs, a man thus whom we can accept as knowing what he is talking about. Writing about the Ottawa Agreements he says—

I am glad that I can quote this opinion of someone who occupies so important a position in the British Administratioin, because if I had voiced the same opinion here then members on the opposite benches would, of course, have again asserted that this was only a partisan Nationalist standpoint that we were announcing. I definitely expect that members on the other side, or their Press, will declare that in taking’ up this attitude we are anti-Egnlish. The attitude that we take up in respect of South Africa’s foreign trade is just as little antiEnglish as it is anti-American. It is a purely South African attitude, that is all. The principle on which we take our stand is that we should buy from those who buy from us; that we must buy from them, respecting the principle of quid pro quo. When I hear these stories that our attitude in regard to foreign trade is an expression of our anti-English sentiment then I should like to put this question: In what respect will this policy for which we stand affect our trade with England? I have already said we want to buy in the best market; further, we want to buy from those who will buy from us. Thus to the degree that England buys our products we shall buy England’s products, but always on the principle of bilateral agreements and not on the Ottawa principle of the exclusion of other countries, a system that limits our markets and also causes us to be unpopular in other countries, as I personally experienced when I was in France. No, we are prepared to buy from those who buy from us, whether it be from America or England, on a basis of reciprocal agreements, and not by the exclusion of other countries that want to enter into trade agreements with us. It is represented, and I again recently saw the allegation in a periodical, that it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to exclude England in an economic sense and to link up with America. Today we declare to America what we declare to England, that it must not imagine that it will have the opportunity to flood South Africa with its products if it is not prepared to buy our products. I admit the position in connection with America is somewhat different to the case of England, because America is unable to buy many of the raw materials and products that we export. We shall not be able to apply the same criterion to it, but that remains our principle, namely that we shall buy from those who buy from us on a quid pro quo basis, and without the exclusion of any other countries. Consequently what we set forth is that a country like America will have to buy goods from us if it wants to sell its goods here, and it will have to buy South African products in a greater measure than it has done in the past. England, and also members on the other side, must not imagine we shall purchase England’s merchandise on the grounds of sentiment. There was too great a tendency in the past on the part of members on the other side to feel that we should purchase England’s merchandise on the ground of the so-called bonds with England, that is to say, that we should buy on sentimental grounds. No, we are not going to buy on sentimental grounds, but we shall buy from those who buy from us on the basis of reciprocal agreements. We shall discuss bilateral agreements, and enter into them with England, France, America or any other country. I declare’ here in the most emphatic terms that as far as the Ottawa policy is concerned we, as a Party, repudiate it. We shall have no policy of exclusions. We stand by this announcement that I read out from Sir Victor Wellesley, namely that we are not prepared to put South Africa in a position that it will later on be regarded by other countries with enmity because we have closed our markets to them. That is the effect of the Ottawa agreement. We cannot put up with that.

The subject matter of my remarks is of national importance and as I cannot hope to deal with it satisfactorily in ten minutes, I hope you, Sir, will afford me further recognition during the debate.

That is a new way of doing it.

I think the matter will be of interest to my friends opposite as well as of interest to the Minister. It is this question of the relaxation of import control in its relationship to industry, particularly secondary industry, and I want to deal with it more specifically in its reference to the footwear industry, of which I do pose to know something.

Why pose?

When we come to this question of the relaxation of import control I am not forgetting that the Minister of Economic Development has said very clearly and distinctly on more than one occasion that he will not use import control for the protection of our industries. I am not going to cavil with him with regard to that statement because I am prepared to agree with him, with regard to import control—and that is the important point—but when we arrive at normal conditions. But at this stage to relax import control on goods which are manufactured in this country in quantity and in quality would be unfair to the people in this country in view of the fact that shipping is still very scarce and likely to be so for a long time, and there are a thousand and one commodities which we require in this country and which are not manufactured here, things which are still in short supply or absolutely unobtainable, and I do consider that if only from that point of view relaxation of control of goods which are manufactured in this country must receive very, very careful consideration and handling before steps are taken by the Minister to allow this type of goods to come into the country. Now, Sir, with regard to the footwear industry which, as most members know, is one of the most highly organised and up-to-date secondary industries in this country, the Board of Trade has been making investigations into the activities of the industry for some time. Last February, in Cape Town, representatives of the Footwear Manufacturers’ Federation met the Board of Trade and were asked to submit a memorandum to show reason why import control should not be relaxed. They did so, and on the 24th May they proceeded to Pretoria to interview the chairman of the Board of Trade. As they themselves expressed it on their return, they received a very cool reception, to put it mildly, and they expressed regret that the chairman of the Board of Trade did not allow them to discuss their memorandum in detail to enable them possibly to sort out the difference which existed between them and the Board of Trade. But the chairman told them that this memorandum did not convey anything which was worthy of consideration by the Board of Trade with regard to its view about the relaxation of control. Now, in my view, that was very arbitrary, because I have a copy of that memorandum before me and as one who has spent a lifetime in the trade I say that it is a very sound, carefully compiled document, full of information about every phase of the industry, all of which can be verified and substantiated if the Board of Trade chooses to go into the question carefully and to discuss it with these people. Now, I want to make it clear that the footwear manufacturers in this country are not looking to import control as a means of protection for the industry. They are not asking for that, but what they are asking for is that control be very carefully and scientifically relaxed so as not to embarrass the industry during the transitory stage it must pass through after the conclusion of the European war. I want to say that the footwear industry deserves every credit for what it has done during these war years. It deserves the commendation and consideration of the Government and it deserves commendation from the people of this country, and it is only one who thoroughly understands the industry who realises what these manufacturers have had to do and how they have had to improvise and to substitute in order to enable them to carry on and to provide for the needs of this country, particularly in the last twelve months, let us say, when they had to cater for and cover the amount of goods which had come into the country from overseas, and which was something in the nature of 3,000,000 pairs of footwear per annum. The industry has supplied all the needs of the civilian population. It has, as far as humanly possible, kept up the quality of its goods. Sir, I contend that having met the needs of the people of this country with regard to its footwear they must receive careful consideration from the Minister before he relaxes control. Indeed, far from the industry desiring to have import control to act as another measure of protection it has told the Board of Trade that it is prepared to discuss with the Board of Trade at various times, and I believe indicated three monthly periods to be suitable for that purpose, in order to discuss how much import control should be allowed. They even went so far as to suggest that in all probability on the 1st January next year control might be relaxed to, say, 10 per cent. But they were very insistent that before relaxation took place the Board of Trade must satisfy the industry that it is in the best interests of the country that these goods should be allowed to come forward. I mention this 10 per cent. as an indication that the footwear industry is quite prepared to consider relaxation of control gradually so as not to affect unduly the interests of the industry which has grown up in this country and which has functioned, I think, as satisfactorily as any secondary industry in this country does and which further has at all times endeavoured to meet the needs of the population. But the chairman of the Board of Trade told the representatives of the footwear industry in Pretoria that he was recommending to the Minister that import control should be relaxed by 25 per cent, as from the 1st July next. That means, Sir, taking the 1939-’41 figures, opening the door for something like 700,000 odd pairs of footwear to come into this country. [Time limit.]

I do not know who is responsible for having placed this vote, Trade and Industry, so late on the estimates. I wanted to make an appeal in this connection to the Acting Prime Minister, but seeing he is not present I would appeal to the Minister of Economic Development to have this vote placed earlier in the estimates.

It is dependent on the seniority of the Minister.

I feel that in the circumstances we do not have an opportunity to discuss this vote properly in this House. This vote, with all the implications that it has for South Africa in reference to its overseas interests, industrial development with a view to providing employment and so forth, ought to be fully discussed, and hence I should like to make an appeal to the Minister of Economic Development to use his great influence with his colleagues. I wish to identify my request with the observations that have been made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) by voicing a few opinions on the position of South Africa in reference to overseas trade. There are one or two aspects I wish to stress. In the first place, I want to assoociate myself with the feeling that has now existed in the world for more than a generation that a contribution must be made to the promotion of world peace. In the second place, I want to envisage our foreign trade connections in their relationship to the internal development of our country as far as our material welfare is concerned, and also as regards spheres of employment for our population. It is not only a disappointment to me, but a disappointment I am sure to all of us that instead of the promises of practically the last half century being realised, the statesmen of the world, instead of striving towards world peace and cc-operation, for greater prosperity and for the general happiness of the nations of the world, have taken up the line that this appeal must be directed only to particular nations, and this, too, when war is imminent. The Government of South Africa as well has apparently learned nothing from the sequels to the peace of Versailles, which with all the evils bound up with it was within a generation to cause a second world catastrophe. In spite of the appeal made to various nations before the war of 1914 to put and end to war, we had in the first year of that world catastrophe a conference in Paris whose purpose was to divide the nations into trade groups. Grouping was its purpose. In the years 1914 to 1918 it became clear that in spite of the promises made by statesmen in regard to a high purpose for the world as a whole, there was no inner honourable conviction or sentiment to give effect to that belief, to give effect to it for the sake of the millions who are plunged into misery. This war was also preceded by or linked from the commencement with the same promises and objectives that were held out to humanity, and in spite of the expectation regarding effect being given to those promises the world, for a second time in a generation, was plunged into disaster. In the first years of this war there was again the same idea as during the previous world war, namely, that the peoples of the world should not again be forced into this miserable competition, and that the raw materials of the world should no longer be grouped and reserved for particular nations, but that there should be a free exchange of commodities between the nations and that thereby the high conception of a life of greater freedom and a better existence should be realised for the nations of the world. Unfortunately the pronouncements contained in the Atlantic Charter have for years now been ridiculed even in America itself; and today in spite of the earnest hopes not on the part of representatives of nations but by nations themselves, it is again clear to us that things are moving in precisely the same direction as they did at the commencement of the last war, when the conference at Paris was held in 1915. Both in America and England the principles of the Atlantic Charter are no longer considered seriously. In America the Atlantic Charter has become a mockery, almost a term of derision. In England it is very clear that the trade interests concerned envisaged a new trade grouping. There is talk about a larger Ottawa. Unfortunately it is not only these two interested countries that are competing with each other for markets, unfortunately it is not they alone who are moving in this direction. It is the more to be deplored that it has already become a world tendency. The world tendency is today in the direction not only of a grouping of power in the political sphere but also in the economic sphere. In the political sphere I should only like to refer to the various conferences that have been held of late and which are still in progress at San Francisco. In the economic sphere the conference at Bretton Woods was of exceptional interest to us, and I assume that we shall have the opportunity for an exchange of views on it within a measurable period. Here again it was made very clear that instead of the world being permeated with the conception that the misery of humanity must be alleviated and that its prosperity must be promoted it is governed by the consideration that there must be a division of the nations into power groups. It cannot but be clear to everyone that there will be only two groups in the world and they will be opposed to each other. We as a small nation that can with justice appeal to high idealism in the past as we can today, must make our contribution, not to take part in an exacerbation of the position such as might again occasion a world conflagration, but in associating ourselves with the view of contributing towards security and safety in the world. If we do this we cannot join these groupings with any satisfaction or goodwill. It is clear that in the last few years the Government of South Africa has already dismissed the Atlantic Charter from its thoughts. One of the inspiring messages that the Prime Minister sent to the conference at Maritzburg at which the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) presided was contained in the following telegram: “The Atlantic Charter is our policy”. When, however, we look at the trend events have taken in the last few years, as for instance, in connection with the aviation agreement—which can have only one meaning—the trend that has been followed in the Ocean Mail Contract, which by implication also affects the Ocean Freights Contract then it is clear to me that it will take some convincing on the part of the Minister before I shall be able to accept that there is any other intention in respect of these agreements than the concentrating and the canalising of trade within the sphere of Ottawa. That there exists a feeling on the part of England, and a need on her part, to be assured of certain markets at least, we can realise. With the announcement and the acknowledgment of the unfortunate position—I put it in that way—of the deterioration in England’s economic life there must exist in the mind of the average British citizen an ideal and an inspiration to do his best to restore England’s position. We accept that they are bent on improving their economic position, but that is no justification for our tying ourselves to a nation in such a way that it will eventually land us in a war again.

During the course of this debate the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) this morning referred to the proposed establishment of the woollen factory at Uitenhage, and I therefore feel it incumbent upon me to take this opportunity, if I may, to congratulate the Minister and through him the Industrial Development Corporation on the decision to establish the factory at Uitenhage, not because Uitenhage has been chosen as the site, but because at long last South Africa is to have its own wool processing factory. The criticism which has been levelled, a very minor one, of the fact that Uitenhage has been chosen as the site, I feel certain, although I may be prejudiced, will not bear weight with hon. members who are conversant with the facts. They will agree with me that Uitenhage is not only the best centre but the only possible centre which could have been chosen. Uitenhage is in the very heart of the merino country, in close proximity to what is the most important wool market in the country, Port Elizabeth. Coupled with that fact Uitenhage has established woolwasheries almost of world renown, and after a very exhaustive investigation it was determined that the Uitenhage water was the most suitable for this purpose to be found in the country. In addition to that our climatic and labour conditions are most favourable and above all, the Uitenhage municipality expressed not only its desire but its determination to co-operate with the Industrial Development Corporation in every possible way. I am sure that hon. members will agree that taking these factors into consideration, no other centre could have been chosen. However, the point raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) this morning was that in his opinion it was most desirable that the wool producers should be interested in the enterprise. As the committee knows the Industrial Development Corporation has established this company at Uitenhage, to be known as the Fine Wool Products Ltd. of South Africa, and that company is established with a capital of £650,000 entirely provided by the Industrial Development Corporation. The whole of that amount is not to be spent immediately, but it will be progressively absorbed as machinery becomes available and as production develops. But on the question of allowing public money to be invested, the corporation, I feel, has quite rightly decided that until such time as it is convinced that the undertaking is a success, until such time as it is convinced as to the soundness of the undertaking it is not calling for any public investment, but in the meantime—to cover the point that was raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp—as a result of representations made by the Minister of Agriculture a certain block of shares is to be reserved for the National Wool Growers’ Association. These shares can be taken up by individuals or by the organised body and until such time as the association has established the fact that it is legally empowered to invest its own levy money in a wool processing scheme ….

Did the Minister tell you that he had made special provision for that block of shares?

No, but the hon. member will know from the memorandum that has been issued ….

I did not talk about the memorandum. Did he make that statement?

In the memorandum which has been issued by the Industrial Corporation, it is stated that as a result of representations made by the Minister of Agriculture, this block of shares is being reserved. That is the position as far as the wool producers are concerned, and I think that covers the point raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. A large portion of the machinery required is already in the country. This has come from Great Britain, and I understand the balance of the plant, if not already shipped, is probably on the point of being shipped and all the scouring that is necessary as part of the process, will be done by the already established firm of wool-washeries. There are just one or two points in connection with the establishment of this industry to which I would like to refer, and that is that I think we are entitled to ask the Minister to give the House the assurance that this industry, when established, will not be given protection to such an extent as will possibly mean an increase in the cost of living. For instance, we should like an assurance given to the committee by the hon. Minister that no increased duty will be imposed on the imported goods in order to protect this industry. We feel that there should be no call for a subsidy to enable the industry to compete with overseas trade, nor should they ask that there be a limitation of importation of competitive lines. In other words, we feel it is desirable that this industry should stand on its own feet, and do so successfully at that.

And if it cannot?

A certain amount of criticism has been raised through the Press—I might say mostly from overseas representatives—as to the types of material that would be manufactured by our own wool processing factory, and I am given to understand that at the outset at any rate, it is only proposed to manufacture woollen clothes and materials that are suitable for the women’s and men’s trade. In addition to that they will spin hosiery yarn, but it is not the intention to manufacture blankets and rugs. That is a matter of interest to the trade in the company, and I am sure the Committee will appreciate an assurance being given to the Committee by the Minister.

I do not wish to worry the Minister this afternoon about the decentralisation of industries, nor do I wish to make any vague requests for tariff concessions. We have raised this matter year, after year ad nauseam, and we have not got very much further. I want to get an expression of opinion from the Minister in regard to regional development; that is in regard to the development of separate regions in this country. It is anticipated that the Union will be divided into eight regions. For instance the Free State will form two regions, the Eastern Province will comprise two regions and the northern Cape will comprise another region. That is I think the best way of developing industries evenly all over the country. The country is vast and undeveloped. There is too much concentration at only a few points. We feel it will be in the interest of the whole country and of the population if there are definite regions in which development can take place. Hon. members may ask how this is to be done. In each area there will be established a Development Association. These associations will go to the State and they will ask from the State a State sponsored financial institution to assist them. At the same time we will want the assistance and guidance of the Industrial Development Corporation so that any scheme that may be considered will be decided by the Industrial Development Corporation. The Industrial Development Corporation will tell us whether a scheme is economically sound or not. But the development associations will also require money, and it is the intention to get that money by selling shares of low dimensions so that the people in any particular area will be shareholders in the industry in the area concerned. Then with the assistance of the State we shall be able to make a start. The people themselves will provide largely the money for the industry in their own area. There is one great difficulty however and that is the absence of coal in most areas. In the Transvaal, of course, coal is close at hand, but in some of the other areas there is no coal, and that is the chief stumbling block. At present the raw material is being taken to the coal, and the rest of the country remains undeveloped. What we want also is this: We want the Electricity Supply Commission to establish a power station in each area. The Electricity Supply Commission will then come to us and say: “We do not want to suffer any financial loss. You must guarantee us against loss.” With the shares that are sold and held by the public in this particular area, we may have £100,000 or even £200,000. We can then guarantee electricity supply 5 per cent. on their capital investment over twenty years. That will be a sound proposition. That is more or less an outline of the scheme. I do not see how we can develop industry in this country on an even keel unless we switch over to this new idea of regional development. It is an idea that has come to stay I think.

What will that help if you do not get assistance from the railways?

I am just telling the hon. member that we will not want much assistance from the railways excepting perhaps lower rates on the manufactured article. If the Electricity Supply Commission will give us a power station, then we shall not want much assistance. Coal is the important item; coal is the life blood of industry, and if you have a grid system and a power station in each area then you do not require coal, so that your greatest difficulty has disappeared. Where coal today costs 20s. per ton 400 miles from the pit head it is nearly impossible to establish industry, but when you have a grid system and a power station, it will give you power at less than 1d. a unit. You can then begin to develop your area. Today the position is that 77 per cent. of the industrial development in this country takes place in 2.6 per cent. of its area, and in that 2.6 per cent. is produced 80 per cent. of the total output of the country. We are in a hopeless position. It is a lobsided development. We have seen what has happened to countries that have developed along those lines. Today you have industry congested on the Rand, and in three seaports, and what is the position? You have congestion; you have slums, you have expensive houses, high rents and other evils. We are not suggesting that you should establish an industry where it will not be economically sound, but only where it is economically sound. If you do that, you will spread industry over the country evenly. You will have an even economy. Let me give you an instance of just one region. Take the Northern Cape region. I know that best. In that area we have the best river system in the country, the biggest irrigation schemes in the country, where you can produce food for a million people if need be. That in itself is a big consideration. You can feed the working population cheaply. There are also great deposits of lime, salt, iron, manganese, gypsum and asbestos. These base metals and minerals are today being taken out of the ground and sent overseas, we are selling our birthright for a bagatelle. We ought to process these things on the spot. There is a good network of railways in that area too. From salt, lime and water you can make dozens of things. You can make most of the alkalies that are required in the mining industry, in the sugar industry, in the match industry and so forth. You can make glass and caustic soda which from time immemorial has been imported. You can make all the sodas, and it has been stated by experts, who have gone into these matters, at 35s. per ton cheaper than we can import them. We have these advantages in the country and the time has arrived for us to embark upon a new industrial policy now or never. If the people of the country invested £500,000 in a soda ash industry, it would be one of the biggest industries in this country, in time to come a basic chemical industry, and second only to iron and steel. Here then is an instance of what can be done with lime, salt and water, and we have plenty of it. I hope the Minister is going to give his very serious attention to this matter. This is a time in our history when we must go all out. For an investment of £500,000 we would have a first-class industry. There is another point I would like to mention. I notice that in February last the House of Commons introduced a Distribution of Industries Bill. In other words a depressed areas Bill. In this country for the last fifty years certain towns have not progressed one iota. In fact, some of them have retrogressed. Here a new Bill was introduced in England which provides for the maintenance of a high stable level of employment. If you are going to get stable employment, permanent employment on a high level, then you have got all you want, and when you have that, a great deal of the difficulties that we are up against today in regard to social security will fall away. I repeat. If you have a high level of employment and a stable standard of employment, then the need for social security falls away to a large extent. We will have coming back to this country soon 150,000 European men and women soldiers and 75,000 non-European soldiers. We have to find employment for those people and we will find employment for them. We should not have to import everything we use in this country. The British Bill confers wide powers on the Government to influence the location of new industrial development. Its special purpose is to provide more varied employment in former “special areas”, which are to be extended and renamed “development areas”, and various inducements will be offered to industrialists to establish new enterprises there. The Bill also provides for the prohibition in certain areas of the erection or extension of industrial buildings without the approval of the Board of Trade. I hope the Minister will give this his serious consideration. [Time limit.]

It was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys). One cannot believe that he knows so little about affairs as not to realise that this Government’s policy is in every respect directed against the development of any industry in the platteland. Their labour policy is wrong. Their railway tariffs are in favour of certain places at the ports. We are going to develop just as some other countries have developed, where half the population are living in a few big towns. If the Government does not bestow attention on the decentralisation of factories we shall be going purely and simply in the same direction as other countries have done. I do not believe the hon. member is serious when he says, for instance, that they can manufacture caustic soda at Kimberley cheaper than it can be imported; because the people there have the money and yet today they have no factory.

I said we could sell it £1 15s. under the import price.

Well, of course the hon. member is a well-to-do man and he can launch such an industry. We ask that the Government should accord a proper opportunity to the platteland to establish factories. The cost of living on the platteland is lower, but when it comes to the payment of wages you have, for example, in Riversdale, to pay the same wages as in Cape Town. If you send the stuff by train it is cheaper for you to send it from Cape Town to Johannesburg than to Durban. If the Government has no regard to what has to be paid by way of wages it will simply kill all industries on the platteland. I have the Karoo in mind. The people in some centres are simply moving off to the towns, on account of the reasons I have mentioned here. Without the slightest doubt unless the Government changes its policy it is clear the factories will be concentrated in a few privileged towns, and as far as the platteland is concerned all will be lost. A commission has been appointed to investigate the matter. I should like to know what plans have been made and what privileges have been extended. I should like to have that from the Minister. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) spoke about exports after the war. I should like to have the attention of the Minister in connection with a matter of which I believe he has some knowledge, and that is the position in connection with the post-war export of wine and brandy. After the Ottawa Conference we were given a preference. The preference we obtained on our brandy was 2s. 6d. a galon or 5d. a bottle. When that bottle of brandy costs 12s. it may mean something. But when the tax is double and the preference remains the same the Minister will understand that whether I have to pay 12s. 6d. or 25s. for that bottle of brandy in England and the same 5d. or 6d. preference applies, it really is of no account. Up to 27 degrees over proof we received a preference of 2s. a gallon. The excise duty was at that time 6s. a gallon. Well, 2s. on 6s. was quite a fair preference. That also helped us to sell our wine. Between 27 and 40 degrees the preference was 4s. Where the tax on wine was 12s. and you had a preference of 4s. it paid you, but during the war the tax went up from 6s. to 14s., that is to say on wine that was 25 degrees over proof. If you get 2s. on 14s. it only means a seventh. In the case of the other wine it went up from 12s. to 28s.; 4s. on 12s. was a third. We could do business with that, but if we get the same amount of 4s. on 28s. that does not pay us. The preference means nothing to us. In regard to brandy you have an entirely different matter. The preference was about 2s. 6d. per proof gallon. The import duty was £4 3s. 4d., that is to say about 14s. a bottle. On that we get a preference of 5d. But the tax has now gone up to £6 18s. and if they will only give us 6d. on 23s. they can keep it, because we give preference for that preference that we get. We are on a percentage basis, and this is fixed on a definite sum of money. As the position is today the preference on excise only has gone up to 23s. a bottle. If we go on like that they can simply keep the preference. I want to tell the Minister that we have applied ourselves to the storing of large quantities of wine and brandy. He will know what the value of wine and brandy is when it has been stored for years. We do not want other countries to say, as they have said in the past, that we send our samples. In the past they have told us. One year you have a surplus and then you export and the next year you have no surplus and then you do not export anything. We then applied ourselves to storing the liquor during the war. We spent hundreds of pounds with this in view, and when the war is over we shall export the stuff and do business with it.

The hon. Minister will remember that very early in the Session, arising out of a question that I had on the Order Paper, he promised this House that he would put before it sane proposals for the control of the activities of the corporations that Parliament establishes and which then have been hiving off and go away quite unhampered by any Parliamentary control. The Minister told the House that he would, before the end of the Session, give the House an opportunity of debating this very important question and to add weight to that statement the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, in the debate inaugurated by the hon. member for Wood-stock (Mr. Russell) on Parliamentary control, definitely stated according to Hansard that the Cabinet was very Concerned about this matter and that the Government feels there is something to be said for the scrutiny of the activities of our corporations. He goes on to say that we should like to see a debate raised in Parliament from Session to Session in regard to these bodies whose accounts are laid on the Table, and further on the Prime Minister continued—

That was very early in the Session. It is now very late in the Session, almost at the end of the Session, and this House has not yet been given an opportunity of debating this very important question, nor has the matter been raised in Another Place, as far as I know. Now being curious as to the amount of capital and the amount of the country’s money that is involved in these various corporations, I asked the Minister of Economic Development for some figures and these are the figures that were given to me. According to the figures the amount of money that the country has in Iscor up to date is over £12,000,000. In the Industrial Development Corporation it has invested over £2,000,000, and so far in the Fisheries Development Corporation over £10,000. But when it comes to the National Road Board, for instance, which I know does not fall under the Minister of Economic Development, but which I am just using as an illustration of my theme, the Government has advanced out of loan funds £9,500,000 up to date, not to mention what it has advanced out of revenue fund, because according to the ex-chairman of the Road Board, Mr. Hoogenhout, as at the end of March, 1942, the National Road Board had spent nearly £13,000,000. The position then arises that this is money that the Government gets from the taxpayers, and it is not too much to ask on behalf of the taxpayer that the country should, through Parliament, have an opportunity of debating what is being done with the money. The Minister agrees there is no such opportunity under the present system, and therefore it is high time he implemented his promise of according the House the opportunity the House demands. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr, Pocock) referred to various developments that had occurred in relation to Iscor which he considered undesirable. For my part I do not know, having no information, whether they are desirable or undesirable, but I must say that the taxpayer that pays the piper should have the right to know through the Parliamentary representative what is being done with this money. I am insistent on hearing from the Minister what is going to be done in this connection, and in laying down a policy in regard to all these public corporations that are set up. It is a matter of Parliamentary control and one of vital importance. Fundamentally the war was fought by the democratic countries so that Parliament should run the countries and not corporations or private individuals, and the matter therefore I repeat is of first-class importance. To come down to another item. Last year I raised with the Minister the question of the appalling cost of clothes. The Minister said then he was arranging that clothes should fall under the price controller. But as far as I can see there has been no reduction in the cost of clothes. May I point out one circumstance to the Minister. I do not know by what error it arose, but a certain amount of imported clothes came into the country some few months ago. Their price was very little higher than the cost before the war. From personal experience I found you could buy an imported frock today in the neighbourhood of from £3 to £4, and it was not much cheaper before the war; but a similar frock of South African manufacture costs £10 to £12. I should like to ask the Minister where the difference arises, and what has happened to this alleged price control.

