I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, is this the proper stage at which to raise a point of order as to the competence of this House to proceed with this Bill? I wish to raise a point of order but I should like your guidance as to whether this is the right moment.

What is the point of order which the hon. member wishes to raise?

Sir, the law under which this House has any power whatever to deal with questions of this sort is Act No. 49 of 1919. May I express my regret that the conditions under which we are working made it impossible for me to follow the courteous method of consulting you beforehand. I have been unable, owing to pressure of work, to come near you, but I appreciate that it is in the nature of a discourtesy not to have informed you beforehand of the question I am about to raise. I want to say that the Act dealing with the matter is Act No. 49 of 1919, Section 4 (3)—

The important words are “shall be alienated”. The point of alienation was considered very carefully by the Select Committee on which I served and to enable this House to judge of the real character of this Bill I wish to draw attention to the evidence given by the Secretary of the Administration on page 18. Dr. Botha was asked by me whether he would read the section which empowers the Union Parliament, to disestablish, as my recollection was that it merely empowered Parliament to alienate and not to disestablish. He did so and said: “We think that disestablishment would have the same effect because we have the right to alienate afterwards.” Then I asked him: “We have to consider the meaning