When my time expired I had just drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the chairman of the Board of Trade was recommending to the Minister a 25 per cent. relaxation of import control to commence on the 1st July next, to be followed by 50 per cent. from the 1st January next, and 100 per cent. in 1947.

That will kill industry.

It will kill industry and it will produce thousands of unemployed persons from the footwear trade alone. I take it if this relaxation is applied to the footwear industry, despite the recommendations that have been made, it will undoubtedly apply to other industries. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are 2,050 employees engaged entirely every day on the production of military footwear, and during the years from the outbreak of war to 1944 they produced some 8,000,000 odd pairs of footwear, a large number of which was for overseas use. I leave it to the imagination of the House what the value of that 8,000,000 pairs of boots has been to the country, when one considers, as I know has been the case, that the great bulk of the materials used in them comes from South African raw materials. Not only are 2,050 employees at present engaged on military production who during 1946 will have to be re-absorbed into civilian occupation, but in addition to that there are some 900 skilled employees still on active service and for whom employment will have to be found. That makes a total of 2,950 employees who will have to be re-absorbed into the production of civilian footwear. How can any industry face up to the re-absorption of those employees and to the import of millions of pairs of shoes from overseas, which undoubtedly will happen. I should like to give a few figures. In 1940 the production of footwear was 12,584,000, that includes military footwear, as well as our own civilian footwear. The comparative figures are 1941, 14,372,000; 1942, 15,442,000; 1943, 14,266,000; 1944, 14,927,000. That shows the advance in production registered by the industry. This includes 8,000,000 pairs of footwear produced for military purposes. The industry also produced canvas shoes and gum boots to the extent of 3,124,000. That in itself shows figures of production which are well worthy of consideration. During the same period exports to adjacent territories were: In 1939, 350,000; in 1940, 402,000; in 1941, 771,000. There was a large increase of canvas and rubber shoes during that particular year. For 1942 the figure was 483,000; 1943, 509,000; 1944 (up to the end of August) 557,000; and during 1945 the industry is budgeting for 1,073,000, export to adjacent territories, which shows the value of it to this country. But there is another feature which has to be taken into consideration by the Minister when he is thinking of relaxing control. That is the fact that the trade usually gets its leather from the Unitetd Kingdom and the United States of America. I am referring now to the very high grade leathers which are not yet produced in this country. They have been able to get only 20 per cent. of their quota under the quota system which prevails in both of these countries, with the result that they have been compelled to go into the South American market to purchase the remainder of the higher grade of leathers which were required to carry on the industry. I want to show the difference in the value of those leathers. Kid leather: United Kingdom, 2s. per square foot; United States 2s. 3d. per square foot; South America highest quality, 4s., average quality 3s. 4½d. Calf leather: United Kingdom 2s. 9d.; United States 2s. 9d. South America 4s. 6d., average 3s. 11½d. Not only has the trade had to face up to purchasing a large section of its requirements from South America, which was 75 per cent. to 100 per cent. dearer, but they have also had to place these orders a long way ahead, and it will take at least another 15 months to fill orders which have been placed and which have had to be booked in advance by the industry to enable it to function. In addition to that, the industry is up against the fact that it will have to go in for new factories. Many of the factories at present operating have been condemned by the factory inspectors, and it is anticipated they will have to spend £500,000 in new buildings. A greater feature even than that is that they are still operating with machinery that they were using prior to the outbreak of war. Much of it is practically obsolete, or badly worn, and orders for its replacement have been filed, but goodness only knows when they will get that machcinery, which is absolutely essential to enable them to compete on level terms with the firms overseas. I have placed before the House and before the Minister a case which is worthy of every consideration, and which demands from the Minister that he shall be exceedingly careful in any relaxation of import control which he may introduce.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) laid emphasis upon the aspect of the recognition of how the Ottawa Agreements have contributed to the destruction of mutual good faith amongst nations. Not a single one of us who has endeavoured to become acquainted with world opinion has come to any other conclusion than that to which various English writers of good standing have come to, namely that the Ottawa Agreements, while being to the advantage of England to a certain degree, have confused world relations. It has been one of the contributory factors in respect of the difficulties which have arisen. I have had the opportunity of being convinced of the fact that as a result, especially of the preference granted to England in respect of cotton, several Western European nations took umbrage. I refer to Belgium, Holland, Italy and I think also Germany and France. As a result of that trade was so restricted that where there was considerable trade in cotton stuffs previously from Europe, it practically disappeared from the countries concerned and everything was removed to England. I have returns of quantities of piece goods imported by South Africa over a period of years. I have not the figures for 1932, which is really the basis here, but I assume from my previous work in this connection that there has been a considerable movement of trade, especially in respect of cotton goods. A considerable amount thereof was controlled by Western European countries, but they have been totally eliminated as is shown by the figures for 1939, the latest we have at our disposal. They afford a good standard to show how the relations in the world in respect of trade have been disturbed. During 1939 cotton goods imported into South Africa from Europe amounted to £3,991,000. Of that quantity England imported goods amounting to £3,089,000, Belgium £131,000, Holland £18,000, Italy £56,800, America £20,000. Japan only maintained its trade with South Africa. These figures prove the considerable movement of trade, and that has led to confusion of the international position. That is why we warn the Minister and the Government that if their intentions for a world peace are honest they should not again adopt the old point of view. I now want to say a few words in connection with the effect of the preference in respect of our home industries. Everybody who has given consideration to the terms of the Customs Act and in particular to the preference which is being granted, especially to England, will feel that unless the Government goes out of its way to obtain further concessions, above those fixed by the Ottawa Agreements, South African industries would suffer thereby, and quite a number of them would not be able to develop. Some time ago we learned with some measure of pleasure that the Government had in mind the establishment of a cotton industry; perhaps the Minister would say something about that; there is a great need for something of that nature, and the argument that we are unable to produce cotton should not apply. There was a time when we produced a considerable quantity, and we could again produce on a large scale if the facilities are provided. I have the native population specially in mind; the possibilities in that respect are great, but if the Government is serious about actually providing employment for our unskilled labour then especially a cotton industry is indispensable. In 1939 piece goods to an amount of hundreds of thousands of pounds of different qualities were imported. We are in a position in a large measure to supply such needs, and at the same time it will on a large scale ensure employment. If the Minister is serious as regards the development of South Africa he should give serious consideration to that matter. I refer to the cotton industry as one that we could develop here. There are also others. There is machinery, not agricultural machinery, but machinery for manufacturing industries. I refer to electrical requirements. It should be possible for South Africa to carry on with industries which in war-time supplied our needs on a very large scale. Let us consider those matters seriously and encourage, as far as possible, their development. If, however, the Government continues the policy on the basis of Ottawa there are several trades which would not be able to develop in our country under the existing tariffs. But I now want to refer to another aspect, and that is what the Government’s policy will be with regard to South Africa’s export to the West Coast of Europe. That part has for many years been a market for South Africa. I refer to Sweden and Holland and Belgium, Germany, France, Norway, Italy, Austria and Jugoslavia. Is it the intention of the Government to do something in that regard? At present many of those countries are in distress and I think it is the intention that we should contribute towards the relief of distress. It is also the desire of a large proportion of the population of South Africa that we should as far as possible take part in the relief of distress. I now want to ask whether the form such relief should take has already been worked out, and to what degree it is the intention that we should render assistance. Where it is our desire to contribute towards the reconstruction of Western Europe our contribution would mainly have to consist of food, and perhaps some raw materials. In connection with South Africa perishable products would receive main consideration, fruit meat and such like. A contract has now been entered into with the Union-Castle Company which places considerable restrictions upon the possibilities of transport, and the question arises as to how the Minister proposes to transport such products. The Minister is aware of the implications in connection with the arrangement with the Conference lines. He will have no voice in the constitution of the Conference lines. At one time they consisted of 20 different companies, from Holland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, all companies which were members. I do not know what the present position is, and in any case the Minister has no say in that respect. The lines constitute the conference according to their wishes and the Perishable Products Export Board is bound as far as the transport of produce is concerned. Unless he is able to obtain a change in the agreement so that lines of other European countries may also be included, we shall perhaps be bound to support purely English companies and that will restrict transport to the Continent of Europe considerably.

Earlier in the Session I raised a matter of grave concern to all residents of Umbilo, in reference to the power station at Congella and I subsequently received through the Secretary for Commerce and Industries a reply to the question as it was formulated, and in which use was made of the term “coal dust”. It is difficult for me to believe the persons submitting the reply failed to understand that the question was really directed to a subject which has become practically a public agitation amongst my own constituents. It is true in that specific question the term “coal dust” was misused, although I have before me a technical journal in which there is a passing reference in the same sense to the question of coal dust. It is equally true in the same article they use a phrase which is more correct in the technical sense “unburnt coal ash”. I should like the Minister to know the people of Umbilo are gravely concerned with the pollution of the air in their area and the extensive damage that is being caused to their property. In the case of an ordinary industrial nuisance it is subject to the control of the municipality under their by-laws and steps are taken by the municipality before granting a licence or before renewing a licence, to ensure that public interests are protected. In the case of the Electricity Supply Commission at Congella, being a semi-Government institution, the residents of Congella must naturally look to the hon. Minister to ensure that their interests are protected in this matter, and I am asked to urge on the Minister to take steps to effect an abatement of the nuisance; he can do this if he will apply himself to it and in turn apply sufficient pressure on the Electricity Supply Commission. I have before me a petition signed by more than 1,000 residents in the Umbilo area, a petition which I propose to hand over to the Minister; the signatures were gathered under a week. It is estimated that last year the Congella Electricity Power Station consumed something like 200,000 tons of coal. In that amount of coal there is something like 15 per cent. to 16 per cent. of ash, or almost 30,000 tons of unburnt coal ash escaping from the chimneys of the Congella power station, and in the main it is spread over the Umbilo residential area, a newly built up area of modem homes of which the people of Durban can be proud. But these properties are being destroyed and disfigured through unburnt coal ash being carried by the wind from the power station chimney, so much so that a housewife finds it extremely difficult to keep her house clean. If you place your hand on the tiled floors or walls in any house in the Umbilo area it comes off black. It is difficult to keep the washing clean when it is put out to dry. I have seen houses where a tile has come loose from the roof and in the space there is a concentrated layer of unburnt ash almost three-quarters of an inch thick, this ash having accumulated over a period. I have before me a copy of the journal of the Institute of Certified Engineers of South Africa, which contains an article written by two employees at the Congella power station, and which sets out a means by which this nuisance can be abated. It simply requires the application of known measures, and I trust the hon. Minister will apply the necessary pressure on the Electricity Supply Commission to ensure that steps are taken to abate this nuisance. In the letter from the Secretary for Commerce and Industries on the more minor question of the coal dust the Department gives the assurance that schemes are being investigated. That is hardly a satisfactory answer to the people of Umbilo whose property is being depreciated through this nuisance. It is not difficult to find means to abate the nuisance. What is required is the will to put into effect known schemes. It is not only the disfigurement of these residential villas. I have a copy of a letter here from the Medical Superintendent of the King Edward Hospital, which is situated at Umbilo Road. It is addressed to Dr. Burnam King, in response to enquiry—

That is still confined to the question of dirt, contained in the smoke from the chimneys from the power station, but it also carries sulphur fumes over the whole area and Umbilo residents can tell you without walking outside the house, whether the smoke nuisance is at a high or a low peak. It is difficult to get material evidence on this particular point but it is true to say that medical practitioners who are not prepared to make this statement in the form of an affidavit by reason of the absence of active evidence are nevertheless clear in their own minds that the cause of the considerable number of asthmatic cases in Umbilo is attributable to the smoke nuisance and the sulphur fumes. I have accumulated quite a lot of data on the subject. I have one which warrants reading as to what is being done in England. It is an article from the journal “The Power Works Engineer” in which the following report is made—

And it goes on to say that the Government has shown itself sympathetic towards abating it. In the near future it is likely that industrial enterprises and electrical power stations will be compelled to institute measures to abate smoke nuisance, probably by means of electrostatic precipators. The smoke nuisance in Umbilo cannot be likened to the smoke nuisance in such counties as Manchester, but nevertheless it would be a tragedy if in the Umbilo area the people who have built themselves beautiful homes should have their property spoilt and their health impaired by smoke. One does not fail to recognise the importance of the electrical power station at Congella. [Time limit.]

I think perhaps it would be better to reply to some of the points raised at this stage. I am very sorry to hear from the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Wanless) of the state of affairs in regard to these chimneys. I have not yet received the petition he has but if he will let me have it I will undertake to see that the matter is properly investigated and that every possible step is taken to abate the nuisance. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) led off the debate by raising one or two points to which I might reply. He first raised the question of the shilling stamp on applications by people who get a very small supplementary ration of petrol. I am quite prepared to listen to that point. I agree that it is a bit hard that for five gallons of petrol they should pay 1s. The reason why they have to pay something is that someone must pay for the luxury of having a petrol control office.

We do not mind at all if you do away with it.

Can your Department not sell stamps at the same place where coupons are issued?

I will look into that. He also complains about the daley in getting petrol. Delays do occur and I am afraid that in existing circumstances they are inevitable. The petrol control office in Pretoria informs me that they are dealing with 150 applications a week for supplementary petrol and 800 for extra supplementary petrol. That is only in one office and they reckon that at least twice that number are dealt with by the local district controllers. Each case has to be investigated and hon. members will see that there is continuous pressure, but I do know that the petrol control office is doing its best to keep up to date. The hon. member also raised the question of the wool factory at Uitenhage, and so did the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley). The hon. member for Uitenhage told the Committee so much about it that it is not necessary for me to say much, except that the original idea was that the Woolgrowers’ Association would come into this factory on a 50-50 basis. There have, been various difficulties, legal difficulties, and hitches of one kind and another in regard to enabling the woolgrowers to raise their money and therefore the Industrial Development Corporation has now started to go ahead with this undertaking, but as soon as the woolgrowers have overcome the snags and have got authority and have raised their capital they will be in a position to take shares in this industry. Of course the hon. member for Krugersdorp must remember this that supposing this woollen factory is a great success and supposing that flowing from that factory various other woollen industries may start—it is conceivable that a carpet industry may be started—even if it was very successful indeed it is doubtful whether it would absorb more than 15 per cent. of the Union’s wool clip and therefore I do not think we should be right to hold up the development of this factory whilst waiting for the woolgrowers to be in a position to take the shares up. But as soon as they are ready to do so provision will be made for them. The hon. member also asked me what price control was for. What the hon. member must remember is this, that the price controller has no control whatever over the cost of production. The price controller only starts to function when the goods are landed in the country or when they leave the factory or when they are put upon the market from the agricultural areas.

What about the man who is importer, wholesaler and retailer all at the same time?

There are such exceptional people, and the price controller is responsible for fixing margins as between, importer, wholesaler and retailer. But such people run their businesses separately and have the same overhead costs as three separate businesses would have. But the point is that the price controller cannot be held responsible for the increase in the price of things where it is the cost of the thing which has increased. He could be held responsible if he does not watch to see that no undue profits are made. But if you have things like wage determinations the price controller cannot be held responsible if, having investigated the business or the industry, he is satisfied that the increase in the cost and the wages is such as to reduce the profit of the manufacturer or the business below a reasonable figure, and he must then allow the price to go up.

Does he not fix the manufacturer’s price also?

Yes.

The trouble is that he cannot fix the labour costs.

If you are going to do that it is a question of having a cost accountant to investigate the business carefully. It has taken a long time to get that into operation but we now have a cost accountancy system and we are able to determine costs. Of course, as between one particular item and another, to reduce the cost of that to figures is almost impossible, but to a certain degree of accuracy it is possible, and certainly to a very much greater degree than has ever been the case in this country. Now, the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised the question which I seem to have heard before, that of the Ottawa Agreements. He pointed out the difficulties with which the world was going to be faced in the post-war period in restoring something like normality to trade relations and conditions, and he emphasised that industrial exporting countries like the United States and Great Britain would undoubtedly make great efforts to restore their pre-war trade. He wanted to know how this Government stood in relation to that position, and he also indicated that he was still firmly of belief that there was some movement on foot to create something like an Imperial economic unit of the British countries of the world, or to create something like a ring defence round the British Commonwealth and the British Empire, and he wanted to know how the Government regarded that. I can only say that the Government’s view is that no such attempt exists. I know of no attempt or approach, or the suggestion of an approach, which has been made by the British Government or by any member of the British Commonwealth that there should be anything like that to attempt to form an economic unit, as a distinct unit, for the post-war era. On the contrary, everything I have read and heard and all the conversations I have had with people indicate that the general idea is quite the reverse. The hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in referring to the Ottawa Agreements, always regard them as restrictive measures designed to confine trade within the British Commonwealth and the Empire.

What about the quotation I read to you?

The hon. member quoted from the writings of a retired English civil servant. He is fully entitled to hold his opinion but I am entitled to disagree with him. I do not agree that taking it all round the effect of the Ottawa Conference was restrictive. The hon. member for Beaufort West will agree that the Ottawa Conference was only held because the World Economic Conference was torpedoed by President Roosevelt. It was torpedoed in London and it was a failure. That economic conference was a world conference to which all the countries of the world were bidden with the idea not of producing a world fence but of extending the barriers which have been cramping trade. That conference failed, and arising out of it the members of the British Commonwealth said: Since the world is not ready for such action, for such a general trade arrangement, why should we not get together and see what we can do? And in fact Ottawa, to my mind, was a blueprint of what the British countries had hoped to see done in London at the World Economic Conference. They were not intended to be for ever restrictive and exclusive but they were an experiement, in a general multilateral way, for the benefit of those participating. They did not prevent this country or any of the other countries doing business outside the Ottawa Agreement.

But you could not give another country a preference which had already been given to Britain.

The hon. member knows that he stated his Party’s policy to be strictly one of a quid pro quo based on bilateral treaties designed to balance trade between the two countries as far as possible. That, I take it, is what he meant. As far as our agreements with Great Britain are concerned, that is very much what we did.

They were exclusive.

They were not exclusive. We did not give Great Britain the sole right to sell anything in this country or to take something from us, but we did give certain advantages to each other in order to encourage trade, because we had things they can use and vice versa. I would suggest to the hon. member for Beaufort West that in talking rigidly about bilateral treaties and quid pro quos and basing your external trade on a strict balancing of trade between one country and another ….

I did not use the word “strict”.

… he would go very near to reducing this country to the position in which he found France when he was there, which gave him very much trouble, because our trouble with France, as the hon. member knows, was the difficulty of balancing trade with France, which she insisted should be done direct, between one country and the other.

Because that trade was going to Great Britain under the Ottawa Agreement.

It is a mistaken view to think that under today’s conditions, under modern trading conditions, with the wide spread of exports and imports and the great variety of things exchanged between one country and another that you can balance your trade direct between A and B and leave out C or D. The fact is that trade between one country and another is so widespeard that you may never be doing any direct trade with that country, and yet that country may perhaps be your best customer. That is rather an extreme example, but it may happen.

Do you mean that America buys our stuff through Great Britain?

I mean this, that before the war, on the apparent figures, we were doing much more trade buying from America than she bought from us but in effect these things were being balanced and the United States was buying our gold in the London Gold Market, which happened to be the distributing market for world gold trade, and she was buying our diamonds, and in effect if the United States had said that she was not going to buy any more gold we would have suffered very much, although we were not selling direct to her. Therefore I think that to regard the Ottawa Agreements, quite apart from any value they may have had for this country, as necessarily restrictive, is wrong, and to argue from the fact that there is any kind of attempt to narrow the trade relations between members of the Commonwealth to those members themselves is absolutely at variance with the facts. Therefore, when we are asked what the attitude of our Government is, I say it is this, that we stand ready to trade with anyone in the world. We place South Africa’s interests first, as our industrial policy shows. Before this war, Great Britain had built up a large and valuable goodwill in this country by supplying goods which we required of a quality and price which were satisfactory, and we in this House—and I believe the majority of the people of the country—entertain the kindliest possible sentiments towards Great Britain and regard her as having stood as a bulwark for us during the past six years. We know very well the sacrifices she has made during that period.

For us?

Yes, Sir. We know that in spite of the things she has gone short of they have gone short in Great Britain in order that we should here be kept supplied with our bare essentials. Through all the last six years Britain has been a very staunch, loyal and generous friend to the Union. That being so, and British goods before the war having enjoyed a market here having built up a great goodwill by supplying what was required, and by reason of the fact that the trade was a reciprocal one, and that we were doing a good trade with Britain, we know now the importance of Britain re-establishing her overseas trade and we know too that side by side with our own industrial development we shall require large quantities of goods of all kinds, capital and consumer goods, from overseas. I want to say that nothing would please us better than to see the British manufacturer regain his place in the South African market as a supplier of the things we require from overseas, and we look forward to the speedy re-establishment of the close and cordial trade relations which was mutually advantageous to both of us before the war, because it was a two-way traffic; and I also want to add that I say this in no spirit of unfriendliness towards other countries, whether British or foreign.

Is that an afterthought?

No, it is merely part of my general statement. These other countries, whether British or foreign, did very good business with us before the war, and we hope they will do so again as soon as conditions improve, but I want to make it clear that we on this side of the House do not share the opinion held by the hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Ceres that our trade relations with our British friends in the Commonwealth indicate a subservience to them or any idea on their part to hold us subservient, or any idea of isolation of any kind.

What, are you serious?

The hon. member for Ceres also in dealing with the same subject was pessimistic about the future. He referred to the Bretton Woods Agreement as an indication of the difficulties we were going to meet. He does not know the result of the Select Committee which sat on Bretton Woods so it is not fair to remind him of it. He had better find out. He also referred to the effect of Ottawa on our internal industries, i.e. by reason of British preferences which may be able to undersell our own industries, and he referred to the cotton industry. Well, the main competition in regard to cotton before the war did not come from Britain but from Japan and Belgium and I do not think that even with any preference there may have been British cotton goods could come in here cheaper than from Central Europe. As far as heavy machinery is concerned I agree with him. I think there is need for a heavy machinery industry in this country. As the hon. member knows one is being started here and I hope he will have a few words with his friend the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) who does not feel at all convinced that that industry is necessary. I want to be quite clear on the point he raised about the Conference lines. Under the shipping agreement at present the whole of the shipping is pooled. Even Swedish shipping is in a pool.

Who controls the pool?

It does not matter. If we want to import anything from any part of Europe, if the Union-Castle Company do not bring it in their own ships they supply a ship from another line. It does not matter to us who brings it here as long as we do not pay more. If we wish to send exports to Marseilles or Genoa, if the Union-Castle ships do not take them they have a contract to take them from here to the port of destination, not via Britain, but that only applies to certain quantities. Naturally if the quantities increase provision will be made for it. But the immediate requirements were calculated in consultation with the Control Board and they were satisfied that that was adequate. I think that deals with the points raised by the hon. member for Ceres. I come now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) who raised the question of the footwear industry specifically, but dealt generally with the question of the relaxation of import control. Well, I repeat that it is not the policy of this Government to use import control as a means of protecting secondary industry. We do not want secondary industry to get the idea that import control and the issuing of import permits and restrictions on trade generally of that nature are measures to which they can look in the future for their safety. At the same time it is obvious that during this period, whilst we are changing over from war-time conditions to peace-time conditions, import control must be relaxed gradually, and with care, and by watching its effect on existing industries closely with the idea, not of maintaining it but of relaxing it in such a way and at such a speed as will enable our secondary industries to adjust themselves and to take the strain they will have to meet at one time or another from overseas industry. When any suggestion is made of giving a certain amount of import permits against goods which are being manufactured in this country, the manufacturer of these goods in this country is advised that we are proposing to issue permits and they are then advised that if that margin is going to harm them they can make immediate application to the Board of Trade for an urgent enquiry, which the board then makes and recommends what line should be taken in order to protect that industry, if it requires protection. In regard to the boot and shoe industry the Board of Trade in making its recommendation will recommend, if it thinks fit, a certain measure of protection, but for the present we shall have to adjust this import control to enable our industries to face up to competition. In the case of the boot and shoe industry I should like to say I think the leather industry in this country is setting an outstanding example to other industries in the way in which it is co-ordinating all the different activities of the industry, in the way it has set up its leather institute, and the very great amount of work it is doing in scientific research in all aspects of the leather industry, and generally on account of the way in which it is preparing to meet post-war conditions. It is setting an outstanding example, and I think it is to be congratulated. The Government are most sympathetic to the leather industry, in which I include the boot and shoe industry, and for that very reason they intend to do everything they can to stand on their own feet and to meet competition and to achieve success through their own endeavours. The Board of Trade has now completed its general report, which is now in the printer’s hands and may be ready any day, when it will be laid on the Table. The board is now carrying out investigations into specific industries, one of them the boot and shoe industry, and they are carrying out a full enquiry into the boot and shoe industry, on which will be based their recommendations in regard to the measure of permanent protection that may or may not be required by this industry. In the meanwhile they have made investigations into the relaxation of import control. The footwear industry asked for import control to be retained for two years. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) says they proposed a 10 per cent. importation early in 1946. But, Sir, they really asked for strict control for two years, to the best of my knowledge.

Gradually relaxed.

When the Board of Trade, after investigating the whole position recommended a 25 per cent. importation they were recommending 25 per cent. of the 1939 importation. If you look at the figures of the production in 1939 which, as the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) pointed out, amounted to something like 13,000,000 pairs, and an importation of about 2½ million, or a total consumption of round about 16,000,000 pairs, you will appreciate that by authorising importation of 25 per cent. of the 1939 imports the board is only recommending the importation of well under 5 per cent. of the country’s requirements; this puts the matter in a rather different light. When the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) talks about the board recommending a 25 per cent. importation of shoes that naturally gives one the impression that one-quarter of all the boots and shoes required in this country will be imported, whereas it is nothing of the sort. They recommend that 25 per cent. of the 1939 importations should be permitted; that amounts to about 600,000 pairs of shoes, as against our normal requirement of 15,000,000 pairs; this is nothing like 25 per cent. The Board of Trade is satisfied that that importation will not affect the boot and shoe trade adversely. On the contrary, it may even assist, it by providing it with another standard against which to compete. I must point out that the boot and shoe industry does not enjoy a fairly high protection. In addition to that, since the war freight rates have gone up to 50 per cent., and recently they were increased by another 20 per cent.; so in addition to that normal protection, which was fairly high the boot and shoe trade have another 25 per cent. protection in regard to freight. So I really do not think the boot and shoe industry need be apprehensive. As I say, we are very sympathetic towards them; we shall watch the position very carefully, and they may rely on us to see they are not exposed to unreasonable or unfair competition during this transition period. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) had something to say about regional development. That is a very interesting proposal even in the somewhat sketchy way he put it forward. I understand that at a meeting in the Free State of one of these regional bodies some such scheme was mooted, but I have not heard anything more about it. When they are ready with their schemes I shall be ready to discuss the question with them and see whether we can make anything practical out of it. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) asked me about the export of wine and brandy. I take it he does not join the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is repudiating the Ottawa Agreement.

I want something to pay me for what I give to them.

Up to the outbreak of war the hon. member was very well paid for what he was selling over there. The present condition of the preference in regard to wine and brandy in London, as hon. members know, is due to the war-time increase in duty, which has had the effect of lowering the preference to such an extent that it is of little value. Fortunately at the moment it does not matter because at present there is a very ready market for whatever there is shipping space for I entirely agree with the hon. member for Swellendam that as soon as we see signs of shipping being normal, and of a free market being restored we shall have to take this up; as soon as we discuss these Ottawa agreements we shall take up this question. They will not question the fact that when the duties were imposed—they brought it to my notice in London—they would affect the preference—and they hoped that during the war period we would not take exception to that on account of the preference being thereby of no use. But they took cognisance of the fact it was in effect an infringement of the Ottawa Agreement. The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) accuses me of having broken my promise, and the hon. member for Sunnyside also raised the same question in connection with the lack of information in regard to Government Corporations. The position is this. It is perfectly true that I replied to a question by the hon. member for Jeppes that it was intended to introduce—I forget the exact nature of my reply—an opportunity for the House to discuss the question during the Session. My intentions were entirely honourable, and I did in fact go into this matter at very great length, but it really is not as easy as it seems. As far as the corporations that fall under the control of my department are concerned, it might possibly have been done, but when it comes to the three or four that fall under my department the question immediately arises of your National Road Board, and your Broadcasting Corporation, and I am not sure whether the question of the Marketing Board would not come up as well. So the more I went into this the more I realised I was opening up a very big subject. In addition to that there were two other reasons why I did not press the matter. One is that the time was not really available during the last week of the Session, and as far as Iscor is concerned—and this remark also applies to the hon. member for Sunnyside—we are now awaiting a full report from the engineering industry and the Board of Trade, which will include a full report on Iscor. In addition to that Iscor intends to come to this House next Session for an increase in capital—which will give the House the fullest opportunity for discussing Iscor from every conceivable angle. For those two reasons, partly because we are awaiting information, and partly because next Session will give us a full opportunity for discussion, and also because the Fisheries Development Corporation has now started and we are having a debate on the subject, I thought it might be wiser to leave this discussion over till next Session.

Shall we have the Board of Trade report before it comes on?

Yes.

Is there any reason why they should not be dealt with sectionally?

It is purely a question of time. I doubt whether the House would be prepared to have a separate debate on each corporation. There are three ….

Escom.

There is no Government money in Escom, so that does not come under the ban, so to speak, because they are not dealing with Government funds at all.

The principle is the same.

The principle is it is a statutory body operating under an Act. But in regard to Iscor this desire for more information has become particularly noticeable perhaps, because during the war they became so involved in the war effort that of necessity they developed in directions which were not foreseen before the war, and secondly they have not been able to make public a great deal of their activities. I have had discussions with Dr. Van der Bijl, and he assures me that his speech at the annual general meeting will be much fuller than in the past and he will be very glad to give all information to the country as to the activities of Iscor. I am asking the chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation to bear in mind when he makes his annual address to the corporation he is, in effect giving more than an address to a few shareholders, and that his remarks will be awaited by a wide circle of people who are greatly interested; and he will endeavour to report fully. The hon. member for Jeppes shakes her head. I am not suggesting it is an adequate substitute, but it is a step in the direction of making more information available.

What about a Government audit?

I doubt whether a Government audit would help. The Government audit acts on a precise set of rules and regulations which are not very applicable to these corporations. Finally, the hon. member for Jeppes wanted to know about the price of clothes. She rather contradicted herself. She stated that last year I said we were going to bring down the price of clothing, but she could find no reduction. In the same breath she said that she bought two or three pretty frocks for £3 3s. 0d. which she could not have done last year.

Imported.

But the importation of these frocks was part of the policy adopted at the time and aimed at helping to reduce the price. As a matter of fact, prices have come down. If the hon. member for Jeppes has any doubt about it let her ask some of her particular friends in that line of business. They have had plenty to say to me about it during the last five or six years, about the way their profits have been shaved. What has been difficult is to deal with the cost price at the factories. We have got to a point where it is necessary to have a more satisfactory costing system to enable a more satisfactory costing of prices from the factories. We have made progress in costing the clothes from the factory; but this is a very long story, the ramifications of the clothing industry are very great and if anybody wishes to get round the price control regulations—certain people have done so in the past—that would undoubtedly have the effect of pushing up the price unnecessarily. We have gradually got clothing under control, and we hope to continue that by the means we have adopted.

I have listened to the hon. the Minister of Economic Development and I merely want to say that his naïveté, perhaps one should say childlike naïveté, which he has displayed in his efforts to prove that his Party and England are not out to draw a fence round the British Commonwealth of Nations in order to ensure trade for England, was surprising. The naïveté reached its climax in the Minister’s statement that they on that side of the House do not stand for isolation in the sphere of trade, but that we on this side of the House are in favour of isolation. If other people were to speak such nonsense one could understand it, but however much one may differ from the Minister in respect of politics, the fact remains that he nevertheless has enough sense not to proclaim such nonsense here. During the past years the struggle between us in this House and those on the Government side, was to a large degree concerned with the fact that while they want to compel our trade in the direction of England, for political purposes, we during all the years, have fought for freedom in the sphere of trade, to sell and to buy where it suits us best, not only in respect of quality but also as far as prices are concerned, and we have always defended the view that we must endeavour to obtain markets anywhere in the world. We desire to extend our trade to cover the whole world for the welfare of South Africa.

That is also my policy.

The whole past of your Party is a refutation of that. In any case I want to point out the foolish statement; and then he made an allegation which is almost as naive, to the effect that his side or England has never concentrated on the point of obtaining, to a large degree, the trade of the British Commonwealth and the British colonies for England. Does the Minister now really believe his statement true? Is he also one of those who say that England obtained its colonies and conquered its Commonwealth out of pure love for the territories? He knows full well that as far as colonial territories are concerned, England is out to obtain markets for British industries. Surely the Minister does not believe that England conquered the Free State, the Transvaal and other territories out of pure love.

Thank God there is an England.

Of course the Minister knows that England acquired those territories for commercial and for no other reasons, not because she wanted to destroy small nations, but only on account of commercial interests. England wanted the gold trade of the Transvaal, England wanted to obtain the trade of India, and of all the territories.

Even the trade of Waterberg.

The hon. member with his hat on his head continuously tells us how unfairly England acted towards the two republics. Just to get our gold.

Even the trade of Waterberg, as I have said.

Of course Waterberg also, because even Waterberg produces many things which England needs for its factories. Let us now face the facts squarely. It is to the advantage of England. As far as possible England wants to restrict the trade of the British Commonwealth to itself. That is the case from the nature of the matter. England is not a country which can exist on its own as a big nation. To be a big nation and to remain one, she must obtain raw materials on a very large scale from other countries to maintain her factories and also her markets for disposal of manufactured goods. Therefore it is obvious that not only British Imperialism, but also British industrial interests, prescribe that all possible steps should be taken to retain South Africa as a market for England to such a large degree as is in any way possible. You only make yourself ridiculous if you doubt it or deny it. One South African who is able to speak with the most authority on industrial development also makes no secret of that, and he is not a Nationalist. He makes ho secret of the fact that wires are continually being pulled from England to handicap our industrial development in so far as such development may harm the industries of England. What is it that we have to face in regard to the development of our industries? As the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has stated, England will now more than ever before try to exert influence through this Government and this Minister to see to it that industries will not arise or be developed in South Africa which may be a handicap to the industries of England, because, especially during the past war, England has received considerable setback as far as her external trade was concerned. She must reconstruct her trade, she must endeavour to get back her revenue from external trade. Otherwise England as a big nation would go down. She must export or die. Permit me to refresh the Minister’s memory a little.

We also must export.

Naturally. I am now dealing with the influence which England will exercise to keep a market here in competition with her own industries. I just want to quote again what Sir Kingsley Wood, former Minister of Finance in England, said when he spoke about post-war difficulties. Last year he spoke as follows—

Therefore every endeavour will be made from Britain for a reduction of import tariffs, or for their total elimination, to enable England to import freely into other countries. That is apart from the tariff wall which was built in Ottawa. Permit me to refer to another statement, by Sir Eric MacFadyen, a well-known director of companies. He stated—

And then Lord Leverhulme who stated—

He said—

Then I also have here a statement by Harcourt Johnstone, under-Minister for Overseas Trade, who stated that Britain has lost a large proportion of its invisible trade, and that the revenue of Britain will probably be less by approximately £200,000,000 than before the war. Britain has contracted a large sterling debt with other countries and will have to repay after the war. Mr. Johnstone stated that at least £150,000,000 will have to be added to Britain’s pre-war export in order to maintain pre-war standards. I may continue in that way to let people see how English Ministers who are concerned with the matter and how industrialists consider the matter. It is clear that we have to deal with influences from England, more than ever before in the past, because at present more than ever before England is dependent upon us as a market, and will do everything in her power, irrespective of what wires she pulls in politics or in respect of trade, to recover lost terrain here, and to handicap any undertaking in South Africa or any industry established here and which may be a handicap to the industries of England, by their development. It is as clear as daylight and people who deny it only make fools of themselves. [Time limit.]

On previous occasions I have referred to what both the hon. Minister and I have called my hardy annual on the factor system. May I just read two short extracts from Hansard last year. I then stated—on col. 9250, June 5, 1944, in Hansard—

The hon. Minister then replied—

But I was very pleased to see in a report in “The Star” of September 19 th, that the hon. Minister stated at a branch meeting—

He went on to describe difficulties that he referred to again this afternoon about the complicated clothing business, but he finished off with these words—

I am very pleased to see that constant dripping apparently does wear out a stone. I would again suggest to the Minister that he does away with it, not only in respect of clothing, but that he does away with the factor system in every respect at the earliest possible date. It was never used in peacetime and it is certainly not satisfactory in war-time, and I am glad that the present price controller agreed that that is not a desirable system at all. There is one other point that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. I want to suggest to him that there should be closer co-operation and co-ordination between his Department and other Departments on matters affecting industry. For example, changes are brought about in labour conditions. Those changes affect the industry. Changes are brought about in railway tariffs. Those changes affect industry. Changes are brought about in wage determination, and those changes affect industry. Quite recently we had a wage determination in clay and allied products industries. The same wages were fixed for Springs as were fixed for Dundee. There was no correlation between the Springs selling price and the Dundee selling price. The price controller fixed the maximum selling price for pressed bricks at £8 10s. for Springs, but at £4 10s. for Dundee. Obviously any new manufacturer will open up at Springs. I have also had occasion to get in touch with the Minister of Agriculture about the different prices that were fixed for meat, and in the reply that I got from the Minister in connection with the prices fixed for meat, the price controller suggests amongst other things, when referring to the fact that the country areas can come out at a lower figure, that in the rural areas the wages are less and that the delivery expenses in the cities must of necessity be higher than in the country town. But when it comes to fixing wages for the clay and allied products industries Springs and Dundee have to pay the same wages. When it comes to the maximum selling price Springs is allowed to sell at £8 10s. and Dundee at £4 10s.

Those prices were frozen at those levels.

Those are the prices they were selling at when the prices were frozen, but now they cannot increase their prices.’ The price controller said that the same, namely a 10 per cent. increase would be given to everyone. Well, 10 per cent. on £8 10s. is 17s.—and 10 per cent. on £4 10s. is only 9s. All this is due to the fact that the Departments did not work together. If we are going to have industrial development the Minister, through his Department, must keep in touch with all the other Departments. I throw out this suggestion to the Minister that his Department should take an active interest in every wage determination that takes place. They should know what is going to be the effect of the increase or the decrease of the wages in any area of the industry. In replying to the Natal coal owners in connection with these very important wage determinations, the Department of Labour, through the Minister of Mines, stated that the Wage Board in carrying out these investigations took into consideration the profits and losses of the industry concerned, and particularly the capacity of the industry concerned to pay the wages recommended. It goes on to say that it does not take into consideration the wages that are paid by the farmers, by the coal mines and other industries in that area, as the board’s primary concern must be the conditions ruling in the industry in question. This seems to me to be all wrong. In any particular area there may be one very scucessful industry that can afford to pay wages that would kill other industries in that area. We must not bring about discontent by fixing a wage for and particular industry that would be quite uneconomical for other industries in that area. [Time limit.]

On a former occasion when the Part Appropriation Bill was being passed I raised the matter, but the Minister then did not have an opportunity to reply, and therefore I want to raise it again because I consider it as a matter of considerable importance for the whole country. I am referring to the new policy which is being followed by the gold mines and the diamond mines to expand progressively and to get control of all industries. We find that it is not limited to one or two companies; the tendency is noticeable throughout the whole country and if the Minister will take the trouble to peruse the annual reports of a few of the gold mining companies he will find that they, for example, control two of our large cement factories. The only company which in any way concerns itself with torbanite is also controlled by them. They control three or four steel industries, and they have now started on the breweries. They have just taken over the Stag brewery. They have acquired the Doornkop Sugar Estates, and they are even starting on hotels. We know they have acquired three of the largest hotels in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban, inter alia the Assembly. Then one also finds that they control several of the large engineering firms. They control the Silverton Tanneries, they control sweet factories, chocolate factories, etc., and now they, have acquired the Paarl Wine and Brandy Company. In every possible direction the gold mining companies are extending their operations to get control of all the industries and the whole industrial development of the country. It is alarming and a matter for concern if one bears in mind that that is happening in South Africa. But a matter which causes me much more concern is that now for the first time, as far as I know, the Government has permitted the gold mines and the diamond mines—the Anglo-American—to have a say in the industrial development of the country, where the Government had to give its approval. I refer to the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation registered about a month ago. I am glad to see that the name of Dr. Van der Bijl is coupled with it because if there is one man to whom South Africa owes thanks for the industrial development which has taken place, it is Dr. Van der Bijl, and to the Nationalist Party which established Iscor at that time with the assistance of Dr. Van der Bijl. Iscor is today an outstanding success, and while it has developed to that stage one asks why it should be necessary to approach the Anglo-American Corporation for capital for establishing a branch of Iscor, because it is a branch of Iscor. We know that outside capital was not required; I do not think it was necessary to go to the Anglo-American or any other company for capital. If the Minister had gone to the country with a board of which Dr. Van der Bijl was chairman, he would have obtained more than sufficient capital without having to approach the Anglo-American or any other company. I therefore ask: What is now the policy of the Government in that connection? Why is the Government anxious that the gold mines, as in this case, should obtain a say in the industrial development of our country? The danger which is immediately apparent is the following: I think that I can say that practically the only big difficulty experienced by us in this country was attributable to the Chamber of Mines. All our strikes were attributable to the Chamber of Mines, because they want to lay their hands on every possible thing. They have never yet given satisfaction except perhaps in the days when the Nationalist Party kept them under control. Now I ask again, while that is the position in respect of the gold mines, why should we now remain quiet, and not only remain quiet, but why should the Government allow the gold mines to get a throttling hold on the industrial development of the country? We know that it is merely a matter of time. With the capital at their disposal it is the easiest thing in the world to get hold of the entire industrial development of the country, and not only that, but they go further. Take for example the Paarl Wine and Brandy Company. If they once start on our wine industry they will within a short time have control of it. They are expanding in every direction and that is where the danger lies. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would make a clear statement to the House in connection with the Government’s policy in that respect. We know that Iscor obtained its capital from the State. Iscor is now one of the promoters of the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation. As far as Iscor is concerned, we have the fullest confidence in Dr. Van der Bijl and in the directorate appointed by the Government. But in the case of the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation the directorate will be elected by shareholders, of whom the majority are outside persons over whom the Government has no control. I trust that the Minister will make a clear statement on the matter. May I just say this: We find that the gold mining companies control not only the gold mines but they are now engaged in the industrial development. A telegram has just been published—I doubt whether the Press has it as yet—which gives us more concern. I do not want it thought that we are not very glad that the gold mines invest the profits made by them in the country to develop industry; that is not what I object to. I object to the fact that the gold mines will have control in respect of those industries. It is quite true that they invest their money here; one welcomes it, but my objection is to their getting control, and that is where the Government should take steps. But instead of taking steps the Government encourages it because in the case of the Van der Bijl Engineering Corporation the Government permits it. I have here a report from the “New York Herald Tribune” reading as follows—

One is able at once to see where that is going to lead to if it is true. One must take it that where there is smoke there is fire. Are we now going to allow gold mines to be controlled by American capital? The next step is that American capital will develop our industries. What will happen if we are dependent upon American capital? It is a probability and that is why it is so necessary not to allow matters to develop further. One may perhaps feel much satisfied that America is prepared to invest capital in our gold mines. One appreciates that but one does not want to allow them to obtain a say in our industry. What will happen if the gold mines—whether they obtain then capital from America or from England makes not the slightest difference as far as I am concerned—obtain control of our industries? The fact remains that they will have their management in the country; they will exercise control and they will have the say. [Time limit.]

The matter raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) in connection with the footwear industry, is one of such vital importance to all the other established industries, that I feel it is necessary to refer to the matter again notwithstanding the lucid statement made by the hon. Minister. I refer to the question of when import control should be relaxed in so far as our industries are concerned. The Minister has made a clear statement but I do not think that that statement will entirely satisfy industry. One must realise that our industries will be faced with a very difficult position in the transition period. By that I mean the period after the war until such time as our industry is re-equipped and has access to all raw materials so that there will be a free flow of supplies for manufacture. Until that time, I think it is not equitable to consider the question of any relaxation of import control, at least in so far as such industries are concerned, that can supply our market in South Africa. I think South African goods should come first in South Africa before there is any relaxation of import control. I realise that control is a war measure and should be relaxed as soon as possible and that the interests of consumers should weigh very heavily with the Government. There has been some misgiving on account of the unsympathetic attitude of the Board of Trade as far as the footwear industry is concerned. The board’s unsympathetic attitude has caused some misgiving as to whether the Government is sincere in its policy to protect secondary industries. I hope that the statement which the Minister made this afternoon will dispel any such misgiving. But I do ask the hon. Minister that before any relaxation is permitted in so far as importation is concerned, where our industries are supplying our markets, very serious consideration will be given to the matter. It does rather perturb one when, after that very able memorandum that was presented by the footwear industry to the Board of Trade to find the chairman asserting that no single argument had been advanced to support the contention for continued import control; that the memorandum only made out a case for protection, with which the board was not concerned as it did not fall within the scope of the board’s enquiry and it therefore referred the industry to the Government. Such an assertion can only be based upon a fundamental misconception of the whole position. It is control that has brought about the abnormal conditions under, which our industries suffer at the present time, and we must therefore have remedial control, applied in a proper and scientific way, to rectify the abnormal conditions that prevail today. Protection, as I understand it, is a permanent tariff device designed to compensate our manufacturers for competitive disadvantages of manufacturing which are permanent and inherent in the economic set-up of South Africa. Industry does not want import control to be used for the purpose of protection; that was never the intention; but industry does say that while we can produce South African goods and supply the South African market at economic prices, then at least there should be no relaxation in that particular industry, and I say that is a very sound contention. We are told that the footwear industry can supply the whole of the South African market except in so far as children’s footwear is concerned. I say therefore that it would be a very much sounder policy for the Government to use any shipping space available for the importation of raw materials for the manufacture of footwear instead of for the importation of footwear. The Government must bear in mind that during this abnormal period, our industries have very often had to manufacture from material that has not been up to standard, there has consequently been criticism of the quality of some of our products, but that has not been due to the incompetence of our manufacturers. It has been due to the materials that the industry has had to make do. Moreover on that account there has been a certain amount of prejudice against the local article in comparison with the imported article, and local industry should be put in possession of the necessary raw material of proper quality to enable it to manufacture goods of such quality that will remove that prejudice, before the imported article is allowed to compete in our own markets against our own products. I say this is a matter of serious import to our own industry. I realise that the consumer must be considered too. I say that a decision so fraught with serious results as the removal of import control in respect of an industry that can fully supply our markets should not be taken on assumptions, but such a decision should only be made when it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that such industry is on the same footing as it was before the war and in a position to compete with overseas industries on the same competitive basis. I appeal to the Minister therefore to make a very clear statement on the subject that there will not be a relaxation of control where we can manufacture the goods in South Africa. It is all very well to say that the Board of Trade recommends that 25 per cent. of the pre-war quantity of footwear can be imported, but look at the position of those manufacturers in the boot industry who are today devoting a great deal of their energy to the military needs. Are they to face with equanimity the import of footwear when they are still diverting their energies to working for the war effort? Can the Government blame these industrialists if they say: “We will now divert all our energies to the manufacture of South African footwear to preserve our market and leave the further production of military requirements.” I am not going to say anything more but I want to give the Minister an opportunity of dispelling the doubt that there does seem to be abroad that this Government is not sincere in carrying out its policy in connection with the safeguarding of secondary industries.

In connection with the point made by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) I merely want to make the following remarks. I wonder whether he is taking into consideration all the factors when he raises, objection in connection with the participation of the gold mining industry in the development of our industries. I consider the matter in this light. In the past we may have thought that the gold mining industry was mostly sending its profits out of the country. We cannot now find fault when they use their profits for the development of our industries. With regard to the Vanderbijl Engineering Works I will leave it to the Minister to reply, but with regard to the participation of the mining industry in the development of our industries, I want to say that I welcome it, especially the fact that they use the profits of the mines for the development of our industries, because the purpose of industrial development is mainly to provide employment for our people, and in the second place to increase the purchasing power of our population and in that way to create a better market for the products produced by our farmers inland. If it is the purpose of industrial development in our country and we can attain that purpose, either through private enterprise or by investing capital in the development of the mines, then I cannot appreciate the difference from an economical point of view. Probably the objection of the hon. member for Pietersburg is based upon the fact that he fears that they will get control of our industrial development. He sees danger in that. But how can they obtain control? The Government does not give them control. The only way in which they can get control of any industry is when they conduct the industry so economically that nobody is able to compete with them, and then perhaps they have a monopoly, but that is the type of monopoly that I welcome because it implies the most economical manner in which the industry can be conducted, and if nobody in the country can compete with that, then it is purely a case where the industry which is being conducted along the most economical, the most modern and in the ablest manner, eliminates the other. To that we can have no objection. If it creates a monopoly the Government has nothing to do with it, and it is then a type of monopoly which we should welcome because it has as its foundation ability. It is purely and simply because the industry is conducted in the ablest manner that its competitors are eliminated.

You should know as an industrialist that they are able to do that by conducting their industries at a loss.

If the argument used by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is that the shareholders of the mining industry will permit their money being invested in industries to conduct them at a loss, then I am unable to accept it.

You know that you are prepared to sustain losses in order to eliminate the other person, and after that you make it all up.

If you kill one industry ….

You kill your opponents, not the industry.

Yes, you kill your opponents but how? If he kills them as the hon. member says it means that he would be killing one competitor today, but tomorrow there is another one, and he has to continue like that. No shareholder in an industry will permit his money being wasted to eliminate one competitor after another in that manner. My knowledge of business tells me that anything of that nature will not take place. It is another matter if an industry eliminates other undertakings purely by way of competition because it is more capable and more effective. I can see no objection to the mining undertakings sharing in our industries, from that point of view. If they display more ability than the other industries it is obvious that the other industries would be eliminated. That happens daily, but I cannot see how it would be possible for an industry to follow a policy to eliminate others by selling goods at a loss. Then I come to the point raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). He stated that England conquered other countries to obtain her trade. Is it the intention of the hon. member that we must now hate England so much that we must refuse to trade with her, notwithstanding the fact that she is our best market?

Who will say such a ridiculous thing?

But the hon. member made a point that England conquered other countries, two countries in South Africa also, and that England did not do that from love or hate but to obtain the trade of that country.

That is quite correct.

Let us assume it. Nevertheless she is our best market, and although she committed those acts we should not dig up the past and out of hate refuse to trade with her. I say that England is South Africa’s best market, and that is why we trade with her and it is to our advantage to do so. The first part of the argument then falls away. We trade with England and we make agreements with her because we feel that England at present offers us our best market. There is no other country which furnishes us the market which England gives us. We can take all the other countries, one after the other, and we must recognise it as an economical fact that England is our best market. If that is so we must act accordingly and then we must act in such a way that we preserve that market for us and we should do everything through friendly action to make that market for us as good as one as possible. I would be the last person to agree to England smothering our industries. That they should endeavour to do that is only too true. All countries do that and not only England. Any country would do its utmost to extend its trade by way of competition and by way of agreement. We cannot find fault with that. But what I do want to say is this. England fully realises, and I know that from intimate knowledge, that however much it may use its influence and whatever it may do, if we do want to develop our industries then England would have no power to prevent ’that. England realises that our Industries are going to develop. Recently I had the honour to get in touch with a prominent person connected with industry in England. He gave me the assurance that industrialists in England realise fully, whether they want to or not, that our industries would develop more and more. The only way for them not to lose everything is to co-operate with us, and they are prepared to co-operate with us more or less on the following basis, that they would provide us with all the technical advice against a certain payment, and that certain things which we are unable to manufacture here economically they would make available for us; they will provide that for us so that we may be able to provide for our own requirements through the technical advice with which they assist us, as far as it is possible for us to do so. Further they will supply us with the articles which we are unable to produce here ourselves. Whether I hate or love England, does not concern me, as long as I am able to develop my industries with the technical advice from England. We can do all these things without referring to hate and without raking up the past. We must only ask what is to the benefit of South Africa and then so conduct ourselves that we thereby obtain the best for South Africa.

The intimate knowledge of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has now given us precise confirmation of the point of view adopted by us on this side of the House and which was clearly put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), that England will allow us to establish certain industries, only certain selected industries which will not come into conflict with her own and that she will assist us in that connection with technical advice. We leave the matter there. I just want to say this that that hon. member has again tried to create the impression in respect of which I expressed a warning, namely that the Opposition attaches no value to the British market. I said exactly the opposite.

It was not my intention.

We fully realise the value of the British market, and we are prepared to afford England the same opportunity as other countries, but to negotiate with England in the same way as we negotiate with other countries. I say again that we do not for a moment deny the value of the British market, but we say that we desire no exclusive arrangement. As far as the Minister of Economic Development is concerned I want to express my surprise, as the hon. member for Waterberg has done, that the Minister is able to rise here today and say to us coldbloodedly “that there is no intention on the part of England to draw a fence around the Empire”. Does his Department not keep cuttings from the newspapers? If his Department is well organised I take it that they would keep a record of all speeches on external trade; and if they do keep such a record, the Minister may only take the trouble to peruse it, and you will see that he does not put the postion correctly when he tries to give this House the impression that there exists no such intention on the part of Britain. If the Minister only reads the newspapers and peruses the speeches of prominent statesmen one cannot understand how it is possible for him to make such a statement here. I want to add this. It is a natural and comprehensible policy on the part of England and I do not blame her. From the British point of view it is a natural policy for England as far as possible to preserve her markets within the Empire. But we are here in South Africa; we are members of a South African Parliament; and it is not for us to keep an eye on what is in the interest of England, but what is in the interest of our own country and our own people. Then the Minister continues “the Ottawa Agreements are not exclusive”. How on earth is it possible for the Minister to make such a statement? Let him read the Ottawa Agreements. To come here and to say “the Ottawa Agreements are not exclusive”! The Minister should read those Agreements, and if he has read them, how dare he make such a statement here. I have quoted the remarks of a former under-Secretary for External Affairs in Britain, and the Minister referred to that person contemptuously as a “civil servant”. He is insulting his own officials sitting over there. If his own departmental head, the Secretary for Economic Development, were to make a statement in connection with the economic policy of the Government, is the Minister then also going to say: “He is only a civil servant”?

I did not say that.

The Minister’s intention was very clear. I quoted from the remarks made by a former under-Secretary for External Affairs in Britain, and the Minister said here that he was only “a civil servant”. The whole impression the Minister intended to create was that because that person was a British civil servant we need attach no value to his opinion. On the contrary, the people who know the policy of England are exactly the officials in the Department of External Affairs. Governments change, but officials continue, and they know the policy of the country very well. Now the Minister comes along and he relies on the case of France. His argument suits me very well indeed. I do not know whether the Minister conducted any negotiations when he was over there, but I endeavoured to conclude an agreement with France, and it was always flung in our face by the French Department of Commerce that they were unable to sell their products in South Africa on account of the preference we gave to England. Let me tell the Minister that I negotiated with Spain on two occasions, once in Madrid and once in London. The negotiations came to a dead end, and broke down on one matter only, and that was that Spain desired a certain amount of preference, which we were unable to grant, because England had obtained it under the exclusive provisions of the Ottawa Agreement. And then the Minister comes here and says that the Ottawa Agreements are not excusive! I am surprised at a Minister who has had overseas experience—if his colleagues had adopted that attitude I would still have been able to understand it—making such a foolish and nonsensical statement in this House. Only just the following remarks. Exactly what I expected, and about which I uttered a warning, we received today. The Minister again came along with sentiment. He told us here that England treated us exceptionally well during the war, and for that reason we must now be prepared to give our market to England. Let me tell the Minister that England did not provide us with goods cut of charity and generosity. The Cape is of great strategical importance, and it was in the interests of England to see that South Africa was supplied with its requirements and to maintain good relations with it. It was not a case of charity or generosity or sentiment. Our point of view is very clear, and members opposite must not endeavour, as the hon. member for Vereeniging has done to intimate that we attach no value to the British market. We attach much value to that market but we do not desire those exclusive agreements. We do not want South Africa to be within the fence which is being drawn round the Empire. We want to buy and sell in the best markets, and we want to give England the same opportunity as any other country to buy our goods and to buy from us but not on an exclusive basis.

There are a few specific points I would like to bring up under this vote. Before doing so I would like to make a few remarks of a more general character. First of all I would like to congratulate the Minister on the standpoint he has taken up with regard to our trade with Great Britain. I hope he realises that this side of the house is wholeheartedly with him. We shall stand by those who stood by us.

Didn’t America stand by us?

The hon. member may take it as he likes. Now I shall proceed to express a few thoughts with regard to the economic development policy of the Minister. Previously the Minister went under the name of the Minister of Commerce and Industries and I think under that name he was entitled to take a narrower view of the duties of his Department. But now the Minister has been elevated to a higher plane altogether. I mean “higher” in the sense that he has a bigger perspective of the economic development of the country as a whole. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has made that point and also the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), but perhaps I may make it clearer if I quote an analogy. I hope the Minister will be able to understand what I am driving at. I quote Einstein’s theory of relativity. Einstein’s theory of relativity, briefly explained, says that all motion is relative depending on the position of the observer. I think we may explain it briefly by assuming a man standing on the face of the earth tossing a cricket ball. A man standing next to him would see merely the movement of the ball but a man standing on the moon would see also the movement of the earth as it revolves on its axis and if the observer is still further away on the sun he would see not only the movement of the earth and the man and the ball but also the earth itself moving along on its orbit, he has a much wider view ….

I am afraid that if the hon. member continues with his theory of relativity he will find himself very far away from the vote indeed.

I want the Minister, from his elevated position as Minister of Economic Development, to take a wider and more general view of the economic development of this country. I want him to look down upon the country as a whole. If he surveys the economic situation as a whole he will find perhaps that we have the Orange River running away without serving any useful purpose and a struggling and contracting mining industry. Surely it is his duty to so integrate the different spheres of industrial expansion that dams and other public works are built to conserve the water and feed the agricultural industry.

That is the vote of the Minister of Lands.

I am glad the hon. member said that because I want to congratulate the hon. Minister of Lands. He told us about a most magnificent scheme for damming the Orange River.

That comes under another vote.

No, it comes under this vote. Now, on a previous vote I dared to ask the Minister of Labour what was the general economic policy of this Government in relation to industrial development, with a more direct approach to the problem of unemployment. I think that bears equally heavily on the Minister of Economic Development. The Minister at the time told me this. He said it is no good coming along and forever asking the Government for a policy.

That is because they have none.

He said members should bring forward a policy. Perhaps I may be permitted to suggest a policy on broad and general lines. Why does not this Government formulate a plan spread over five or ten years for spending several hundreds of millions of pounds? I hear whistles, but I expected that. After all, in fighting this war we spent hundreds of millions of pounds, and I see no reason why, for the economic development of this country we should not spend money to the same extent on a planned scheme. I do not even expect the Minister to answer that because the question has so many different aspects. I want to refer him to what was said by the hon. member for Newcastle who referred to the co-ordinating function of the Minister. From his elevated position the Minister should look down and see that the mining industry is not progressing as it should. If the Minister would listen to me perhaps he will get some idea of what I am driving at. My idea is that from his elevated view, as Minister of Economic Development, he should regard the mining industry as part and parcel of the whole picture. It becomes his duty to co-ordinate schemes, to consult with other Departments and to evolve a scheme which will develop and expand the mining industry, an essential requirement for the expansion of our industrial economy. The mining industry, paying as it does something like £27,000,000 to the Government out of a production of £100,000,000, surely would be assisted if its output were increased by 50 per cent. or 100 per cent., and the percentage of taxation reduced. We would then be able to get in the same amount of taxation by making them pay on a lower scale. Now I cannot be accused of asking for a policy and not putting forward something.

What is your plan?

I have asked for the spending of several hundred million pounds on comprehensive economic development. If that does not satisfy you what will? Then there are a few small matters affecting petrol control. I wonder whether the Minister would not consider a slight alleviation of petrol control allowing members of the public to accumulate petrol coupons for three or four months to enable them to go on a holiday involving, say, 800 miles. I know it is not the policy of the Department to do it, but perhaps they may consider it at this stage. There is also the question of removing the 75 miles limit which may now also be considered. There is also the question of the permits required for the removal of cars from one Province to another. I am led to believe that there was under way an investigation into the production costs of steel at Iscor. I would like to know how far the Minister got with that because I regard it as a most important matter affecting the development of secondary industry in this country. [Time limit.]

I wish to raise a particular aspect of our post-war development, namely, the question of capital from abroad for the development of industries here. The hon. Minister gave a very non-committal reply as to his policy on this point when he spoke in Another Place. He said that, of course, he would be very much more glad if companies from overseas sought part of their capital locally, but of course he encouraged generally the getting of capital from overseas to develop industry here. We are in a rather peculiar position in this country. We are at the moment somewhere between ceasing to be a debtor country and becoming a creditor country. A debtor country is one with an unfavourable balance of payments. It may still be more or less a capital-indigent country although it has had for a considerable period of years a favourable balance of payments on current account. In such a case I say it may still be a capital-indigent country. We have at the moment no capital investments abroad and no foreign holdings. External capital is invested here in the form of either Government securities or other equity investments. Now, the interest and dividend payments on these investments are a yearly drain on the national income avail able for consumption and for investment in this country which ultimately have to be paid for by visible exports. Now in the position in which a country as South Africa is at the moment, the margin between the total nett national income and the nett national income available for consumption is insufficient to provide for capital requirements. In other words the home-savings of the country, as representing this margin available for local investment, are insufficient for its capital requirements. A country in that position is then obliged to look abroad for the capital necessary for the development of its industries. Naturally no country desires to remain in such a position for a longer time than is strictly necessary. It wants to emerge as soon as possible from the swaddling clothes of subservience and dependency upon foreign capital, and it tries to do that, on the one hand, by repatriating as much as possible of its indebtedness overseas and by limiting as far as possible the capital that it imports for the necessary development of its industries. Now, as far as the public debt repatriation is concerned, it has been remarked upon with pride by the Minister of Finance that he has succeeded in repatriating quite a considerable amount of our indebtedness abroad, and we know that that was a policy which was commenced as far back as 1936. It has been accelerated by war conditions and as a result of that the Minister of Finance is very justly proud of the fact that he has repatriated such a large amount of our indebtedness abroad. One result—and I am now dealing particularly with the position of South Africa—of the trade tendencies of the last few years is that we are gradually emerging from the position where we were purely a debtor country, and are beginning to have more of the attributes of a creditor country. Certain figures show the tendency in that direction. We have for many years had a favourable balance of payments, and that is a fact that must ultimately affect the capital position in this country. Our external debt, for instance, has been reduced from £101,123,000 in 1939 to £18,167,000 in 1944. Our Reserve Bank foreign currencies have been increased from about £6,000,000 in 1939 to £26,440,000 at the end of 1944. Our gold reserves held by the Reserve Bank have been increased from £71,455,000 to £179,615,000. Also, in regard to the Post Office Savings Banks and Union Loan Certificates, the amount of the deposits in those two repositories of the savings of the people increased from £26,000,000 in 1939 to £90,000,000 in 1944. Deposits at ordinary commercial banks have also increased considerably. If we take these figures in conjunction with the fact that interest and dividend payments abroad have been reduced (according to the figures of Prof. Frankel) from about £30.000,000 per year in 1938-’39 to £21.3 millions in 1943-’44, which means that the nett national income available in the Union, and thus available also for investment here has been increased in the course of the last five or six years by an amount of almost £9,000,000. That means we have so much more available for local investment annually. We have £9,000,000 more available by reason of the fact we have £9,000,000 less to send out as interest payments and dividend payments on capital invested from abroad in this country. From these figures two facts emerge. In the first place it means that there has been a considerable repatriation not only of the public debt of this country but also money invested in stocks and shares, particularly, I should imagine, in the gold mining industry. I think the other fact that emerges from these figures is that there has been accumulated in this country a large amount of capital available for capital investment, more than sufficient to meet the ordinary demands for capital replacements after the war. In other words, a part of the money in the Reserve Bank or in the various savings banks and Union Loan certificates—leaving aside what may be necessary for the ordinary replacement of capital—has been, if I may say so, permanently saved for new capital ventures in this country. It is difficult to estimate the exact amount available, but I think one can safely say there will be available, apart from what is necessary for ordinary replacements when war ceases, a very large amount of capital for investment in new capital ventures in this country. I do not think one can quite say that this reserve of capital which is being made available in this way, together with the ordinary homesavings which one must expect to recur now that the war has ended, will be entirely sufficient to provide South Africa with all the capital necessary for its post-war development. I do not think it will be quite sufficient. To some extent South Africa will still be obliged to go abroad and to invite capital from abroad to come here. But I think it is quite clear that when we do go abroad to invite capital it will no longer be entirely in the position of a mendicant begging for a favour, but rather that of a host inviting paying guests to come to us. That, I think, means that the terms and the financial position of South Africa are so inviting that there is, in fact, a danger of the guest-capital ousting homecapital; that there may be such an influx of capital from abroad that within a comparatively short period of time the old position will have been restored when we had to send out yearly an amount of £30,000,000 in the shape of dividends or interest on capital investments from abroad in this country. That will be most unfortunate, if we were to go back to the position in which we were in 1938 and 1939, that we should have to send out every year in the form of exports an amount of £30,000,000.

Does that matter in a developing country?

It depends entirely whether we will have the wherewithal in exports to pay for that invisible import. We are limited in the payment of that item of invisible import today to our own resources. At the moment we might be able to carry out this obligation as long as we have the gold mines, but the external trade policy of the Minister as indicated today does not seem to be a policy which is likely to increase our exports of other things than gold. As far as our export trade is concerned we are entirely top-heavy, 70 per cent. of our exports being represented by gold. That is a very unhealthy position; there are too many eggs in one basket. I should like to see us again in the position we were some years ago when only 50 per cent. of our exports were represented by gold. We do know that the amount of gold available is not unlimited, and the prognostications of people supposed to know, the Government Mining Engineer and other people, are such that we are faced with some degree of fear for the future as far as this item of export is concerned. It is a dwindling asset. It must decrease in the course of a number of years. Therefore for that reason it would be a very unfavourable thing, as far as South Africa is concerned, if at this stage when the future of gold is uncertain as far as the amount available is concerned—its general position is safe—to have to export to cover the interest and dividend charges on the capital invested here; that would be nothing short of a calamity as far as South Africa is concerned. The point I want to make is this. What is exactly the Government’s attitude towards this problem. There will be capital from abroad seeking admission to our hospitable shores after the war. The Minister, in Another Place, said that is a matter that does not arise now, but that it is a post-war question. But I want to assure the Minister this is not a matter that brooks any further delay. We must know what is the attitude of the Government. Are they going to encourage the coming of capital from abroad to these shores, or are they going to follow a policy of laissez faire as far as that is concerned? If you want to come, come; if you do not want to, stay away. Or, are they actively going to encourage capital coming to South Africa? Or, and that is the third possibility, are they going to attempt some measure of nationalising the capital invested in this country, and which ought to be used, in the first instance, for the development of our industries? I want it to be clearly understood that that would not mean there would be any active discouragement of foreign capital, but it would mean this; that there was some attempt to control the influx of capital from abroad, not by excluding it, but by limiting it, and seeing that it does not come in such a way as to endanger the homecapital of this country and the people who have that. Such capital is bound to come in.

There are better investments for industry in this country.

I know; therefore capital will come from abroad, and if it comes from abroad, you have to face the next point in your reasoning, which is this; if that capital comes from abroad it means some of our money must go abroad in the shape of dividends or interest. We know that one of the most recent refinements in the struggle for markets is to export the factory instead of the fabric. People who want to capture the market in this country have no longer to export the fabric; they now export the factory, and that, of course, from a national point of view has many advantages for a country like South Africa over and above the blunter way of trade competition. It means that the wages are paid out in this country. It means our unemployment is relieved, and that the money in circulation is swelled. That is so; but on the other hand there is one disadvantage which persists, and that is that some of the profits go abroad. The dividends have to be paid out; they swell our invisible imports and they have in the last resort to be paid by visible exports, and where we have a dwindling export, apart from gold, it is very dangerous to incur commitments which must necessarily be a still greater drain on our exports. In the last pre-war year such dividends and interest payments abroad amounted to 8 per cent. of our total national income, and that represented actually more than half of the amount of our nett investment. The nett investment figure of this country in the pre-war years was roughly £50,000,000 to £60,000,000 a year and yet £30,000,000 had to go out in the shape of dividends and interest payments, £30,000,000 which otherwise could have been employed in investments here. There has been an improvement; that amount has been reduced by £9,000,000 a year, which is now available for investment in this country itself. But, as I say, we do not want to backslide into the position that obtained here before the war. We do not want to lose on the dividend-swings what we have gained on the interest-roundabouts. The Minister of Finance is very proud of the fact that he has reduced our overseas national debt and that he has saved that interest which is now payable in South Africa. But it would be an empty boast if we have reduced the interest that goes out of the country only to have increased the dividends that go out of the country. We would simply be losing on the swings though we should have won on the roundabouts, and that would be no advantage to South Africa. It is not for this side of the House to say what should be done. Like the physician we can only prescribe if we have been called in. But certain suggestions have been made from time to time which should have come to the ear of the Minister, and they are in two directions. The first is to encourage homeinvestment, the placing of the savings of this country in investments in the industries of this country. It was suggested some time ago that the surtax of 15 per cent. of the normal income tax and the supertax should be put into an industrial development fund and in that way we should attempt to give the ordinary taxpayer a real interest in our industrial development; that the amount collected in that way could either be invested in the Industrial Development Corporation, or in some unit trust sponsored by the Government, which would give these people a definite stake in the industrial development of the country. We want to have more people interested in our industrial development, and no one is more interested in the development of a business than a shareholder in the company himself. We want to have as many shareholders as possible amongst our ordinary taxpayers in our industrial undertakings. In this way you will not only encourage the investment of home-capital in industry but lead it in the proper direction. On the other hand there is the control of imported capital. Two years ago I made the suggestion—it was about the same time something similar was attempted in Portugal—that 60 per cent. of the capital in any new venture should be in the hands of Union nationals. Let capital come from overseas, do not discourage it, but do not let it be in a position to control the business. See to it that the business is registered in this country, that its head office is here, and that a controlling percentage of the interest in that business is in the hands of Union nationals. The other condition is this; you should see to it that certain industries, at any rate, must be entirely in the hands of Union nationals, key industries, industries which you cannot afford to have controlled from outside. In that respect a law was passed in Portugal about two years ago; it sought not to exclude capital, but to control capital coming into the country in such a way that it would necessarily be used in the interest of the country, and would ultimately lead to the country becoming capitally independent of other countries. The idea is not to exclude participation of foreign capital from our national activities, but to encourage it to come here under certain circumstances. The effect of that would be that we welcome the capital from abroad, but it comes here under our conditions, and those conditions are designed in the first place to ensure that the ultimate control over that capital is in the hands of the people who have a stake in this country. The Minister has himself said it would be very advisable if the various companies coming here were to see to it that they had a real link with the country, to get the inhabitants of the country to become shareholders in their concern. I want to go a step further; if it is very desirable that they should have a real link, he should take the next step and say it is very necessary that a certain portion of that capital should be in the hands of Union nationals, and thereby he would be ensuring that that money would be used in a way which is in the national interest. What is the Minister’s attitude towards this problem? Is he going to continue a policy of laissez faire, or take some steps to see that this capital although not discouraged is in a certain measure controlled? Then we shall have the assurance that the privilege we accord to this capital from abroad will not be abused to put us in a position of dependence on the wishes and whims of shareholders from overseas; that the ultimate control is in the hands of the people of this country. Let them come here and bring their experience and technical knowledge, let them bring some of their capital here, but make it a condition of their exploiting this country—for their benefit and our benefit—that a certain amount of that capital should be in the hands of our Union nationals. That, I think, is the only way to ensure that we are not swamped here by guest-capital, and that we do not revert or backslide into the position we had before the war, when an amount of £30,000,000 was sent out of the country in the way of interest and dividend payments. Let us carry on the good work, which is now being continued by the present Minister of Finance, and as we still require some capital here, let us see that that capital, when it does come here, is subject to some control in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) was very eloquent when he spoke about our industrial development, but he seemed rather concerned lest Britain would not be able to weather the storm. The hon. member was a very bad profit at Kenhardt when he declared Britain had lost the war and when he likened Britain to a chicken whose head was chopped off.

Mr. NAUDÉ: That is what would have happened without Russia.

Its head was chopped off but it did not know it was dead. I do not blame the hon. member for trying to get out of it. I do not think hon. members on the other side need be so very concerned about Britain. During a terrible war she was able to weather all the storms that beat against her, and even industrially she will be able to maintain her proud position. The policy advocated by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is, I feel, not a policy that is accorded any considerable support in this country outside the ranks of those who support it for political or racial reasons. We are living in dangerous times, and even though the war is over we must stick to the people who were our friends in the dark days, and for that reason the policy advocated by the Minister of Economic Development is the sound one. I hope that policy will be carried out and that sympathetic and preferential treatment will be extended to those peoples who decided to stick together through thick and thin. I should like to say a few words in regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) where he stated that a block of shares in the Wool Processing Factory at Uitenhage had been reserved for the National Woolgrowers’ Association. I hope the Minister will not be a party to the National Woolgrowers forcing the wool farmers to contributing towards the capital of this processing factory. We have nothing against the National Woolgrowers’ Association acting as brokers or agents for those farmers who voluntarily wish to contribute to the factory. I say that because the wool farmers are quite prepared to purchase the wool. They know when they have a good thing, and they believe in a shoemaker sticking to his last. Apart from that the farmer, although he is getting a good price for his commodity, thanks to the agreement with Britain, is having to pay enhanced prices. Wool packs used to be from 2s. 9d. and they have gone up to 8s._ and shearing expenses have risen from 10s. to over 20s. a hundred, and in that factor our marketing expenses have gone up. In consequence of that I do feel that the Minister will not be a party to forcing the farmers to contributing to this wool factory. Many of us are prepared to contribute, but if he wants to raise a hornet’s nest he has only to start compelling farmers to contribute by means of a compulsory levy. The question of the footwear industry has been ably dealt with by the hon. members for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) and Port Elizabeth (Central) (Lt.-Col. Oosthuizen), but as there seems to be a difference if opinion in regard to the post-war treatment of this industry I would further like to appeal to the Minister to give more sympathetic treatment than seems to be indicated by his remarks. I hope that he will review more fully and in a better spirit the report put up by the footwear industry. It has its national home in Port Elizabeth, and as an industry it has been built up since the last war, and South Africa is justly proud of it. During this war it has played a significant rôle in the expansion of our industries, and also in making millions of boots not only for South Africa but for the Allied nations. I am told the soldiers of our Allies are very happy indeed when they own a pair of boots made in South Africa. Without labouring the point I should like to suggest why I consider sympathetic treatment should be given to this industry for at least 18 months after the cessation of hostilities. In the first instance, more than 2,000 men have to re-absorbed in civilian production in the footwear industry. There are quite a number of returned prisoners of war as well. Much of the machinery is obsolete and to a great extent worn out. The computation is that about £350,000 worth of machinery will have to be importea to reequip the factories, and orders have already been placed for £250,000 worth. It is hoped that in due course when shipping is available this machinery will get preference for shipment to this country. The footwear industry has kept pace with the civilian demands of the country and to prove that I want to quote one figure. In 1939 47,000 pairs of infants’ shoes were made and in 1944 495,000 pairs of children’s shoes were made, showing that the industry could cope with our civilian demands apart from the demand for war purposes. It has kept pace with developments in other countries even with regard to ladies’ footwear in styles and shapes. There is unfortunately a certain amount of prejudice, one might call it blind prejudice, on the part of some women, who because of the effects of advertising think that the South African product is not up to the standard reached by America and Britain. But I think that when everything is consdiered there is very little in this. With these few remarks I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic treatment to this industry.

At this exhilirating hour of the evening I would like to add my remarks on economic development. The all-embracing features of this Ministry were brought forward in the first instance by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and subsequently by the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams). There is no doubt that in the post-war period an intelligent far-sighted policy of co-ordination with regard to economic development, which includes mining, agriculture and industry and commerce is something of the greatest import. On it will depend demobilisation, and the fact that the national industry in this country must continue to increase. I would like to refer to certain broad principles which I feel are fundamental and to which this Government has not paid sufficient attention. These broad principles are the divisions into which private and public enterprise should divide themselves and the spheres in which these two sections of economy should operate. I find it hard to appreciate the policy of this Government and to bring into line the policy stated on various occasions with the present development in the economy of South Africa. I would refer to the speech made by General Smuts in July, 1943, in which the Prime Minister stated that the basic policy of the Government was the maintenance of individual enterprise and initiative. But the Government nevertheless pleaded that some form of control and regulation of business activities would be needed. In principle the Government was opposed to interference with private enterprise and it was not the Government’s policy to enter into competition with business undertakings. I want to emphasise these last words, that it was not the Government’s policy to enter into competition with private business undertakings. Subsequently in March, 1944, the policy of the Government was stated by the Prime Minister as follows, that the fundamental policy of this country is private enterprise and individual personal initiative. He said that that had been stated repeatedly and he repeats that that is the fundamental basis of our development; it would be a sad day for South Africa, situated as we are, and with our population problems being what they are, if we were to neglect that personal aspect. We should have personal enterprise and initiative in all matters. In October, 1944, a similar statement was made by the Prime Minister. These terms are definite. There is no shilly-shallying. The idea is definitely that the basis of our economy should be private enterprise. It was on this basis that I myself built up my ideas of economy. I believe in private enterprise because I feel it will build up to the greatest extent the national income of this country. I do not believe that the basis of the division of income and the division of capital is perfect. Not by any means. No one who sees the wealth on one hand and the poverty on the other hand can fail to realise that there are weaknesses which must be corrected, but the fundamental basis of development I have always regarded as being the Government’s policy of private enterprise. But either the Government is deceiving itself or the people of this country, because I find that there is developing in our economy which is quite opposed to this principle, a development of the idea of the corporate state which is more in keeping with the principles of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) than with the policy indicated by the Prime Minister. Because this is happening there is a growing loss of faith that this Government has the definite economic policy which it has announced. I do not want statements like this to be mere lip-service while something else is happening, but that is what I feel. I do not intend to refer to Iscor other than to say that that was definitely looked upon as a public enterprise, and public money was voted to develop it. I accept that in the same way as I accept the Electricity Supply Commission, which is, as it were, a national monopoly. Then there is a further development. We went on to the principle of the Industrial Development Corporation, which was generally intended to finance industry by means of short-term loans and was not intended to be a long-term partner in any business. That was a further step in the direction of the laissez faire policy. Each time there was a statement that there were no more territorial ambitions, and each time that was the sign for further development. Last year we saw the development of the Fisheries Corporation. In its initial stages the first reading of this Bill was to my mind definitely a Bill which could be introduced by Parliament, if there were Parliament in Italy and Germany, but definitely not a Bill which should have been introduced in that form in this House. Subsequently amendments were made, amendments which had far-reaching effects, and assurances were given by the hon. Minister on the lines that there would be no interference with private enterprise unless private enterprise failed. We know what has happened subsequently. We know that within a short period there was further territorial ambition and money is to be issued under the B shares, a complete somersault from the policy of this Government as enunciated by the Prime Minister to the extent that the Government participated in a form of industry competing with other industries, that the Government is a competitor in a line of industry, not a national line, a national monopoly, but a particular section of industry. Does that comply with the assurance given by the Prime Minister that there is no intention to compete with private enterprise? I want to dwell on other aspects of our economy, like agriculture. There the same principle’s are gradually being forced on the country, the idea of the corporate state, and not the idea of a free country. I contend that you cannot manage your country and expect to have political freedom. Political freedom goes hand in hand with economic freedom. They are combined together. Manage your economy, and you need an authoritative State to do it. That has been proved. I want to know whether this corporate policy is going to be continued. Where is a halt to be called? Will there be a Sugar Corporation? Where is it going to end? Are we going to have a Farming Corporation? The other day we repudiated it when hon. members opposite wanted a corporation to run the mining industry. Is it only where pressure is too strong on private enterprise? I feel that there are pressure groups operating in this country, economists who are trying to force a managerial system on this country. It is not strange. Books have been written on it, by men like Burnham. [Time limit.]

I do not intend replying to the statements made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) in connection with the cock story. I can only say that the fowl probably had an elastic neck and however lame it was it nevertheless succeeded. But when I think of how that hon. member has changed, well, we know he used to be a good Nationalist…

But your principles were so rotten that I had to leave.

He was a good Nationalist and he had certain principles but now there is nobody opposite who so gladly sings Rule Britannia and There Will Always be an England. He comes here and tells us that we must sell our wool to England because England has made such great sacrifices for us. Instead of criticising the Minister for not having taken steps to provide us with the necessary machinery for manufacturing our wool, the hon. member tells us that we must be so grateful that England bought our wool. That is however not the reason for my rising. When my time expired I was dealing with the important question of the participation of the gold mining companies in the development of our industries. I still want to put this point to the Minister. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) said that we should welcome the mining companies sharing in our industrial development. But the difficulty is that the mining companies are hot engaged in building up industry. They are engaged in buying industries and in getting control of industries which are already paying. They go to industries in respect of which they know their money to be safe, for example, to an industry where the Government had to provide the capital, and they obtain a say in such industry. That is the difficulty of the matter that they are out to obtain control of certain industrial undertakings. It is merely a question of time and then a small number of the mining magnates will be the people having control of the industrial development of the country. The hon. member for Vereeniging is not present but I want to put this case to him. Sir Ernest Oppenheimer is at present one of the directors of this company, the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation, and what attitude did he adopt in connection with diamond cutting in the country? He is head of the diamond mining industry and there was a time when serious attempts were made to develop diamond cutting in this country. He opposed it. Why did he not utilise those millions at the disposal of the industry for starting such an industry in this country in which hundreds and thousands of Afrikaners would then have earned good wages? No, that was never his intention. It did not suit him but it does suit him now as it suits the other mining magnates to come into the industrial development of the country. Let me put the matter to the Minister in this way: When a conflict arises between our industrial development and the interests of the mining industry, and Sir Ernest Oppenheimer sits there as a director of such a company, in what direction is he going to speak? We know that we are faced with a shortage of native labour. Supposing it is a question between industrial development and the mining industry as far as native labour is concerned, on what side is Sir Ernest Oppenheimer going to use his weight? As I have already pointed out there was a time when he had very little use for industrial development in South Africa. For those reasons we criticise the fact that mining magnates are permitted to get control of and a say in an undertaking such as the Vanderbijl Engineering Works at Vereeniging. We criticise the Minister for permitting something like that, and we would like to have a reply from him as to his policy. Then I come to the other point. Last year I put a question in that regard to the Minister, namely, what steps he was prepared to take to ensure that the hotels in the Transvaal and elsewhere in the Free State do not charge such improper prices for South African wines and brandies. The Minister replied that the Price Controller was going into the matter. I repeated the question during the current year and the Price Controller is still engaged on enquiries. It is said that the prices have been frozen at pre-war levels. But the pre-war prices were altogether improper. Why? Because many of those hotels were under the control of the large breweries, and they are not anxious to sell wine and brandy. They merely want to sell their beer. A second reason is the whisky ring. They want to keep the prices for wine and brandy as high as possible so that when whisky is introduced to the market again the prices for our wines and brandies would be so high that people would prefer to buy whisky. Our brandy costs 1s. per tot in the Transvaal, and here in the Cape the charge is 7d. Such a difference in price is ridiculous. The purpose simply is that when whisky returns it will only be 3d. more expensive, and then people will not mind paying the difference. It is taking the Price Controller more than a year to investigate the matter. Surely it is a simple matter. When it concerns the products of the farmers prices are fixed practically within half a week. But when it concerns something like this, where control can be exercised to the advantage of the farmers, it requires a whole year. Then I come to a third point. It is a matter of great importance. When a new business is opened it is apparently unable under control to obtain certain articles. I want to refer to the special case of the Waterberg Trading Store which conducts the biggest business in Potgietersrust. It was closed temporarily but a few prominent farmers, amongst whom the Schoemans, re-opened it. They say that they are unable to obtain certain foodstuffs. They refer to butter, cheese, tea, rice, sugar and mealie meal. A new business which has to develop and which is unable to supply those articles to the public is unable to do business on the platteland. It is not as in the cities where people buy for cash and are able to go from one store to another. There the farmer goes to a shop and he buys all his requirements, but if he is unable to obtain those articles which he wants he has to buy his goods from another business. The reason advanced is that if the business is unable to obtain those articles before a certain time then he could get them now. But does the Minister realise that such a state of affairs makes the position of such a business absolutely impossible? Supposing now a farmer buys his machinery, articles of clothing and similar goods at that shop, but he is unable to obtain his butter, sugar and similar items there. The other shops in the town will not supply him with the other articles because they will inform him that he is not one of their customers. It means that such a business would have to close down. It is a very serious matter. Now that the war has come to an end, I want to appeal to the Minister to see to it that such goods are supplied to the businesses on the platteland even though it be new businesses which are opening. This business has the capital required by it. It does not ask for deferment but it only wants the same goods which are made available to other businesses. I would still be able to appreciate the position if such goods were unobtainable. Take an article such as sugar. It is supplied to other businesses and it is supplied in large quantities to the sweet manufacturers and canning factories. People are able to buy as much sweets as they want. Poor people are able to buy sugar in the form of sweets, but they are unable to buy sugar as such, and it is sugar which they need. I would like the Minister to devote his attention to these matters.

In the course of this debate much discussion has taken place in connection with import permits and the question of protection. It is not my intention to enter into an argument about these matters, but my personal opinion is that whilst I realise that during a time of emergency the import permit system was necessary, my own feeling is that as things get back to normality, to continue such a system is not good for the country for the simple reason that the public of South Africa have to pay and industry built up on such a basis is not conducive to efficiency. When it comes to a question of protection many members have asked the Minister what is his reaction gerenally. We must realise that industry today after six years of war is very nervous. It is nervous to the extent that they visualise that in the post-war period the possibility exists that our markets will be flooded with cheap goods and therefore our industries might be placed in a difficult position. That is not altogether as I see it, for the simple reason that we must realise that if the cost of production has gone up here it has also risen in other countries, but what we have to be careful about is that we do not increase our cost structure in this country to such an extent, that when we have to face up to the reciprocity of trade we will be unable to compete with other countries. The Minister was asked about his policy in connection with protection. I happen to have in front of me what the Minister said in Another Place last year about this question. I agree with what he said, namely—

While I agree with that, to my mind what we have to be very careful about, and what the country must look to is the question of its cost structure. The Minister also went on to say—in connection with agriculture—

From the manufacturing point of view’ it is inevitable that if you are going to compete in the world’s markets you have to increase your output and decrease your cost. What does industry do to meet that position? The first thing it does to increase output is to make a greater use of machinery. We have to realise in this country that we are not producers of heavy machinery and it is just this factor in our future economy that is worrying me very much, because as the Minister rightly says agriculture and industry go hand in hand, and with the widespread differences in wages today between agriculture and industry, unless we do something to increase our output in agriculture and therefore put ourselves in a position to supply the public of the country with all they want at moderate cost, and also supply industry, I can assure you that industry is going to have a very thin time indeed. What are we going to do in agriculture, and what is the Government going to do in order to assist increased production and decreased cost as far as agriculture is concerned? I have just said that we are not producers of heavy machinery so that we are at a disadvantage in comparison to countries such as Russia, Britain and America who are producers of heavy machinery. Our manpower in this country today is short in every sphere of our economy. Our manpower is here in the country, but is not pulling its weight and in consequence agricultural production is suffering. Inevitably we will have to make greater use of machinery in this country. How is the agriculturist coming out in this connection? The farmer, if he has to use the tools of production in order to increase output, will have to have machinery made available to him at reasonable cost, but the agricultural machinery is manufactured by the biggest corporations in the world and the prices of machinery is exceedingly high. Your fuel for production is in the hands of the biggest companies in the world. What I want to know is this. The Minister said just now when he replied to another speaker that as far as the controller is concerned, he has no control whatsoever over the cost of production. I take it he meant the cost of production in other countries.

Or in this country.

Or imports from other countries. Where you have hig scale production in any country, you also have small scale production, and you must help both. When the tools of production are imported into this country, the price that the agriculturist has eventually got to pay for that machinery, in my opinion, is out of all proportion to the import price and that is a very serious factor in our economy as far as agriculture is concerned and the Government should exercise strict control over these prices. In the Minister’s own words, a sound industrial policy in this country is dependent on a sound agricultural policy and I am perfectly convinced that as the agriculturist in this country has got to pay not only for his tools of production but for the fuel in order to drive those tools of production which are excessive, it means that the consumers of this country are paying an increased price for the commodities which they consume. Our efficiency in this country is extremely low and unless you can increase our efficiency, decrease the cost of production and increase our output by the utilisation of machinery, there is going to be a breakdown between agriculture and industry, and neither agriculture nor industry will be able to make any headway. Today we are probably living in a false paradise. There is plenty of money and no unemployment, but once you reach saturation point, with a weak agriculture economy we are going to be in for a very thin time indeed. The Government should see that we import our fuel and the tools of production at the very lowest margin of profit in order that the consumer may reap the benefit of increased efficiency, greater output and decreased cost.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) when he says that we must not have outside capital in this country for our industries. Without outside capital, we would find ourselves almost isolated in the field of industry. We have a good example in our gold mines of what foreign capital has done for them. If it had not been for foreign capital our gold mines would not have stood where they stand today, our principal source of income. Had it not been for the much maligned speculator from outside, we could never have developed our mining industry to its present high state of efficiency. I say that I believe that foreign capital in our industries will bring new interest, skill and experience which is needed if this country is not to lag behind other countries in the post-war world. Now I want to say a few words in regard to dried fruit and canned fruit. For years we have not been able to compete with the similar article that comes from California. We have the fruit and we have the capital—we certainly have the skill but we lack that pride in our product needed to enable us to produce an article equal to anything from California. I am sorry to see that the hon. Minister has considered it necessary to increase his estimates for control, but I hope that his needs will be very much reduced in view of the termination of the war in Europe. I agree that control has done a lot of good on the whole, but control has not done entirely what it should have done. In this connection I would refer particularly to dried fruit. It has been controlled as far as production price is concerned; it has been controlled as far as the processing price is concerned, and it has been controlled as far as wholesale and retail prices are concerned, and still the prices keep going up. Dried fruit is one of the items of diet that the very poor used to get at a price they could afford to pay. In 1940 when the control was instituted, the price of dried apricots was 10½d. In 1941 it was 1s. 1d. In 1942 it was 1s. 3d. In 1943 it was 1s. 3⅝d. In 1944 it was 1s. 7d. In 1945 it is 1s. 7½d. Despite control the prices have increased every year. Another variety I may mention is one of which the very poor could always have some on their table, and which is almost beyond their meagre earnings today. I refer to prunes. Let me give the House the prices since 1939.

I would like to point out that the fixation of the price of dried fruit has nothing to do with the Minister.

May I mention that I am talking about control. I am giving these figures not in relation to quality or quantity but to show that the prices have gone up despite control.

The price controller has nothing to do with the fixing of the prices of dried fruit. Perhaps the hon. member can raise this under “Agriculture”.

May I ask whether jams come under agriculture.

The hon. member may proceed.

May I point out that in the case of jams, where the same commodity is used as in the case of dried fruit, the prices have gone up very little. The manufacturers of jam are using the same commodity, fruit, and still they have not seen the necessity to raise the price of jams to the same extent, I would also draw the Minister’s attention to what seems impossible yet we have had many cases in Johannesburg, that is where one shop charges sometimes double the price that another shop charges for the same article. In one instance one shop charged over six guineas for the article and one could buy the same article for three guineas a little lower down the street. That could not have happened if we had had a ceiling price for clothing instead of this pre-war profit factor that we have had. I want to ask whether it is not possible for the Minister to lay down a ceiling price instead of having this profit factor. In regard to building material, if the building controller put a ceiling price on building material, we could do away with the building difficulties we are having today. Then I would draw the Minister’s attention to the number of dressmaking shops that have opened in Johannesburg. We have nearly 400 dress shops, many of them manufacturing their own goods in Johannesburg. They have shelves dividing the front portion of the building so that the inspector cannot see what is going on behind. The prices that are being charged for these articles are often treble the prices that were charged for the similar imported article some years ago. That is another item that requires the attention of the Minister.

I would like to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). First of all he referred to the question of new businesses opening up which cannot get supplies of certain goods. That is so but the position is that while it is all very well to say that the war is over, the shortage of a great many goods is not by any means over, and all those goods to which the hon. member referred—tea, rice and butter—are all in short supply. They are all being rationed to the trade; that is to say the authorised trading stores in Potgietersrust, which the hon. member mentioned, are getting a percentage of what they would like to get if they can, and it means that if a new store now starts and it is going to be fully stocked, their supplies are going to be deducted from the existing stores in the area.

Mr. NAUDÉ: Would not that be fair?

In some cases it would not be fair. If there are sufficient stores at the present moment to keep the community supplied, so long as there is a real shortage of goods, it is not possible to allow everybody to open up new shops.

But you give him a licence.

In normal times it is not a question of how many shops there are in the town; it is a question of whether you want to trade or not.

But you give him the licence.

He goes on the importers’ list if he has been in the habit of importing. We do not give him a licence to open a shop. He gets the licence from the local authority. That is the difficulty there. I am hoping that as supplies come in that position will improve, and if this particular case is one where the needs of the community require that the shop should be opened, I am quite prepared to look into the matter. In regard to the prices charged by hotels for S.A. wines it is true that the investigation which was mentioned last year is still under way. It has not yet been completed, but the difficulty is that the price control organisation has a very limited staff and has a very great number of investigations to carry out, some of which are certainly more pressing in the public interest than this particular one under review now. The prices of wines and brandies were frozen, so that if they are too high now, it is merely a continuation of the position that existed before, and it cannot be called a position of the first order of importance. The price control organisation is carrying out investigations, but when they started they felt it would be necessary to make investigations throughout the country and to take into account the services that were rendered as well. I hope the hon. member will accept the statement that we are still continuing with the investigations. The third point which he raised, which was a major point, is the question of the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation. He raised a point as to gold mining companies or financial corporations entering into the industrial life of the country. I do not quite see how your are going to prevent it. If a finance corporation wishes to invest some of its money in industrial undertakings, I do not see what steps you are going to take to prevent them from doing so. Provided the corporation is investing its capital in an industry with a view to developing that industry and making it a successful and economic industry for the country, I have no objection to their doing it. What I think is a development against which we ought to guard is the case where people buy up a business simply with the idea of floating it off and making money out ’ of it. The idea that you can build up secondary industries on a stock exchange is a fallacy, and to that extent I am in agreement with the hon. member for Pietersburg. All I can say is that we are watching the position. Then I come to the particular point of the Vanderbijl Engineering Corporation. The hon. member for Pietersburg was very emphatic that he and his friends had the greatest confidence in Dr. Van der Bijl. Well, I should have thought that that confidence would have induced them to accept the establishment of this corporation for which Dr. Van der Bijl is entirely responsible. It is his conception and his development and I hope the hon. member will accept that, as at any rate, a mark in its favour. It is one of Dr. Van der Bijl’s babies. This corporation is registered as a company under the Companies Act. I was satisfied that there was a need for the establishment of a heavy engineering industry in the Union. It is a new industry; none of the engineering firms in the Union today have shops which are equipped for making really heavy plant for the chemical industry, for example, or for Iscor itself. Therefore I was satisfied that it was in the interests of the country that such an industry should be established. And I approved of the preliminary ideas. Such a company could not be entirely owned by Iscor, because Iscor is practically entirely owned by the Government. It is not the policy of the Government, despite the fears of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) to enter into the field of private enterprise, and moreover Iscor is primarily concerned with manufacturing steel and it is not desirable to mix steel making with manufacturing work. It was therefore agreed that this industry should be established. It was not right that Iscor itself should take it on as part of Iscor’s work, but on the other hand here is this new engineering company to be started, and we felt that it was very much in the interests of the company that Iscor should have a substantial say in the conduct of the business, for the very reason about which the hon. member for Pietersburg is afraid, because we do not want to see anybody else getting control of a corporation like this. We think it is highly in the interest of the country that Iscor should be the dominating factor in it. As a result of the war supplies effort considerable interest has been taken in South Africa by overseas companies, notably engineering firms, and it is pretty certain that before long some oversea engineering company would have come along to establish this heavy engineering industry, and then the control would have been from abroad. We felt that that was unnecessary because there was enough initiative and capital in the Union to plan these developments ourselves. What happened is this. The company has been established and it is true that the Anglo-American company has a shareholding—not a very large shareholding—but in addition to that there are several overseas companies who have also taken shares in the company and who are making available their technical knowledge and their patents and their long experience in the United States and in Britain. There are American firms and there are British firms and there are several South African engineering companies and as a result we have established our corporation with the shareholding well spread. As far as the Anglo-American Corporation is concerned, just as in the case of Iscor, they will be large customers for the production of these heavy engineering works, and I think it is all to the good that we should thereby acquire the interest of people who are going to be customers of the corporation.

Is that the only mining house that has an interest?

I think I am right in saying that the Anglo-American Corporation is the only one that has an interest. Of course, it is a very widely spread interest. It covers a large range of mines and interests of all kinds. The Anglo-American Corporation has been interested in industry for some time and the hon. member is not right in saying that the Anglo-American Corporation is now taking an interest in industry for the first time. Broadly speaking, I think, the set-up of this engineering corporation is a sound one and I think before very long a public statement will be made on the whole subject, and then I believe the public will be fully satisfied. I think I have now dispelled the fears of the hon. member for Pietersburg. If I have not done so, he must just let me know what still worries him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North). (Mr. Johnson) raised the question of the boot and shoe industry. I can only repeat that we are going very carefully into the whole position of the boot and shoe industry and I can assure the hon. member and all hon. members, representing Port Elizabeth, that we shall take good care of that industry. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) made some suggestions as to post-war development, which I do not think he will expect me to discuss at length this evening. He did raise three minor points on the question of petrol control, firstly in regard to accumulated coupons for leave purposes. That question has been gone into several times and it has not been found possible to agree to it. The hon. member must remember that we are still at the stage where petrol is supposed to be used only for necessary work. We are not in the position to allow people to use petrol or tyres—even more so—for long distance pleasure travelling.

Will you make such a concession as soon as the position improves?

I will go even further than that when the position improves.

What is the real trouble? The petrol is in Persia, is it not?

Yes, but the trouble is getting it here. The position is that the petrol does not belong to us and we are being rationed from overseas. Until the petrol position improves we cannot make any relaxation and of course the whole petrol position is linked up with the tyre position and the vehicle position as well.

Will you tell us what the position is in regard to the rubber man who went overseas some time ago. He has been away for a month.

He is not back yet. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is not here, but perhaps I can say just a word or two about his speech. He made a very interesting contribution to the debate on a very important subject, i.e. the question of capital investment in this country from overseas, and he asked me what the Government’s policy was going to be in regard to that capital and more particularly whether it was going to be controlled in some form or other. On the question of possible capital control, I think that is a question that should be addressed more properly to the Minister of Finance than myself, and I am not able to make a statement in that regard on his behalf. But in regard to the importation of capital generally in so far as it affects industrial development, I feel quite sure that we shall require capital investments from abroad for our industrial development more especially in the form of machinery, plant and technical advice, and probably patents and royalties. I understood from the hon. member for Fauresmith, that he was not averse to that. What he was afraid of was a sudden influx of foreign capital which may weaken our own financial structure which has been built up over past years, and especially during the war years we have reduced our foreign indebtedness. I think the idea he put forward that we should encourage our own people to invest in secondary industry is a perfectly sound one, and that is one of the points of the Industrial Development Corporation, that by underwriting a concern, by holding it temporarily, they hope to establish confidence in the minds of the South African public in our own industries. The Industrial Development Corporation hopes that by taking an active interest in the industry, by taking it up and making shares available to the public, they will establish confidence in the minds of the South African public in our own industries and therefore encourage the investment of our own capital in our own industries. Let us make no mistake about it; there is not that complete confidence amongst the investing public in South African industries yet, in some cases, that I would like to see, and I think the Industrial Development Corporation will be able to do a good deal to help us to educate the people into believing that our industry can and will pay just as good dividends as anybody else. But when it comes to the question of controlling the importation of capital, I am not prepared to express an opinion except this, that I am quite certain that the Portuguese system of capital control will not encourage foreign investment in Portugal. It is their business and they must do what they please ….

It has not discouraged it.

You cannot tell at the present moment because the world is full of money; I do not think you can deduce very much from trends at the present moment. The whole thing is artificial. I do not think it would encourage the sound and permanent investor. I do not think it would discourage the speculator who is the person you would like to discourage.

It is a re-action against complete foreign control.

I quite understand what purpose it is intended to serve. All I question is whether it would serve that purpose. It is not a question of keeping capital out. It is a question of controlling it, of seeing that it does not swamp our own.

There it is a reaction against complete foreign control.

What I have noticed is this, that I think any one of the companies which I have been in contact with in regard to post-war development and which propose doing what the hon. member said, exporting their factories to the Union, propose to raise their capital in the Union, not because they have to, but because they accept the fact that if they are going to establish an industry here that is the most satisfactory and the most profitable way.

You are referring to the good ones, but what about the bad ones?

I do not want to force the bad ones to come here at all.

You are not keeping them away.

If they are bad ones they will not last long, so they are not the major problem. Finally, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) stated his broad principles of the economic system in which he believes, and as he knows I am not entirely at one with his views, and I do not think it will serve much useful purpose to continue his argument.

What about the Prime Minister’s statement?

The Prime Minister said the Government believed in the encouragement of private enterprise. Of course it is true. He would not have said it if it was not. He went further and said we could not do without private enterprise, which is also perfectly true; but he also said there were certain circumstances where the Government would have to take certain steps, and he referred on the public platform in the City Hall to the Fisheries Corporation, and he did qualify what he had to say. That is the trouble. In the times we are passing through today it is no good a man saying: I am a private enterprise man; or, I am a socialist; or this, that or the other. Because there is, in my opinion, no hard and fast line between any of them. What we do say is that we believe in private enterprise, and we believe this country can best be developed by allowing private initiative free play. But we also say there are many cases, where you cannot enumerate at any one moment, where in the national interest it will be necessary for the Government to take a hand in supervising, controlling, directing, or in some form or another representing the national interest, in the development of that activity, but beyond that it is impossible to go. I deny that anything we have done is at variance with the statements made by the Prime Minister on behalf of his Party.

In connection with the matter raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé), namely the Vanderbijl Corporation, the main point specially emphasised by the hon. member for Pietersburg was merely passed over by the Minister, namely the reason, in view of the fact that the Industrial Corporation and Iscor themselves, had more than sufficient capital to invest in such a business, why was Sir Ernest Oppenheimer’s corporation called in to obtain an interest. I asked the Minister whether it was the only mining corporation which has such an interest.

As far as I know.

Why was he speciaily selected? What is the reason? Why was it impossible for Iscor and the Industrial Corporation to finance the business themselves? In the second place why should this particular mining company, the Anglo-American, be selected to acquire these interests, which should really be on the same basis as Iscor itself, that is, upon a utility basis. When I spoke previously I concluded by putting our view that we were afraid that the century-old position would continue, that the British industries, supported by British imperialists, would pull further wires in South Africa to handicap our own industrial development. That was the case in the past and we are afraid that it will again happen in future. The Minister said that he has no knowledge whatever about anything like that. Fortunately a member of his own Party, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) rose and said that he admitted that that was the case. That hon. member is closely associated with industrialists in South Africa, and he has to admit that the pulling of wires is still continuing and that the influences are still being exercised. We know what happened in the past and how governments in South Africa, the old S.A.P. Government, owing to the standpoint adopted by it towards the British Empire, was influenced. We saw a struggle here in connection with the protection of South African industries, and we remember how the S.A.P. in 1923 split asunder because a large section of the S.A.P. adopted our point of view that South African industries should be protected, while men such as Mr. Jagger fought it tooth and nail. Mr. Jagger even left the Cabinet just before an election on account of the big difference of opinion prevailing at that time. That fight against our South African industries has not yet ceased, it is still continuing. Now we ask the Government what it is going to do, notwithstanding the pious talk of the Minister—what steps are the Government going to take for the active development of South African industries, against the wires which are being pulled from England and elsewhere? Some time ago the Minister made a speech which threw a little light on his point of view. I desire to state here very clearly that I am convinced in my own soul that the present Minister and the majority of the Cabinet do not in any way differ from the point of view adopted by Mr. Jagger at that time, that is, that we should not go out of our way to develop South African industries. In other words, they are still under the influence of the big British industrialists and the big British political leaders. The Minister of Economic Development some time ago made a speech indicating his point of view. I have here a report of his speech published in the “Rand Daily Mail”. He addressed the commercial community of Johannesburg. Let me say that the commercial community and various other financial interests are strongly represented on the other side, and they are continuously fighting the development of industries in South Africa in so far as they are in conflict with their own interests. The other day I referred to a speech made by a chairman of a mining company. Other big interests in our country working against the protection of South African industries are the importers and certain big industrialists who consider that they can best promote their own businesses by importing and selling goods. They adopt a point of view, for example, which differs from that of the Chamber of Industries. But the Minister that day addressed merchants. They put their point of view clearly and the Minister subscribed to their point of view. The Minister said—

That is the difference between us and the other side. We consider the matter from the point of view of South Africa. The Minister and that type of merchant consider the matter from the point of view, as they have said, of the world. The world is a homogeneous unit. In other words, if the development of South African industries should conflict with what they consider as the point of view of the world, they would not move a finger to develop South African industry. What the Minister actually means when he refers to the point of view of the world is the British Empire. Only they dare not use the word. The Minister cannot get away from that. He put his point of view clearly, and that is why we fear that as long as he and people of his political connections have the governing power in their hands, so long will the development of South African industries be handicapped. It is, however, of the greatest importance that South Africa should develop industrially, so that the country could produce wealth and provide employment for people, and so that a much larger European population could exist as is at present the case. The Minister proceeded and stated—

Previously he had stated that the Government did not intend maintaining a system of import control for the protection of our industries. He goes further and says that the Government does not intend taking any Steps whatsoever to extend our industries through tariff protection. He goes on and in the same speech he stated that the Government did not intend maintaining such protection over a long period. He said—

Industrialists in South Africa and all those who are interested in industrial development cannot do otherwise than have fears if one has a Minister adopting such a point of view in respect of South African industries.

The industrialists agree with that.

That is not true. The merchants agree with that.

The industrialists.

Never. The industrialists adopt the point of view that South Africa’s development should be considered from the South African point of view, from the South African viewpoint. May I be permitted to read to the Minister what the industrialists say about him and his viewpoint. I have here in my possession “Industry and Trade”. There it is stated—

That is their point of view. They say that if no steps are taken to protect South African industries they would be overwhelmed in the same way by unbridled competition from outside, as was the case after the war which lasted from 1914-1918. Another Government then had to take over, the Nationalist Party Government, with its policy of protection of 1925, which was fought by the Minister over there and his Party tooth and nail. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to learn from the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that he finds difficulty in affording this House an opportunity to discuss and scrutinise the activities of Iscor. He has, however, mentioned that next year, when extra money is asked for by Iscor, we shall have an opportunity to examine its activities. Iscor happens to be in my constituency, and I know that there is a tremendous amount of criticism in regard to its operations outside the range of iron, steel and by-products. There is the criticism in connection with its trading, the hon. member for Sunnyside has mentioned, and particularly as affecting the employees of Iscor; I want to refer to the Iscor Utility Company. It has been statetd the Government has invested between £10,000,000 and £12,000,000 in Iscor, so it is to all intents and purposes a Government institution. But the housing utility company is not carrying out the policy of other Government departments in regard to rents; it is felt that the employees are entitled to housing and pay rentals therefor, which should be regarded as part and parcel of their conditions of service. I would like to have some guidance from the Minister in this matter, in view of the fact that hundreds of individuals have asked me to raise it in Parliament, and I am at a loss to know how and under what vote I may do so. During the war the Director-General of Supplies, in view of the acute shortage of shipping and materials available overseas, found it necessary to “pool” imports to this country, and in the case of piece goods it was arranged that only the big business houses should import piece materials, and the smaller businessman would draw his supplies from the big importee. I quite appreciate the necessity for this and pooling our resources, but at the same time I received numerous complaints from the small man, such as the tailor, and I am satisfied from an investigation of various quotations received from overseas by the small businessman, particularly the tailor, that the prices charged the small individual for the material supplied to him by the big business houses, has resulted in from £2 to £4 more being charged for a suit. It was emphasised in view of the fact that so many troops are returning, and as demobilisation provides the necessary funds to fit them up with civilian clothing, the Government should, now, allow the small man to import piece material if it is not obtainable in South Africa. What I should like to know from the Minister is why the price controller has not interested himself in checking up on the excessive prices charged the tailor by the big business houses. If such an investigation has not taken place I should like to know the reason. It is not too late to have such an investigation made. My information is that this part of the price controller’s activities has not yet been tackled. Whether it is considered part of his business I do not know, but I do feel, in view of the information placed at my disposal, that these big firms have been fleecing and bleeding white the country. The Minister gave a reply to the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) in connection with petrol. It has been put to me, in view of the war in Europe having come to an end and seeing that the activities of the military are not quite on a par with what they were a few months ago, I should ask the Minister to favourably consider increasing the basic allowance figure from 200 miles to 400 miles, and also to see whether it is not possible for Defence to release some of their large stocks of tyres. I know the Minister will tell me there are not excessive stocks, but I do know there is a tremendous quantity of tyres in stock at various military camps. I feel that if an inventory is taken it will be found that some of them could be spared for civilian purposes.

It is now some time that we had an opportunity of putting questions to the Minister in connection with the Government’s policy in respect of the distribution of agricultural requirements. Since that time a big change has taken place. We know that the policy pursued was a policy of protection for the importer. For five and a half years we protected the importer. A premium of 20 per cent. was placed upon farmers and users of implements and for five and a half years we have carried the importer on our backs. Now that the war situation has come to an end, where the position is no longer so critical as during those days when we repeatedly addressed the Minister on his policy, I now would like to learn from the Minister whether he has as yet considered revising the policy. The policy drives a wedge between importers, merchants and co-operative societies. The Minister knows that the co-operatives set out from the fact that they desire equal treatment with distributing importers or merchants. This afternoon an hon. member opposite said that the fault he had to find with his own Government was that the Departments did not co-operate, that they did not consider certain legislation together, but acted anomalously. Here we have an anomaly in that the Department of Agriculture creates and establishes co-operatives and the Department of Commerce and Industries kills them.

How many did I kill?

I will in a few moments say in what manner they are being killed. The war has now come to an end. It is expected that supplies will come into the country speedily and we now desire that equal treatment to which we lay claim. Commerce considers that co-operatives have been established to destroy them and that is not correct. In the past we had the closest co-operation between the co-operatives and importers. That is why co-operatives are at present in the position that they are not able to obtain a reasonable and legitimate quota of imports, because they put most of their business through the commercial channels instead of importing themselves. I previously referred to the co-operative federal body “Boeresake” through whom the great majority of co-operatives buy their requirements, and that body should obtain its legitimate, full quota of available supplies. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that although he has made certain concessions, a factory such as Safirm which is one of the biggest manufacturers of implements went along and sold its production for two years in advance to the trade. They are bound. What chance has the co-operative farmer of reducing the burden of 20 per cent.? I would like the Minister to take up a strong stand on this matter and to consider seriously granting us equal treatment and the necessary co-operation to enable us to give our full support to products manufactured locally. The co-operatives are not afraid of this arrangement and will not submit to it. It will have as a result that as soon as factories have been restored on the continent of Europe and shipping space is available we will import on a large scale until such time as this inequality and injustice is removed. Another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention is that we have bought in India for more than £10,000,000, which constitutes a large percentage of our imports. One of the hon. members opposite referred to the high prices charged for wool sacks. Why are the prices so high? What has happened? I would like the Minister to give an explanation. The purchases made in India consist for 40 per cent. of jute articles. There was an arrangement in respect of payment by which we received payment through London on the gold basis. Our country saved a large amount that way. I would now like to learn from the Minister what it has done with the saving. If £2,000,000 was saved by paying on the gold basis what benefit has the Minister given to the users of jute in our own country? As far as I am able to ascertain the saving which was effected was returned by the Reserve Bank because it could not retain it, and that the Minister and his Department have utilised the money for a subsidy on tea, oil fats and various other things which were imported. I consider it only as right that the users of jute should have received their legitimate share. But instead of that we have these increased prices for sacks. We had to pay storage charges for a period of from six to eight months on sacks, which contributed to the fact that we had to pay more than 12s. in addition on a bale. How did it come about that the users of jute did not receive any benefit from the saving as a result of payment in gold? It does not help us to come along here and complain about the prices. The Minister and his Department should see to it that the implements and other imported articles which we require are supplied to the farmers in the cheapest way. Frequently we hear that the farmer demands a higher price for his produce, £1 for a bag of mealies and £2 for a bag of wheat, but when prices are fixed it is not borne in mind that farmers are exposed to the higher prices charged him. That is why the prices of agricultural produce rise.

We have listened to a long lecture on economics and some dissertations on what the Minister should be doing from many who think they know better than he what he ought to do. The Minister was also blamed in one speech for looking at the world as if it were a homogeneous unit rather than confining his sole attention to South Africa, but if the Minister is accused of that sort of thing I think the Minister can be assured he is doing something which is worth-while. It is an accusation he need not worry about. We all in South Africa are of course concerned with our ability to hold our own but when we talk of the export our one main product, gold, which is of vital importance in the world market, it must be obvious to all of us that it should be used to the greatest advantage, and I venture to suggest that the question of whether necessary capital for development is found in South Africa or whether after we have found all the capital we can in South Africa, we have to go outside and find some there,—always keeping in mind that if we get capital outside we have to pay interest—which will go outside—is really immaterial, and what we should remember is that if we do not use the one product in South Africa which we have, which is a full point, as it were, in the markets of the world, all the rest we talk about is a waste of time, because unless we use that gold to get those things which will give us a footing in other directions also, we shall always be at the mercy of highly developed industrial countries.

When I say we should use gold to the best advantage I mean that in the present circumstances of South Africa we should use gold strictly for the importation of necessities and we should leave the question of luxuries severely alone. Amongst the luxuries I am thinking about is the motor-car. We know that the motor vehicle as distinct from the motor-car plays a big part in modem life. We know we cannot afford to igonre the necessity for importing into this country motor vehicles in their different forms, because that would help us to produce those things we are able to produce, such as agricultural products, and to keep our communications going; but whether it is fantastic or not in the minds of some people I still insist that we shall fail to use our most important bargaining factor to the advantage of the people of South Africa if we allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to squander it in order to enjoy the possession of a motor-car. It may seem to some that I am suggesting a mode of discipline which is altogether too harsh, but if we talk along certain lines, if we say we ought to do certain things, it must be apparent to everyone that to do things discipline has to be enforced. We have to agree today that we must do all the things we can to see that luxuries are limited and that all the things we really need should be imported instead in exchange for our gold. Where will the increase in national income and spending power come from which the Minister is asked to produce in this country? Surely it will arise from the fact that the people in this country, in the mass, are being given access to the necessities of life. That may sound too simple. To my mind it is not too simple. It is a perfectly clear proposition and it is true. If we can begin to give all our people the necessities of life that will begin a new era in South Africa of rising income and spending power and of real speculation based on knowledge as to how far we can expand towards the higher line where we can safely begin to think of luxuries. It is a fact that no country in the world, however highly developed industrially, has been able to feed and decently clothe and house all its people. We have a steep gradation from those people who live in luxury down to the very broad base of people who have not even been able to ensure from day to day that they would be able to get the necessities of life. That is not just our own experience; and when we talk in terms of the national income in order to display our learning, the fact remains that if our national income whatever it may be permits only a few to be luxurious and the many to enjoy poverty, it does not matter how high the national income seems to be if it is not efficiently spread nor sufficient for the vital needs of the people. We also have reference to certain methods of trading and I want to break off into that here because obviously there is nothing more connected with trading than supplying the people with the necessities of life. It is a fact that the bulk of trading because of their number is done amongst the common people. The Minister has been challenged—and I hope it has not been a Tweedledum and Tweedledee battle that has been suggested; in that someone was put up to suggest it to him for that purpose—that Iscor is departing from its normal and proper activity. There is nothing wrong with Iscor departing from its normal and legitimate activity, so-called, if Iscor is providing for the people who work for it those things which the people need and cannot otherwise buy. In any case is it a matter of Greek meeting Greek? Who are the men in charge of Iscor? I think hon. members will agree that they are some of the keenest business minds in this country. And who is in charge of what we call private enterprise outside? Again keen businessmen. So the quarrel is between Greek and Greek. It is not between the socialist and the private enterpriser. It is between two kinds of people of the same kidney. I want to ask the Minister to hesitate a long time before he listens to the prima facie case of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) who challenged him on the position. I know all the dangers which can be pointed out as Fascism arising as the alternative to Socialism. I know the dangers of control which may be tyrannical and suppressive in the political field and in the field of freedom of action. But I say that the immediate problem is by any means to get to our people those things which they need to live in some degree of comfort, and I am glad that Iscor is doing this. Again I want to appeal to the Minister to withstand all these many demands to get him to do the very thing that will prevent what we all, on the face of it, seem to agree should be done. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to a very important item. That is the scarcity of building mechanics’ tools in the country. The point struck me when we were discussing the Housing Bill. In the first place there was a hitch in connection with finance, then a shortage of labour, and if my information is correct, things will be held up because there is a shortage of building mechanics’ tools. There are no tools in Johannesburg. We recently sent someone out to buy tools and he came back with two hammers and the other man came with two saws. The country is expected to employ hundreds of mechanics but what can they do if they have no tools? I see in the “Argus” that there must be a shortage of tools because two men stole a box of bandsaws on which another man was sleeping and sold it in Cairo for £1 a foot. I want to put this to the Minister, that I understand that when the war was started a tremendous amount of tools were frozen and possibly they are still frozen by the Defence Department. In order to relieve the shortage which will occur the Minister must make endeavours to cope with the situation. I am very doubtful that you can buy a good pointing trowel in the whole of Cape Town today. Mechanics’ tools generally are very short. Another matter is the question of brushware. It may surprise the House that in Johannesburg recently £6 was paid for a distemper brush, which is a terrible state of affairs. In order that the housing scheme should not be held up the Minister should pay attention to these matters. There is another matter. The question of ladies’ dresses was mentioned here, but I do not know whether anyone has mentioned men’s suits. I enquired the other day and they wanted £22 to make a suit for mé.

Shame, and you are so small.

I think it is time that the question was gone into as clothes are costing twice as much as before the war.

I will not be long. I want to refer the Minister to the urgent question of sugar. I do not know whether other members are very fond of bitter coffee, but I feel that sugar supplies are at present a burning question in the trade. A little while ago I put a question to the Minister and his reply amounted to this, that the sugar mills would soon be supplying more sugar and that the problem would be solved. But many of the shops are practically without sugar, supplies have been so curtailed that they are unable to supply their customers with sufficient sugar. I would like to know whether the Minister will give his attention to the matter and will endeavour to meet the people. Another matter I want to raise is in connection with businesses established after 1939 and which therefore have no standard quota. They are not allowed to import. Now that the war is over I would like to ask the Minister whether they will now obtain an import quota. Their chances of making a profit are very slender in comparison with old-established businesses which have a standard on which they can rely. New businesses only get a rebate of £250 plus 8 per cent. on their capital. It is so little that if they are unable to import they find it very difficult to compete with the old-established businesses. There are many new businesses which do not have an import quota, and I would like the Minister to consider making available an import quota for such businesses. Then I come to the question of petrol. Last year I directed the Minister’s attention to the matter. I thought that we would now be in a position to obtain more petrol. I understand that it is not the case. I last year made the request that people be allowed at the end of the year to accumulate their petrol so that people going on holiday could use the accumulated basic rations granted to them. That came about so near the end of the year that people could make use of it in very few instances. If the Minister could now announce that that concession would be granted to the people then it would come in time and they could then accumulate their basic rations to be used for the additional journeys which they would very much like to make. It will also reduce the traffic on trains and it will also make it easier for people who desire to take their families by motor car. I trust that I will receive a reply from the Minister on these few points.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has inveighed against the Government’s incursion into the sphere of private enterprise, and particularly against public utility corporations. Now, in one respect I agree with him. In recent years we have set up a number of statutory bodies and given them very wide powers. These bodies derive their powers from Parliament but are not responsible to Parliament. Power without résponsibility is the very negation of democracy. Nevertheless I believe that these statutory bodies will in future play a very important part in our national economy. The explanation is simple. The business of Government is becoming infinitely complex and it must continue to grow in complexity in the post-war period. The Government will have to take on many new functions, especially in the economic sphere. This development is not welcome to my hon. friend. The traditional attitude, supported by the hon. member for Orange Grove, is that the State has only to keep out of the ring and private enterprise will ensure the best results. But whether the hon. member likes it or not, we are moving from the laissez faire state to the social service state. In the place of the old belief that prosperity is entirely dependent on the operations of unlimited private enterprise there has grown up the belief that the State must ensure the social security of its citizens. This means that the State must intervene in economic affairs. It means that the machinery of government must be used to develop our national resources, to create full employment and to ensure a minimum standard of well-being for all. And whilst laissez faire still has its stalwart supporters like my hon. friend, the new social philosophy is the dominant trend. Therefore the question before us is not how to stop this trend. The question is how are we to retain Parliamentary control over these new functions of Government and particularly over the statutory bodies which it calls into being to perform these functions. To my mind the solution lies in the extension of the Parliamentary Committee system. I feel that we should set up for this purpose a Select Committee which would function during the recess as well. But whether this suggestion or some other suggestion is adopted, one thing is certain, a solution will have to be found. Public opinion is becoming increasingly restless. For the public realise that when the powers of Parliament are diminished their rights as citizens are diminished. And they are determined to call a halt to a process which, if left unchecked, will bring us perilously near to Totalitarianism. This is a subject to which we must devote a considerable amount of serious thinking. We all realise that we are living in a changing world but few of us would venture to predict what form of society will ultimately emerge. Some believe that we are heading for Socialism. But history has a dynamic of its own and it may produce a form of society quite different from preconceived doctrines. The hon. member for Orange Grove has quoted Burnham, who has produced an interesting and plausible theory which apparently has influenced my hon. friend’s thinking. According to Burnham, the tendency towards Socialism and the tendency towards Fascism are not opposite tendencies, but ultimately identical, for they both lead to the managerial society. Now the managerial society is far from being a classless society; it is, in fact, ruled by a new exploiting class—the managers, the trained administrators. According to Burnham, both Russia and Germany are examples of the managerial society. The only difference between them is essentially one of tempo. In Russia they eliminated the capitalists quickly and curbed the masses slowly. In Germany they eliminated the capitalists slowly and embed the masses quickly. Thus according to Bumham, all countries, although by apparently opposite routes, will ultimately arrive at the same destination. Now, there is undoubtedly an element of truth in this analysis, although like all theoretical explanations it tends to over-simplify. I regard the theory not as a prediction of what inevitably must happen but as a warning of what can happen. And it can happen here. If totalitarianism establishes itself in South Africa, it will probably come without the apparatus of force and intimidation which marked its advent to power in other countries. It will probably come more insidiously, it may come by a gradualism which fails to excite opposition until it is too late. And Parliament, by parting with its powers, is actually encouraging this process and conniving at its own ultimate extinction. By a strange irony, this war, which we have waged against Fascism, has actually facilitated a transition to Fascism in the democratic countries. For all the democratic countries, in order to adopt the economic machine to the speed and rhythm of total war, have been compelled to create vast centralised controls over the whole economic life of the State. There cannot be any general de-control in the post-war period. Any attempt to return to the unregulated private enterprise of the pre-war years would lead to widespread disorganisation and unemployment. Therefore the only question before us is who is to do the controlling? What forces are to take hold of these central, directing levers? Will it be a group of functionaries insulated from democratic control, or will it be the representatives of the people, responsible to the people? In a word, are we to have bureaucratic control or Parliamentary control? That is the issue before us, and I feel I shall have achieved something if I succeed in defining the issue and focusing attention upon it.

I would like to ask the Minister to make a statement on the petrol position in South Africa. To an interjection from this side the Minister stated that, the position is still acute. In addition to that he also said that petrol could only be used for essential work. If the Minister thinks that that is the case I can only say that my opinion differs from his. Petrol is not being used for that only. On the other hand petrol is not granted in all essential cases. According to the cases which I submitted to the Minister, and that also applies to members to whom I spoke, where I feel that an injustice was done because petrol was applied for in an essential case and where it was refused, the Minister allowed himself to be used simply as a rubber stamp of the controllers. That is the main objection I have to the Minister. The Minister must understand that I am not opposed to control, but I say, what we have so often said on this side, that the manner in which control is exercised by the controllers amounts to this that they have landed the country in a big mess. I merely want to refer to a few cases in connection with the Minister’s statement that petrol is only used for essential work. I know that the Government is for example considering training artisans in the shortest possible time especially in view of the housing programme. That was also touched upon by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden). We have an institution which has been in existence for many years in our country, the Progress College, which has over and over again shown that it is able to pass its pupils through most subjects in a few months. Several thousands of pupils passed through the college during the years with success. Now the Minister comes, in so far as my information goes, and frustrates the efforts of that college. That institution has branches in Durban, Johannesburg, Vereeniging, Springs and Krugersdorp. The Minister curtails the petrol supplies of the institution by 50 per cent, so that it is impossible to carry on with its work. I have here many letters in connection with the matter. At a later stage I myself discussed the position with the Minister, but the Minister merely puts his stamp on the decisions of the Petrol Controller. Here we are dealing with a matter in respect of which the future of thousands of Afrikaner youths may be prejudiced, because the college cannot continue its work making a success. They received 1,000 gallons per month and the Petrol Controller has reduced that for two light lorries to 500 gallons and that while they have six branches far apart from each other which they have to serve. In this institution youths are trained in subjects in respect of which trained youths are sadly needed. In contrast to that I want to point out how the Petrol Controller in other cases grants petrol to people who do not require it. I want to start with one case which the Minister may investigate if he does not know about it. A deserving college is being treated in this way but a person from Pietersburg is allowed to drive to Graaff-Reinet and he receives a permit for sufficient petrol to go there and return. I would not like to give names, but why is it granted?

Ask the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé). Perhaps he could tell.

The person who received it happened to be the political opponent of the hon. member for Pietersburg. The Minister will perhaps say after his enquiry that it was imperative for the man to go. It is not possible for him to proceed to Graaff-Reinet quicker by car than by train. It appears to me to be a matter of favouritism. I would like the Minister to institute an investigation and inform me at a later stage. Last year I brought cases to the attention of the Minister. I referred to the case in my own constituency where an old man had to be conveyed on the advice of his doctor by motor car, but petrol was not granted although the man’s life perhaps depended on it. But when his children who proceeded on leave by train ultimately arrived at the coast they found that there were eight or ten persons from Johannesburg accommodated in the same hotel who had brought their motor cars along. They had received permits for the joy-ride. I gave the numbers of the motor cars to the Minister and asked him to make enquiries. I gave the numbers across the floor of the House and the Minister was surprised. He said that he would have it investigated immediately and would let me know what the position was. That was the last I heard from the Minister. There you had the case of a man whose life practically depended on his conveyance. It is refused. On the other hand there are people who obtained petrol for holiday tours. Surely those are cases which the Minister cannot get away from? Is he able to give an explanation? I also have here a considerable number of, letters from people who write that the Petrol Controller often treats the public discourteously. The position today is that some controllers do not realise that they are in the employ of the public. They act today as dictators, not as servants of the public. I would like the Minister also to go into that. I do not like giving names across the floor of the House. But there is a lady at Vereeniging who received petrol a short while ago to go to Kimberley and return. Recently somebody from Boksburg travelled to Cape Town. He received a permit to go to Cape Town. If petrol is so scarce and the Minister says that it can only be used for essential cases why then is petrol on the other hand wasted in such a manner? There is definitely discrimination. On the other hand again I recently wrote a letter to the Minister asking for his assistance in the case of a certain individual at Benoni to obtain a little petrol. He had opened a business and there he was and he was unable to obtain a drop of petrol. The Minister then wrote that it was the policy for existing businesses to obtain petrol, but not new businesses which are being started.

Was he a soldier?

That surely is not the sole reason for granting petrol. Petrol is wasted in many cases, but as we have already said on various occasions, if a soldier returns from the North and had not seen his family for a long time he is unable to obtain petrol to drive a little distance. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to take part in the discussion on the merits of private enterprise as against State control, except to say I take my stand with the Minister in regard to ensuring that the national welfare shall be safeguarded and shall be the primary consideration. But I wish to quote from the same speech as that referred to by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). In that speech (July 1943) the Prime Minister also stated the following—

There is a middle course, and the Minister, in his policy in connection with the fisheries resolution this year indicated quite clearly that the Government would associate itself with private enterprise when it was in the interests of the nation as a whole. I just want in carrying on that discussion, to refer to the Minister’s activities in regard to industries associated with the production of food. There is the very important question of food yeast, which we have had before us for some time. In the White Paper giving the outlines of post-war reconstruction, published in November last, it is stated—

The country has waited for some time to see some tangible results from the enquiry and from the experiment which has been conducted, and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to make a full statement on the matter. The first consideration of this country, I take it, is the production of food. In that connection the Minister has already taken action in another direction, but it is too early to estimate what the results will be in regard to the pilchard industry. I also wish to ask him whether his department is in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture in regard to the production of margarine. I think the Ministry of Economic Development should be closely associated with the production of food.

There is no more important industry in South Africa than the industry associated with the production of food. That should be our first consideration. I do hope there is this close collaboration. I again ask that the Minister, in reply, will give us full information in regard to food yeast. What is the share of responsibility resting upon the Government in regard to the raw product from which food yeast will be produced? What is the maximum quantity that can be produced per annum, and what are the potentialities of this very valuable industry? In conclusion, I wish to assure the Minister that he has my whole-hearted support in his policy as I understand it of associating the Government with industries making for the progress of this country and the development of our economic life.

I should like to raise a few matters. In the first place I have information—in how far it is correct I do not know, but it is from a reliable source—that whenever undertakings or private persons in South Africa wish to import certain things from overseas the permission of Great Britain has first of all to be obtained. According to the further information I have the permission to obtain certain instruments and other things from America is systematically refused, but in case they are ordered from Great Britain the permission is granted. I was informed of that by a person who has himself had experience in that connection. The people concerned would like to lodge complaints but they say outright in case they complain and give their names then they are further discriminated against as persons who want to import from countries other than Great Britain. I should like to know what the system is. Is it the case that a permit for importations from other countries to South Africa is subject to the approval of Great Britain in one way or another? I was informed further that we could have obtained a shipment of paper from Sweden recently, but it was refused because it was from Sweden. We need paper urgently, but according to my information they could not get permission to import it from Sweden. I should like to have information in regard to that. Another matter which has been raised here is that in our country, according to accusations, there are businesses that have large quantities of goods which are today still in short supply in the country and which one cannot obtain. The businesses hide the goods, keep them off the market and the articles remain in short supply. I have a definite statement here from a person who writes that he tried to obtain a hat but he was not successful. He went to Johannesburg and eventually through the assistance of a friend he came to a shop, into a large storeroom, where he tried on hats. He states—

That is my information and I want to ask the Minister what the Department is doing. You also have that position in Cape Town. They hold supplies which are not sold. One of the members here went into a business firm and then they told him that they were not selling hats on that day. The things are being kept back in the hope that when the price control disappears they will be able to obtain higher prices. What steps is the Minister taking to bring supplies on to the market which are being held back in this manner? There is still another matter, namely in connection with the continued difficulty people have when they sell something at an auction sale. Again I am not able to vouch for the fact personally, but here is a reliable person who for example informed me that at an auction sale rolls of wire were sold. It was officially announced that the controller’s maximum price was a certain figure, and the goods were sold for that price. A long time afterwards, a few months later a notification was received that too much had been paid for the goods and that the difference had to be refunded. The person had by then disposed of the money and months afterwards they came along and said that too much was paid and that the person who held the auction sale must refund the money to the person who purchased the goods. The accounts in respect of the auction sale had been closed off, the commission had been paid and everything was in order, and then this order was received. It creates dissatisfaction. I do not know where the mistake arose or whether faulty information was given, but it makes it extremely difficult for people to conduct auction sales.

The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) was good enough to read further extracts from the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister’s speech that I quoted from in the House, and only emphasised further the feelings of the Prime Minister as regards the Fascist system running our economy. I would like to quote again a small passage I referred to earlier this evening—

The hon. Minister has replied to me and stated that it is his policy as well that private enterprise should be the foundation of our economy. I feel then that the Government is either deceiving itself, or it is deceiving the people by its actions today The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) referred to Iscor’s activity in purchasing a dairy farm and disposing of milk on the open market. He also referred to Iscor taking an interest in a private nursing home. Can the hon. Minister tell me he regards that as a function of a steel and iron corporation whose money is supplied by the Government? I must again refer to the Fisheries Development Corporation. They are now active participants and partners in concerns competing with other units, being involved in the canning industry, the hotel business and a liquor licence. Where does the sphere of private enterprise end and where does the sphere of public enterprise begin? Surely if the Prime Minister’s statement is a declaration of the country’s policy, that the Government will not enter into competition with private undertakings, these things should not be happening today. I could refer, as I said before, to the agricultural economy of this country which is not carrying out the undertaking stated by the Prime Minister. I would reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) in these lines. He accused me of being a wholehogger for laissez faire private enterprise. I say this, that if the Government wishes to run the country it cannot be a participant in industry and commerce and expect to act as referee as well. It cannot umpire while competing with other units. That will only result in favouritism, victimisation and corruption; there is no argument about it. It is the thin end of the wedge. What is the Government’s job? It is to sort out the sections of the population and see there is clear development, and it should not be a participant itself. I never heard of a referee in a rugby game playing on the one side ….

Have you not; I have.

… except at Stellenbosch once. This is a vital factor. It is not a matter of profit going to private enterprise but whether you are going to substitute for a profit economy a power economy. If a man cannot make his profit he will start evolving a powerful unit, and at Iscor you have a unit so strong that it is even stronger than this Parliament. There is no doubt there is this pressure group operating in this country. I want to ask the Minister to answer these direct questions on this issue. According to the Prime Minister, on October 17th, 1944, the position is that it was not the Government’s policy to encroach upon the present and future activities of private enterprise unless full justification for such encroachment in the public interest was established. I want to know that no action shall be taken by any State department or State organisation to extend or to create industrial activities which encroach upon those undertaken by private enterprise. My second point is that if it is considered at any time in the country’s interest to sponsor new industries, private enterprise and the public should be given an opportunity to undertake it and finance it.

For all practical purposes there is peace today. England also regards it in that light. Hence the reason why England is busy repealing many of the restrictive regulations but it seems as though we in South Africa will still have to keep in effect many of the restrictive regulations because of the fact that we were never as deeply involved in the war as England, which is in Europe, was. We should like to see the Minister repeal many of these restrictive regulations, especially in connection with businesses, especially so far as new businesses are concerned because new businesses are today discriminated against with the result that they cannot compete in the same business with old-established businesses. We want the Government to realise that for more than five years old businesses have practically enjoyed preferences, and as the war situation is now past new businesses must be placed on an equal footing with old businesses. The Minister, however, has laid it down that a business which was established in 1945 cannot obtain sugar for example. Such a business cannot obtain cheese. They will not have the same opportunity. I am thinking now of a particular business which was established during this year. This is the position. It is on the platteland, and on the platteland it is our experience that if a business cannot obtain sugar for example it cannot compete with the other businesses which can obtain sugar. It is a small wayside station; there are two old-established shops and those shops jointly receive 100 bags of sugar to sell to their clients, but the new business does not receive a single bag of sugar. I want to ask the Minister what the policy of the Government is. Is it the policy to encourage new businesses or is it to give preference to old businesses and to suppress new businesses? If it is the case that those new businesses cannot obtain sugar then there is discrimination against them and the whole development of the country is retarded. In the cities it is perhaps not so noticeable. The city dweller usually buys his groceries at one shop and he buys his clothing at another shop, but on the platteland you buy all your requirements at the same shop. In practice it comes down to this, that if a person cannot obtain his sugar at the one shop then he goes to another business. He will not be allowed to buy only his sugar at the one shop. The shopkeeper will say to him: “You cannot buy only sugar here; I can only sell sugar to you if you buy your other requirements here.” If the Minister was to say to us in a straightforward manner that the Government’s policy is to close down new businesses then we do know where we stand. I cannot see why there should be discrimination against the new businesses. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to go so far as to take a certain quota of sugar away from the old-established businesses and to give it to the new businesses. That new businessman has surely also received his licence. He is conducting his business legitimately; he has paid his licence fees and I cannot see why he should be discriminated against in this manner. Then I should also like to say to the Minister that so far as petrol is concerned I hope the regulations will be made less stringent. We will be pleased if in the near future a larger basic allowance can be given to the public. In this regard I want to come back to the platteland again. The platteland inhabitant is particularly hard hit as the result of the fact that the petrol pumps must close at 12 o’clock midday oh Saturdays. In the forenoon the farmer still does his work on the farm. In the afternoon he goes to the town to fetch his post or to do business, but when he gets there the pumps are closed and he cannot obtain petrol. The result is that he now has to leave his work in the morning in order that he can be in the town before 12 o’clock to obtain petrol. Why cannot those restrictions be repealed? It hinders the farmer a great deal. The farmer now has to leave his work in the morning just to go and get petrol. I will be pleased if these restrictions can be removed.

A while ago I handed a letter to the Minister from one of my constituents in Heilbron who had bought a large cattle farm in Vryburg. The farmer lives many miles away from that place. If is a certain Mr. Swart. He asked for supplementary petrol to go to the farm and to bring about improvements on the farm, but it was refused him. A few of them bought 20,000 morgen of land there. The Government surely is in favour thereof that farming operations should be extended. The people did everything in their power to comply with that request but the manner in which they are restricted is a scandal. He asked for supplementary petrol but according to the Petrol Controller he must utilise the trains. That makes the position of the people impossible. Notwithstanding all the representations that we have made the Minister shrugs his shoulders and says that the matter is one concerning the Petrol Controllers. It seems to me that the controllers have more say today than the Government.

They control the Minister.

If the controllers say anything then the Minister makes out that he is in a subordinate position. He merely shrugs his shoulders and refers you to the petrol controllers. It is a shame. I should also like to ask the Minister whether they cannot repeal the 75 mile limit restriction. Leave it free to the people of the Union of South Africa to drive wherever they wish with that very meagre petrol ration which they receive. Today you have to go to the magistrate for a permit and have to go on your bended knees and beg for a small quantity of petrol. I refuse to carry a permit. They can put me into gaol, but I refuse to have to go to a magistrate and beg for a little petrol. I live 100 miles away from my constituency, and every time I go there I have to go and ask for a permit. I say on each occasion that I want to go to Heilbron I am asked what is the furthest point I am going to. After you have explained the route you are going to take the magistrate asks you when you will be coming back. What have they got to do with it whether I remain away a month or seven days? Must you travel like a native with a pass in your pocket and any police officer can stop you and ask you for your permit? I trust that the Minister will consider this matter and remove this obligation of having to carry a permit which has been placed on the population of South Africa.

Other hon. members have already brought the question of the spreading of factories over our whole country under the notice of the Minister, but I should like to emphasise it again. The inclination is to establish our factories more and more in the large cities and because the factories are all established in the large cities, it causes many great problems. Not only does the native population flock to the big cities, but the Europeans on the platteland are also out of employment. I think the Minister ought to give his serious attention to this matter. Half of the constituencies in the Transvaal are today in the Johannesburg area and the rest of the Transvaal have the other half of the constituencies. If we continue building factories in the big cities the problem becomes greater and greater and the Minister will see that eventually he will be faced with many difficulties. But I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. The Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation last week discussed the shortage of housing. I now want to ask the Minister what he has done in connection with the possible shortage of cement. Cement is one of the most important items required in the building of a house. There will be a big demand for cement right throughout the whole world. Has the Minister devised, any plan to ensure that South Africa will have sufficient cement for the building of the houses which we will require, and for the construction of our factories? In Lichtenburg there is a very fine opportunity for the establishment of a cement factory. Lichtenburg has the best lime possibly in our whole country. Unfortunately the municipality has concluded a contract with a certain company. The company promised the municipality that as soon as the war is over it will establish factories there. I now understand that it is not their intention at all to proceed with that and the municipality is helpless. I think that when there is something which the country urgently requires and there is such a contract in existence which prevents that factory from being established, then the Minister ought to step in. I do not want the people to be prejudiced but when the country requires something such as building material for example and there is such a contract in existence, then the Minister ought to take steps to cancel that contract. I do not know what measures the Minister has taken to make provision for cement for the erection of houses, but there is a very fine opportunity for the Minister in Lichtenburg, and I want to express the hope that the Minister will go into the matter and see whether he cannot help us out of that difficulty in which we are now placed in at Lichtenburg. Advocates and attorneys are very clever and they have got the municipality in the position now where they cannot get out of the contract. Some time ago there was an acute shortage of cement and I presume that the shortage will become much more acute once this housing scheme comes into operation. I shall therefore be pleased to hear what steps have already been taken by the Minister in connection with the matter.

I prepared myself to speak about the mess made of control but I will leave the matter there. I just want to bring a certain matter in connection with control to the notice of the Minister. It is an important matter and it is in relation to the future policy. There are considerable quantities of lorries and motor cars which can now be sold by the military and owing to the fact that those things have not been imported for years there is naturally an acute shortage of cars and lorries. I am continually receiving letters from my constituents asking me how the Government is going to sell these motor cars and lorries. Here we have again one of the intricacies of control. There is a vehicle controller and the Government is now in a position that the controllers have become their masters. They cannot sell motor cars and lorries now as they wish. The controller must now first of all decide who is going to get those lorries and motor cars. The controllers decided that they would sell the lorries and motor cars to the motor traders. If I or you want to buy a motor lorry or a car then we have first of all to write to the controller and say what the model of the lorry is, what mileage it has done, what the registration number is, etc., etc. After two or three months the controller writes to you and says that you may purchase it or that you may not purchase it, or he perhaps writes to you that you must take an earlier model. The motor traders, however, could buy all the motor cars they wanted to buy. I do not want to fight with the controllers. The Government, however, is now in the difficulty that if they want to sell these things they have to sell them to the motor traders because they have permits, and then the poor farmer has to go to the traders and buy from them. You can understand that the motor trader is not a person who takes a profit of £20 or £25 on a motor car, his commission runs into hundreds of pounds. Now another controller has stepped in, and even the trader has to buy the lorries at a fixed price, and he must sell them at a fixed price. The result was that the traders said that they did not want the lorries. Now the Government is saddled with the lorries and the motor cars. I now understand that it has been decided that there will be certain centres to which the lorries will be sent, every person must send in an application, and then he will perhaps receive a permit to purchase the lorry. I realise that there is a shortage of lorries and motor cars. I realise that each one of us cannot get one. But now I want to make an appeal to the Minister and ask him please to devise a simpler method of disposing of the lorries and cars. Under the emergency regulations you can change the control. I want to tell him now that the result of the procedure which the people must follow will be that the people who are wealthy and the people who have had training are going to get lorries, but the people who require them will not get them. I now want to suggest that the person who has control in the local centre must decide to whom the lorries must be given. If a farmer at Riversdale wants a lorry and the centre is at Worcester then he has to ride from Riversdale to Worcester, a distance of nearly 200 miles. Then he first of all must go and look at the car, get the number and the weight of the car; after that he sends his application to Pretoria and then he has to wait until he receives a reply, and by the time that he receives a reply the car may perhaps already have been sold to somebody else. That is why I say that a simpler method must be Revised. What I should like to suggest is this: They will naturally work out what the requirements are of each centre. Let them then invite all the people who require lorries and cars to send in applications. As soon as they have received all the applications they can decide which applications are the most deserving. I take it that the farmer will get the first opportunity. The farmers are without lorries today. Do you know that on account of this control the Government was compelled to send lorries to the Riversdale district to convey water because we could not obtain tyres. We are grateful that they did it but it shows how serious the position was. I make an appeal to the Minister to make the control as simple as possible. If the system was to remain as it is at present the people who require lorries will not get them. I say again that a mess has been made of the whole control system. There are 42 controllers. There are 2,500 people in the service of the controllers. Millions of pounds are paid out each year and what does it benefit us? The farmer receives less for his product than what he received previously; the consumer must pay more. One hears many complaints against the controllers and I want to accept it that all those complaints are not well founded. Some people make complaints which are not well founded but some complaints have come to my notice that are shameful. There is not one section of the community that is satisfied with the controllers, certainly not the producer, not the trader and not the consumer. One hears tales which make your hair stand on end. I must say that the controllers have always treated me reasonably. Now suddenly after the controllers have made a mess of the control system all these years they must go to England for a vacation. The Rubber Controller is away and now the Petrol Controller is going over, and then all, the other price controllers will have to go overseas, one after the other. Cannot the Government ask its representative in England to do its business there? I am certain he will do it better and also more expeditiously. He is over there and the Government can communicate with him by telephone.

You must send the Cabinet to England.

No, because then it will be really too bad in England if they are all there. I do not want to say much more. [Time limit.]

I should like to request the hon. Minister to instruct the Board of Trade and Industries to investigate the practices in South Africa in regard to restraint of trade. Difficulties have been in existence for years and from time to time the matter has been brought to the notice of the Government, and it went even so far that in 1931 an Act was passed here to determine unfair price limitation. Since this difficulty goes on from year to year I hope that the Minister will instruct the Board of Trade and Industries to make a thorough investigation into this matter. Under present circumstances there is the supervision by his controllers, but shortly the price control may be done away with and then there will be no supervision and for that reason I want to request the Minister to have the problem as a whole investigated.

In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) I have already arranged for the Board of Trade to carry out investigations into the question of restraint of trade and monopilies, etc. Unfortunately they have a good deal of other work to do at the moment. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E Warren) raised the question of the disposal of second-hand lorries from the Defence Department. We have had a good deal of trouble about arranging for the disposal of those goods. A good many of these, although they are called runners, do not go, and when people buy lorries they have to have a road-worthy certificate in order to get a licence, so now we are arranging for the runners that can be prepared to be dealt with at the Defence depots and they will be sold with road-worthy certificates. The repairs are being carried out by Defence. I appreciate the point made by the hon. member for Swellendam. I can see the difficulty in having to go a couple of hundred miles to look at the lorry and then to apply for a permit. I will take up the matter at once with the War Supplies Disposal Board and see if we can devise an easier means of disposing of these lorries and cars. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) raised the question of establishing a cement factory in his constituency. At the present moment the position is much easier, we are not exporting cement, but I have no doubt that cement factories will be required in the future and if the hon. member will come along to my Department we will advise him what can be done. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) asked me what the position was in regard to food yeast. As the hon. member knows this company was formed at the beginning of the year for the purpose of establishing a semi-commercial plant for the production of food yeast, and the share capital was divided equally between the Industrial Development Corporation and the Sugar Association, and they are hoping to go into production ’ next month. They will make sufficient quantities of the stuff available for the nutrition people to carry out all their experiments and decide how they can use it. We hope to go into commercial production at a later stage. But progress is being made. I can show the hon. member what difficulties we have had at arriving at the semi-commercial stage, but we hope next month to be producing appreciable quantities of the food. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) raised various questions about petrol control. He raised the question of Progress College. I made full enquiries and was satisfied that it was not essential that increased petrol should be allowed, and so I did not interfere with the decision of the Petrol Controller. I am sure the hon. member does not agree with me but I cannot do otherwise. He asked me about some other complaints, but I am not able to deal with them unless he discusses the matter with me. If he does I will look into it. With regard to the establishment of new businesses, it is true that at present we cannot supply petrol, tyres and vehicles for new businesses unless they are absolutely needed in the national interest. The only exception we are making is in the case of returned soldiers, to whom we give preference if we think they can make a success of it. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) also raised the question of saving up petrol coupons in order to go on holiday at the end of the year. I am afraid that at this stage I cannot hold out any hope until I can see adequate supplies of petrol coming into the country. As soon as I can the hon. member may rely upon it that that will be done. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) asked a question about mechanics’ tools. The position there is that they are in short supply, but they are arriving in the country from time to time and control in Britain and the States is being relaxed. We hope very soon to have more of that. I may mention that the Defence Department have released quite a number and arrangements are being made for their disposal by the Disposals Board and in addition ex-volunteers on demobilisation, if they require tools, are equipped by Defence. 2,000 sets have been made available. On the question as regards sugar the position is that there was a shortage at the end of the season, and that shortage has not quite been filled out yet but supplies are coming forward freely now, and there should be adequate supplies available now or very shortly. I can give the country this assurance that there are ample supplies of sugar within the country for everyone. But if people find that there is a temporary shortage of sugar in their shop and then go running round buying up everything they can find there will be a shortage. But I give the country the assurance that there are ample stocks to carry us through the year, if only they will content themselves with buying small quantities at a time. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) asked me certain questions about the Iscor Utility Housing Company. I do not know anything about it but if he will let me have the facts I will investigate, and the same applies to his question about clothing from tailors.

Can you give members of Parliament a standing permit for the constituency?

I think it can be done if the hon. member will see me about it.

In the first place I want to protest to the Acting Prime Minister that, although we are now discussing the most important matter which this House can discuss, namely the whole economic structure of the country, it should happen in the way it has happened today. On the part of Government members one speech after the other was held today. They have now been silenced, but before that they made scores of speeches. It is already late; we are nearing the end of the Session and we are tired, and now we have to deal with this important Vote. In my opinion it is one of the most urgent matters which the House has to discuss, and it is not fair towards the country that it should be done in this way. It is not surprising that economic matters in South Africa are heading for a calamity if these problems are dealt with in such a way. I notice in the Estimates here two lines where no money is asked for. It concerns three clerks in connection with the War Materials Disposal Board. I understand that this Board will have to deal with supplies to the value of £40 million or £50 million. The Minister replied to several matters but he did not yet go into this question which is of so much importance to us. I should like to hear him give a full explanation of what the work of this Board is exactly going to be; how will they dispose of the various supplies which will come within their jurisdiction; what channels are they going to make use of; are controllers to be appointed once more; is a method of price fixation going to be applied, etc. Personally I am very much interested in a few matters which this Board will deal with, namely fencing wire, posts and corrugated iron. Of those articles I take it enormous quantities will have to be sold and how will that be done? Is the Minister in the first instance going to use the co-operative farmers’ organisations; will they have an equal chance like the ordinary traders, or let me put it this way, will he give them preference to handle these articles? I should like to see the Minister make use of the co-operative societies, not only to distribute these articles to their members, as there are many farmers who do not belong to a co-operative society and who also need these goods. We shall be very glad if the Minister will make use of the agricultural co-operatives in order to distribute the goods to their members and also to other farmers who are not members. Many of those articles are required for the workingclass people. There are articles such as clothing, blankets, coats, second-hand uniforms, boots, shirts and trousers, which we can use especially for the native population. I do not know exactly what method will be followed but I know that the people who need those articles are being scandalously exploited. I know it from experience. For my labourers I bought some of those goods, to find out afterwards that I actually paid the same price as I would have paid for new articles. That gives us the impression that there is something wrong somewhere. These are articles for which the people of the country have already paid once. That money was provided for on the Defence Vote and the country as such having already paid for it, we ask whether those articles cannot be provided on a much cheaper basis to the people who need them, especially the labouring classes, the natives and the coloureds. There are also parts of the country where less privileged Europeans would very much like to buy these military blankets. They cannot afford to pay the prices charged in the shops. Is the Minister not able to indicate a way by which these absolutely essential articles will be made available for all races and sections of the people at nominal prices? We should not try to make money out of it and we should not enable people to make money out of it, for as a State we have already paid for it. That will be something which a large section of the population will welcome if they can get hold of these articles at reasonable prices. On a further page in the Estimates we notice an item for the administration of war measures. We have seen that in other parts of the world many of the war measures are now being repealed, but it looks as if we are going to get even more of them. I notice that the allowances to the temporary staff are being increased from £147,800 to £160,400. We would have thought that at this stage it would no longer have been necessary to ask for such a large amount of money. The Minister will perhaps reply that when these estimates were framed they did not know that the circumstances would be such as they are at present. In that case I want to say in anticipation that the Minister of Finance should not come here next Session with a tremendous surplus, if that is the method in which he is going to get that surplus. We noticed that the travelling and subsistence allowances of the temporary staff have increased from £12,000 to £19,000, whereas travelling facilities for all other sections of the population have been curtailed. We have heard complaints from hon. members here and we have heard how members of Parliament have to struggle to obtain the necessary transport in order to fulfil their Parliamentary duties. They have to worry about permits for petrol and tyres and they cannot visit their constituencies. Here, however, we notice that the travelling expenses for a small number of people have increased from £12,000 to £19,000. We should like to hear the Minister give an explanation on this point. I now come to the difficulties in regard to motor transport and in the first instance I want to mention motor car tyres. We know that the position is critical and that we do not have as much rubber as we would like to have and that we do not have as many motor car tyres as we would like to have. To my mind, however, it is rather peculiar that the people who do not need motor car tyres for their living can obtain motor car tyres, whereas those who must get them cannot get them. I could give scores of instances of this fact. I believe that one of the great difficulties is the’ so-called rubber committees existing in every little centre. The time is more than overdue that the Minister should abolish a number of this kind of boards. I cannot see any justification for these particular committees. The Minister knows what is happening in my constituency. The rubber committees consist of a number of family relations. After all we have our rubber controller and in the last instance he has to check everything; so why should it be necessary that we must first apply to the rubber committees which often on political and personal grounds take decisions in regard to the advice which they are going to give. I know of cases where people simply cannot do without the tyres for making their living. They are refused permits and the committee reckons that it is not necessary that the person concerned should visit his home once in a fortnight. Those committee members, however, are at home every night and drive around in de luxe motor cars with good tyres. But the people who need their motor cars for making a living cannot get the tyres. The latter are moreover people who render useful services to the community. Once more I want to ask the Minister to investigate the few matters which I have brought to his notice. These are difficulties which affect all sections of the community. The matters I have mentioned here are of great importance to the people of this country.

I have listened to the reply given by the Minister in connection with the petrol position, namely that petrol is only given for essential purposes. What does the Minister consider to be more essential for the country, a commercial traveller who covers 1,000 miles per month, or a farmer who is responsible for the food supplies of the population and who requires a little bit of extra petrol over and above his basic ration? The farmer not only has to produce but he has also to look after the marketing of his products and if he goes to the village twice, he has not got a drop of petrol left and then he finds that the magistrate refuses to give him a single extra gallon. That is the reason why I put this question to the Minister In my constituency the farmers have to trek with their sheep to Swaziland and once or twice a month they have to visit their sheep. They may receive information that a disease has broken out among their sheep. They go and apply for supplementary petrol and it is refused them. Now I should like to hear from the Minister whether this is not one of the points which should receive his attention, namely to assist the farmers who are in such difficulties. We have vast districts there and I want to quote the instance of a farmer whose wife is seriously ill. Once per month she has to travel 75 miles to be injected against cancer. The local controller refuses to give the man the extra petrol. If she has to go by train it takes her three days but if she can go by motor car she can be back home the same day. I now come to the 75-mile radius. I feel that this creates a very unhealthy state of affairs, for the Minister places the farmer in a very difficult position in regard to his work out of which he has to make a living. There are cases where farmers have to fetch labour 75 miles and further away. If they let the natives come by train, the latter get off at the first station and run away, unless the farmer travels with them or has a supervisor on the train. It costs him a lot of money to get these natives for his work and this permit system is seriously interfering with his activities. Furthermore I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) in regard to the rubber position. A quota has been allotted to the various districts but this is a ridiculous arrangement. How can a district of 4,000 or 5,000 people come out on a quota of 16 tyres per month? Apparently the view is held that a motor car is only used for pleasure. For the farmer it is an essential implement on his farm. He cannot do without it. Therefore, if the Minister feels that the farming industry is an essential industry in this country, I would ask him to meet us in this connection. Give the farmers what is due to them. They are the backbone of the country because they have to keep the whole population alive by providing the necessary food. If farming activities are hampered, then trade and all industries will be hampered. The Minister should keep this in mind and give the farmers what they are entitled to.

I was surprised to hear from the Minister that there is no sugar shortage. When I last was in my constituency there was a shortage and on Saturday I went from shop to shop in Cape Town and I could not get a single pound of sugar. Today I got a few pounds which cost me 6d. per pound because I had to send a messenger put to a suburban shop. I should like to hear from the Minister whether it is true that an announcement was made over the wireless that sugar will be exported to England at the present time. Furthermore I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a co-operative shop which took over another shop in my constituency. I think it is the Western Transvaal Co-operative Stores. It also took over the quota for sugar and matches. The other shop was taken over on the 4th April and they immediately applied for their sugar quota. They sent wires but they have not yet received any sugar, whereas an Indian shop in the same village, with a decreasing turnover, is receiving sugar regularly. The turnover of this shop which was taken over has doubled but it cannot get any sugar. I want to know from the Minister whether he cannot take into consideration that when a shop’s turnover decreases, its quota can also be decreased, and when its turnoved increases, the quota can be increased. Furthermore I want to remind the Minister that such co-operative shops are not so much bent on making profits but are rather run to give service and they should get preference above all other businesses. I should like the Minister to make a statement on this question, so that a policy may be laid down which will also apply to other towns. Finally I want to raise a matter in regard to a factory for the dehydration of vegetables and other produce at Vaal-Hartz. I am positive that the congress of the Northern Cape has already brought this matter to the notice of the Minister, but nothing has been done so far. During the war vegetables and fruit have been dehydrated for easier packing, and these products were supplied in large quantities to the army. We have the water, the vegetables and the necessary power there. The place is on the main line and everything required is available there. There are thousands of morgen under irrigation. The production will increase and I think this is something to which the Minister should give his attention.

I should like to discuss industries and industrial progress in our country. This is a matter fraught with particularly numerous difficulties. In the short time at my disposal I want to say a few words in regard to industrial development in the rural areas—the geographical distribution of our industries. In the first instance I want to say that in the development of our industries the Government should take more cognisance of the agricultural background. We know that in all parts of the world large problems arise when a very great percentage of the population is concentrated in a few large cities. In South Africa it has two obvious results which may not be so pronounced in other countries. Until recent times the population of our country was predominantly pastoral. If such a population suddenly commences to migrate from the rural areas to the towns it is obvious that great problems will arise in consequence. In this connection we are faced with the problem of the industrialisation of the native, population. We can do nothing about it. The native is free to sell his labour in the best market. We have tens of thousands of natives flocking to the cities. What are we going to do about it in future? Those people move from a rural environment to an urban environment with the result that they become completely unhinged. That position will still grow worse as far as the natives are concerned. With his present level of development it is quite impossible for a native to find his bearings straight away in a large city. He becomes an easy prey for agitators. Conditions in many parts of our country will become unbearable because we are faced with this problem of our natives in the big cities. A further problem is involved here. Because a large section of the population is becoming concentrated in our cities they become so large that the men have to work at a great distance from their families. Our womenfolk are also beginning to work on a large scale in our industries and the consequence is that the family life is deteriorating. The children are left behind without proper care and that also creates difficult problems. We cannot prevent the migration of our population from the rural areas to the towns because we have to have industrial development. Economic conditions will simply force our population from the rural areas to the cities. What are we going to do to solve this problem? I can only see one solution, and that is to bring the industries nearer to the rural population. We are talking all day of our tremendous possibilities. Our national income is so low that it has to be increased. Why is the national income so low? Because the agricultural section of the population has such a low income. If one considers that the income of the agricultural industry is only £7 as compared to an amount of £114 in the cities, or only taking the European population of the rural areas, that it is only £50 as against £240 in the cities, the question naturally arises what can be done to improve the position. We can only do it by a more proportional and more economic distribution of the mass of the people. The position in Australia is that only 20 per cent. of the population are living on the land and the Australians maintain that is too much; in America 25 per cent. of the population live in the country and the Americans also say that the percentage is too high. In South Africa 68 per cent. of the total population lives on the land, that is nearly 40 per cent. of the European population. We cannot get away from the fact that the poor white problem is largely a problem of the impoverishment of the rural inhabitants. If we do not want the rural population being socially uprooted and migrating to the cities, if we do not want them all to concentrate in the cities, what must be done? We must try to move the industries or a large part of the industries which can be economically moved, to the rural areas, to the smaller towns. Very many advantages are attached to the establishment of industries in rural towns. First of all the rural inhabitant will find it much easier to obtain work there. The man remains in his environment and before he is totally impoverished, he can find work in the rural district. His life will not be disturbed in the same manner when he works in a rural industry as when he has to move to the cities. We also find that it is much more advantageous for the farmers when industries are established in the rural areas. What is the position today? There are four industrialised centres in South Africa which form our four large markets. There is a measure of prosperity around the industrial centre, but the further you go away from the industrialised centre the less becomes the prosperity. That is the reason why it is essential to establish industries in the rural areas. I know that the geographical situation is of very great importance to industries and I know that it is said that industries should be established in the vicinity of the mass of the consumers, but still there is a large number of industries which might be established in the rural areas on an economically sound basis, and I am especially thinking of the types of industry making use exclusively of agricultural products. There is for instance the timber industry. Before the war we had 230 sawmills and only 90 of them were to be found in the rural areas. We find that of a total of 912 flourmills only 438 had been established in rural districts. Of the 210 creameries and cheese-factories only 164 were in rural districts. Practically all our cold storage facilities in this country are to be found in the cities. Of 217 factories which use agricultural produce exclusively, only 126 were established in the rural areas. Surely a tremendous improvement can be brought about in this position. There are also other industries which might be established in rural areas with advantage, industries in which the labour expenditure forms a very large part of the total value of the finished product. I am referring to leather products, and even the assembling of motor cars, new factories to manufacture agriculture implements—they can be advantageously established in the country. The Minister may say that the people concerned know all that but that in spite of it industries are being concentrated more and more in the large cities. My contention is that it should be the policy of the State to distribute the population more evenly, and by establishing industries in the rural areas a great deal may be done. If the State for instance would take steps, as far as State undertakings are concerned, to establish them in the rural areas, it would give a great impetus to the development of industries in rural areas. What do we find now? That purely inland towns such as Bloemfontein and Kimberley are being ignored when State industries are established and that everything is being concentrated in a few large centres. [Time limit.]

I make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister. Here we are dealing with what, in my opinion, is one of the most important votes which we have to discuss, a vote dealing with the whole economic structure of our country. We started the discussion exactly 10 minutes before business was suspended for the luncheon interval. Since that time the vote has been under discussion and the Minister of Economic Development will admit that only important and pertinent matters have so far been raised. He will also admit that there was practically no repetition. At a certain stage this afternoon, from 8 to 10 members on his side got up to speak. We on this side feel that it is not fair to try to force this important matter through in this way. The Minister has still to reply to many matters that were raised here. It is now twenty minutes to eleven. The Acting Prime Minister knows that after eleven o’clock no buses are running. Members of this House have their motor cars but there are the officials, the Hansard staff, the Press people and the messengers too. How will these people get home? The Minister apparently takes up the attitude that he need not reply and that the vote has to go through. Take for instance the very important matter which was raised by the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier), namely the disposal of our war stores. We want a reply to that. The point which was raised by the hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) in regard to rural industries is of the utmost importance and we also want a reply in that regard. Here on the Estimates we have the item concerning war measures, which represents an amount of £399,000, falling under the Director of War Supplies. We feel that in view of the end of the war such a large amount is no longer necessary and we want to know what the intentions of the Government. are. In order to enable the Minister of Economic Development to reply to those important matters I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is prepared to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

I am sorry but I cannot accede to the request. There was an arrangement between the Whips and it was felt that we could finish the vote. We understood that hon. members on the other side were prepared to do so.

I want to deny that most emphatically.

I understood that hon. members on the other side were prepared to do so.

We were informed that it was your intention to do so, but that is all.

We understood that there was no objection. In any case we are now so far that we may as well finish it.

I should like to invite attention to the fact that it is certainly not our fault that these votes have come up for discussion at this stage of the Session. I think it is high time the House took cognisance of the fact that important votes are postponed to the closing stages of the Session, and then it is expected they should be put through in a few moments. This has become an impossible position. The Agrnculture Vote still lies ahead for us, and every year the Railways and Harbours Vote, a most important vote in which millions of pounds are involved, is pushed through in the last few hours of the Session. I think it a very reasonable request from this side of the House to adjourn now, especially as we have not had a full day for the vote. If an important vote of this kind came under discussion immediately at the commencement of the sitting one might expect we would be finished with it at the end of the sitting day, but when a number of other matters are first disposed of and there is only about half a day for the vote it is not right, and we must take serious exception to it. There is a whole group of matters to which the Minister has stated he intends to give further consideration. If more time can be devoted for discussion members on both sides will be able to receive more definite replies to the representations that they make. I do not know whether we have now to sit through till tomorrow, but there are many matters we would still like to mention. There is, for instance the grant of petrol by magistrates for farming purposes. It frequently happens that a farmer lives far from the town, far from the magistrate. He has to use almost all his basic petrol to drive in to make application for supplementary petrol. In many instances farming suffers serious damage owing to people being hampered in this way. They had to drive for miles and miles to apply for additional petrol. Cannot some other arrangements be made? It is a serious complaint on the part of the farmers that they have to go to all that trouble to secure a few gallons of additional petrol. I know of people who had to get a permit to deliver certain produce in Kimberely. The man got his permit to deliver the goods in Kimberley, but on the day he received his permit to deliver he had no petrol, and on the day he had petrol he did not get a permit to deliver the goods. This handicaps farming considerably. It is not only that they struggle to produce but also they struggle a great deal to have this produce marketed. Where farmers, for farming purposes, need a monthly ration of petrol cannot an arrangement be made enabling them to get so much on an average per month for their farming. Why all this waste, driving hither and thither, to get a little extra petrol? It represents an unnecessary waste of petrol, and with proper control we shall be able to make better use of the supplies available and it will not be necessary for us to make these trips hither and thither. There are further instances of people who would like to hold over the basic petrol until the following month in order to have sufficient for farming requirements. What objection is there to that? The same quantity of coupons will be issued and the people will be able to make better use of them by holding them over to the following month because they will need them for special purposes. I cannot see the slightest objection to that.

I did not have the chance just now to reply to what the Acting Prime Minister said, namely, that he gathered that the Whips had discussed the matter and that we on our side said we had no objection. This sort of thing is always happening; it is stated that our Whips said so-and-so. I sat here when the Chief Government Whip came over and I told him there was no question of there being any agreement. It is the Government’s business how long it wants to sit, and we gave no undertaking that we would dispose of the matter, at a definite hour. Now the Acting Prime Minister comes along and creates the impression that we undertook to finish off the vote at a certain hour this evening. In other words, we were supposed to apply the gag to our people who still wanted to speak. There is no truth in that. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, I know of a considerable number of members on this side of the House who still desire to speak and who have stood up in the course of the day. I do not know what the position is on the other side. But now they have formed the impression that talking does not help because the Minister of Economic Development takes no notice of them when they speak. There has been no repetition in the speeches. This discussion has certainly not been conductetd with the deliberate intention of stretching out the debate.

I admit that.

We have been sitting for twelve hours today already. Is it the Minister’s idea to smother an important discussion in this way? The staff of this House cannot carry on, and the members have also their limitations as far as their ability to keep going is concerned. Just look at the Minister. If he had to rise in his place now he wouuld not be able to reply to the questions that have been put. I have watched him. As he sits there he is exhausted, and in the main he has not made notes of the new points that have been mentioned, nor is he able to reply to them. He may be able to reply on one or two points, but he is not in a position to reply to the debate, not because he means to be discourteous but simply because he is exhausted. Does the Acting Prime Minister want to make a mockery of the whole of Parliament? I hope not. But that is what he is doing. Accordingly, I want to register a strong protest against making a mockery of the deliberations in this House in trying to enforce silence when the House should be discussing important matters, and when we have to hear what the Government’s attitude is in this connection.

With regard to the points made by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) this question came up last year, and I was assured by the Petrol Controller that farmers living at a distance could have supplementary rations of petrol posted to them without them coming into town, and if necessary they could, if they lived a long way from the nearest garage, make arrangements for the petrol to be taken by them in a container, in a van or lorry or car. As far as I know those regulations have not been altered, and they should do much to mitigate the inconvenience people living far from the office are subjected to. So far as I know that still is the position. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) raised the question of his co-operative shop not being able to get sugar. If he will give me the facts I will look into it. But my Department does not distribute sugar; that is done through the sugar exchanges.

What is your policy in regard to permits?

It is not my policy. That relates to the distribution of the sugar, and in normal times anybody could get as much sugar as he wanted, but it just happened that in the last 18 months there has not been sufficient to give 100 per cent. to everybody who wanted it, so it has had to be rationed.

Has sugar been exported?

Yes, a certain quantity was exported last year. As regards the canning factory I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member information.

It was the dehydrating factory.

Both suggestions were put up at our meeting at Kimberley at which the hon. member was present. I am not sure whether the Agricultural Department has any plans for it, but my Department has not. The hon. members for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) and Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) have had difficulties in regard to supplies of petrol and tyres, and they have asked me to define what is “necessary petrol”. I am afraid I cannot do it. The plain fact is this, that there is not sufficient petrol, and there are not sufficient tyres to meet the needs of the country at the present time. When I say “needs” I mean needs which if not absolutely essential are certainly not unreasonable and ought to be met if humanly possible, and that being so one has to leave it to the local officer in charge to do his best to distribute what supplies are available as fairly as he can. As far as the tyres are concerned, he has a committee to assist him, a committee nominated by himself; he sends the names up. In regard to the particular committee to which the hon. member for Kuruman referred, I am looking again into that particular point.

Do you agree that the principle is wrong?

I am not going to commit myself at this stage, but I will look into it. Generally speaking, one has to leave it to the local officer who is supposed to be well cognisant with local conditions, and, as far as he can, will serve the needs of the population; but, admittedly, the state of supplies being what they are, it is not to be expected he will satisfy everybody. The hon. member for Kuruman asked me about war disposals. I have a Blue Book almost ready giving the organisation of the War Disposals Organisation, the steps they are taking up to date to deal with the various classes of goods for disposal. That will be circulated to all members, and it will give the fullest information. In addition to that the idea is through the Advisory Council to have periodical meetings, to keep the council advised of what exactly is being done with the intention of letting the public know exactly how this thing is being handled, and I think through that and the advisory committees we shall have adequate publicity as to what this War Disposals Board is doing. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) raised the question about the position of co-operative societies with regard to war disposals, and I think the hon. member for Kuruman did. There we have arranged with “Boeresake” to act on behalf of the co-operative societies, and it will act as their claiming agency for their share of all the war disposal goods of which the co-operatives were, before the war, in the habit of supplying their members with. “Boeresake” will get their share and it will be their business to distribute it among the members of their association. I think that is the fairest way I can arrange for farmers’ societies to get their fair share of requirements, and as I understand most co-operative societies are affiliated to “Boeresake” that will give a proper distribution. “Boeresake” will have members on all the advisory committees regarding the things dealt with, so they will see what is available.

What about permits for importation by new firms?

At the present moment permits for importation by new firms cannot be given. Take your textiles. So long as we are only allowed to import 65 per cent. of our textile importations in 1939 that means all the existing firms are only obtaining 60 per cent. to 65 per cent. of their 1939 requirements, and any fresh firms coming in have the effect of reducing the already low percentage of those firms who now have a quota, firms that have had to battle along during the war. Many of these firms had a large number of people away in the war and have had to pay them. Moreover, they will have to employ the men who come back on being demobilised, and such goods being in short supply it is almost impossible to allow fresh people to come on to the importers’ list. If it was a question of one or two it might not matter, but if you let one on you would have to let dozens, and that would affect the quota of existing firms.

I put a question to the Minister about the sale of petrol on the platteland on Saturday afternoons, and I shall be glad if the Minister will reply to that.

I will put that up to the Petrol Controller to see whether it can be arranged. I have taken it up before, but he got reports from different parts of the country against it, but I do not know whether the feelings of people have now changed in that respect. About the 75-mile limit, I cannot suspend that at the moment. One cannot suspend it in one part of the country and not in another. The fact is that the 75-mile distance restriction has undoubtedly put an end to much black market usage of petrol. There is no doubt that people were using their motor-cars for long distances on black market petrol. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) gave me some instances of that last year. Only by putting that 75-mile limit have we been able to prevent it. I am therefore afraid that you will have to put up with it for a little longer. I am very hopeful that petrol and the general vehicle and tyre position may improve before the end of the year, and as soon as conditions permit the Committee can rest assured that no one will be more happy to relax conditions than I am.

I should like to direct the Minister’s attention to the board that controls the provision of electricity. It is felt that this board should give more attention to the development of industries on the platteland. I am thinking especially of the north-western parts of the Cape. In my constituency we have the Aughrabies Falls, where the Government some years ago purchased all the land round about the falls with the idea of establishing a big electrical power station there. It appears that so far nothing has been done in this regard. Those parts are developing, but they cannot start up industries ’there because the power is not available. Coal would have to be transported over long distances. Electrical power would also place the farmers in a position to erect pumping machinery on the Orange River to enable large areas to be brought under irrigation. I hope the Minister will instruct the Electricity Supply Commisson to institute a proper enquiry ino the development of the Aughrabies Falls for this purpose. I have another difficulty in connection with rubber control, because the vehicles drawn by animals in my constituency make use of motor tyres. It appears that these people had new wheels put on their wagons and carts, and now the size of the tyres has suddenly been altered. They altered them some time ago from 16 inches to 19 inches. Now they are 22 inches. The farmers cannot now use these means of transport because the controller will not allow them to reduce the tyres to 19 inches. I have received letters in which it is pointed out that this is a big handicap. I received a letter from the Farmers’ Association in which the following appeared—

I hope the Minister will enquire into this aspect of the matter. We have been very interested in the manufacture of farming implements in our own country, but now I have received letters from farmers’ associations and from prominent farmers in my constituency saying that the locally manufactured implements are of a very poor standard. A prominent farmer, who is also chairman of a big farmers’ association, writes to me as follows—

I hope the Minister will bring this matter urgently to the notice of the local manufacturers of these implements and I am sorry that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) is not here, because I should also like to bring it to his notice. We feel this is a matter we should like to support, but it is regrettable this mistake should now have been made, with the result that in the meanwhile farmers have to make shift until they can get the imported implements. When the Minister gave his reply in connection with the 75-mile radius, hon. members on the other side said “hear, hear” in reference to his remarks about black market petrol. The black market petrol is obtained in the towns, where you find people driving to Cape Town and Durban for the races. To the farmers in the North-West and in other parts of the country it means a tremendous inconvenience. How does 75 miles help such a person when he lives perhaps 150 to 200 miles from the nearest magistrate? I believe the Minister knows the sinners in connection with black market petrol and I think he can exclude districts like Namaqualand, Calvinia, Gordonia, Prieska, Kenhardt, Kuruman and Vryburg from that category. He will find it in the large towns but not in such districts. Take the big drought in my constituency. A farmer goes to look for veld. He may travel 75 miles in one direction; he may have to go much further and consequently needs a permit. In those parts it takes him a month or six weeks to obtain a permit, and it is obvious that he will not always find suitable veld for his cattle the first time he goes out to search for it. The Minister’s Chief Petrol Controller does not understand this matter. Undoubtedly he only knows Johannesburg, and I want to bring this matter urgently to the notice of the Minister. In those parts a great drought is still prevalent. The farmers are obliged to go and look for veld, and I consider that the Minister should give the farmer the right to travel more than 75 miles in districts that are drought-stricken. A man looks for veld. He returns home without having found it, and he learns that there has been tremendous loss amongst his stock. He cannot go immediately again to look for veld, because he cannot travel more than 75 miles without a permit. The Minister can understand in what a difficult position that man is placed. I ask him, in all seriousness, to give his urgent attention to the matter.

I should like to know from the Minister as Minister of Economic Development what he is doing in connection with the conservation of our coking coal for industrial purposes. The Minister knows that it is one of the most important requisites for the iron and steel industry. Last year I obtained figures from the Minister of Mines showing that about 2,000,000 tons of this coking coal—out of the limited quantity South Africa has—is used for ordinary heating purposes. It is used as bunker coal and for ordinary fires. A very limited quantity is available in the country, and it is pure vandalism to waste in this way this valuable asset that is so important to one of the big industries in the country. It is nothing else but waste. We are at the moment the biggest coal producing country in the world. As far as ordinary coal is concerned, a large quantity is still available, but there is only a limited quantity of the precious coking coal, and I should like to learn from the Minister whether he is taking any steps to prevent it being wasted in this way. It is a matter with which no doubt the officials of his department have had to deal and to which they no doubt have frequently devoted their attention. But apparently nothing has yet been done by the Government. I regard this as a matter that is of more interest to the Minister of Economic Development than to the Minister of Mines. I have received no assistance from the Minister of Mines in my effort to protect this valuable underground asset for South Africa’s economic development. I trust that I am not addressing myself to the Minister in vain when I ask him to tell us what he is prepared to do to ensure that this vandalism is no longer perpetrated. Then there is another matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It refers to the export of our base metals. Is he in a position to ensure that our base metals, in which South Africa is relatively rich, are not exported in the rawest form, but that there should first be a certain measure of refining so that work will be provided in South Africa, and so that we may get the benefit of the refining process. I am prepared to accept we are not in a position perhaps to carry out all the processes here, but it is of course a wrong policy to export those metals in the rawest form. Canada has followed with success the policy of refining to a certain extent, and I should like to learn from the Minister whether he is prepared to take steps so that our base metals will not be exported just as they are but that there will first be a certain degree of refining. I shall be glad if he will let us have an answer on those two points.

Under Item K there is an amount of £400,000 for the administration of war measures. The Acting Prime Minister will know that if there is one matter on which great dissatisfaction exists in the country not only on the part of supporters on this side of the House but also by supporters on the other side, then it is on this question of the administration of war measures. I only want to mention one point in that connection, and that is price fixation. We have had the position in the last few years that in practically every fresh issue of the Government Gazette there has been a new price schedule. I can give the Minister the assurance that the retail dealers—I am not referring now to wholesale merchants—are terribly dissatisfied over the continual changing of prices. In my own town the position is that one of the largest shops employs a man full-time to examine the Government Gazette, and to altering the prices continuously. It appears to me that there is a serious defect. Quite apart from the dissatisfaction over these eternal changes it has serious consequences. There are two sorts of persons who transgress in regard to prices. The first is the class of persons about whom we read so often in the newspapers as having come before the courts, and who really wish to make exorbitant profits. But on the other hand we see that shopkeepers appear before the court time and again, and that they have transgressed the law in ignorance as a result of the continual changing of prices. I have been asked by the shopkeepers in my town to mention this matter and to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to apply a better system of control. Then I want to bring the following item in the estimates under the Minister’s notice—

I should like to know what is intended by this. What functions are there that fall outside that account? In connection with the whole question of war measures, the administration of which costs us £200,000, I should like to know from the Minister in how far the termination of the war will affect the position, what plans the Government has and what the policy of the Government is in the near future in connection with this question of war measures. I should like to know to what degree the termination of the war will affect the application of the war measures. If there is one question on which there is great dissatisfaction in this country it is this question of war measures. Then there is also an amount that appears on the estimates every year, namely an amount of £13,500, in connection with the Fuel Research Institute. There is a small asterisk against this item which refers us to a certain Act. I should like to know whether work is still being done by the institute, and if not why this amount still appears on the estimates. I understand that there are other members who would like to mention this matter. It is now 11.20, and accordingly I move—

I cannot accept that.

With leave of the Committee the motion was withdrawn.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised the question of the end of the war and what we are doing with these war measures. The position is that some time before the end of the war we had departmental instructions giving us their views as to what various war measures could be repealed, and all the departments gave their views. As a result of that, when the European war came to an end, already we had repealed a few of the measures. We have a departmental committee sitting now advising us which further ones can be repealed and we hope that we will get rid of all of them progressively. We have repealed some of them already and further ones will be repealed in the near future. That will reduce the cost of administration. The contribution of £200,000 dates back to just before I came back to the country, when war supplies took over civilian supplies. Civilian supplies were under my Department and at the end of 1942 the Director-General of War Supplies became the Director-General of Supplies, and he took over that section of my Department which had been dealing with it. That is why we make a contribution of £200,000. I am surprised to hear that the difficulty about the Price Controller remains because I know the controller has endeavoured to reduce the number of Gazettes as much as possible, and he and I had discussions with the Chamber of Commerce a year ago and agreed that price notices would only be sent out once a month except in urgent cases with a view to sparing the shopkeepers trouble. But the Price Controller is not always responsible for the fact that other prices have to be issued. The price of food for example often varies.

Why the continual changes, sometimes once a month, in ordinary household goods like soap?

We are anxious not to charge too much and to give people the advantage as far as possible of the reduction in price. Prices vary. The alternative would be to leave it so low that the man cannot make a profit, or else so high that he makes an undue profit. But in regard to foodstuffs prices are altered, but not by the Price Controller. I admit that the price control regulations are very troublesome, but the controllers now have instructions not to worry an obviously well-meaning man who makes mistakes through ignorance. With regard to coking coal the position is that the Minister of Mines is well aware of the seriousness of the position. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) seemed to think that the Minister did not appreciate the position. For the last two years we have realised that the use of coking coal for ordinary purposes is wrong, but owing to the fact that we were exporting all the coal, we could, and were continually being urged to export more, it was quite impossible to stop the exportation of a certain amount of coking coal with the ordinary coal, because the seams are all mixed up in some mines, and it was impossible to stop the use of it. There are certain mines in Natal, and for that reason the Minister of Mines put the whole question up to the Natal Coal Owners’ Association, and he is still having negotiations with them. The moment the extreme pressure on us to export coal stops I will stop the use of coking coal for any other purpose. In the meantime as part of our contribution to the war, we have had to use a certain amount of coking coal, but that is a very temporary thing and it will come to an end shortly.

It has been going on for more than three years.

The extremely large export of coal has only been during the last two or three years.

No, the Departments have drawn the attention of the Government to this time and again; they complained that their representations were simply ignored.

When I came here about two years ago the matter was put up to me. Everyone appreciated the importance of the matter, but in the circumstances then it was not possible to stop the export of coal.

You mean the Government was powerless.

No, but from a practical point of view it was of paramount importance to maintain our export, and it was inevitable that we should have sent out a certain amount of coking coal.

In connection with the rule about the 75-mile limit I can understand the motives actuating the Minister. He may have good reasons for instituting that restriction, but there is one matter in this connection that I should be glad to have him give his attention to, and it is in connection with people who live in the very remote districts, 100 or 150 miles from the nearest town. ’ These farmers are subject to this rule. I want the Minister to be so good as to consider meeting these people in some other way in the case of serious illness. I have put it to the Department in the past in correspondence, and I have done it again. It frequently happens that a person may be very ill and that it is necessary to take the patient hurriedly to Nylstroom. That cannot be done because the people are restricted to a distance of 75 miles. By the time that they get into touch with the petrol controller and waste perhaps a day or two the patient may be dead. The request is just this: In such extreme cases give the nearest police station the right to grant permission to these people. It is not a thing that can be abused. Just give the right to the nearest police station to grant the necessary exemption in the case of illness, So that the patient can visit the doctor. That is as far as petrol is concerned. As far as the control of tyres is concerned, I know the Minister cannot be held personally responsible for all the appointments made on the committees. I know that he cannot be made personally responsible either for the fact that in many cases these committees are political committees. His Party has laid down a policy that no one else may serve on these committees but Government supporters. But assuming we accept it is the policy that persons with other political convictions may not be appointed, it is still possible to have on those committees people who enjoy the esteem and respect of the general public. There are, of course, sufficient Government supporters who, notwithstanding the fact that they differ from you on political grounds, still enjoy your esteem. I shall not mention any names because I do not want to offend anyone, but I know of instances where people appointed to committees not only do not enjoy the esteem of the public but they count for nothing at all in society, people whose conduct is of such a character that a person wishes to have nothing to do with them; but for political reasons, without the knowledge of the Minister, these people are appointed. I know, for instance, of a case in which a person serving on one of these committees to supply tyre permits did not even have a motor car. He had absolutely no influence except perhaps with a few persons who recommended him. You can realise what happens when prominent members of the public approach such a person and really have to beg for tyres that are vitally necessary to them. I maintain that in every district there are enough Government supporters of standing, poor or well-to-do, who carry the general esteem and respect of the public. If the Minister wants to know the names privately I shall give them to him. I hope the Minister will give the necessary attention to these few matters.

I think the suggestion about the police at a time of sickness is a point well worth looking into and I will take it up.

What about the question of drought?

That is another point that I will take up. As far as the rubber committees are concerned, they are appointed by the magistrate. The magistrate submits the names and as a rule they are just accepted, but they have caused a certain amount of dissatisfaction. In some cases I have been assured that nobody except anti-Government supporters get tyres. In other cases I have been told that nobody except Government supporters get tyres, so I have come to the conclusion that as far as the rubber committees are concerned, I am not going to appoint any more members. I am just going to let the committees die out.

I want to say a few words on behalf of disqualified mineworkers in regard to the issue of petrol.

I find that we are harbouring in this country—I know it is not popular to say so—a war criminal from Yugoslavia who is getting 70 gallons of supplementary petrol every month. Yet, in the case of people who have rendered services to this country, who have produced gold for 25 to 30 years, and who are then kicked out of the mines because of miners’ phthisis, and who want to start a little business, they are refused supplementary petrol. I have had letters from various men from the East and West Rand—I may say that one is from Brakpan—in which they informed me that they applied for twelve or fifteen gallons of supplementary petrol to enable them to make a living after they had been disqualified from working underground, but that their applications were rejected. I had the case of a miners’ phthisis sufferer who applied to the local controller at Brakpan for a permit to proceed outside the controlled area of 75 miles, to obtain employment on outside mines. That was refused. Yet we can supply this hon. gentleman from Yugoslavia with 70 gallons of petrol. Is it fair that the men who have given their lives and who have produced riches for this country, should have their applications refused? I also want to point out that on the whole the farmers are not short of petrol.

They are.

They can obtain petrol for their motor cars, they can obtain petrol for their lorries; they can get petrol for their tractors, and even for the engines that operate their electric light installations. But the unfortunate man who wants to start a little business after he has been disqualified from working underground because of miners’ phthisis cannot get supplementary petrol. I would like the hon. Minister to tell us what he intends doing in the case of a miners’ phthisis sufferer who applies for a little supplementary petrol to enable him to make a living.

I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) in connection with people who live some distance from a magistracy. The Minister will remember that last year I made representations in my constituency that at places like Brandvlei which is 108 miles from Calvinia, and Loeriesfontein, which is 60 miles away, the people cannot get extra petrol or permits. There are parts in Calvinia that are 160 miles distant from the town. The Minister has now conceded that he will institute an investigation in connection with drought-infected areas, but I want to ask him whether there is any truth in the rumours that one hears that first, second and third prizes are given to the magistrates for the smallest number of extra petrol coupons issued. I do not know whether it is true, but it is generally asserted. I want to mention another matter, and that is the question of agricultural requisites. During the war only certain factories or merchants were appointed as distributors of agricultural requisites. Here in Cape Town, for instance, there were only two distributors for a great part of the Cape Province. There is only one distributor in Kimberley and one at Port Elizabeth. I want to ask the Minister, seeing the war is over, to rescind this provision. There is no competition between the people because only certain persons have been appointed as agricultural distributors, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister to go into this matter so that other merchants may also be given an opportunity to compete as far as agricultural requisites are concerned.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote No. 43.—“Agriculture”, £1,745,000, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th June.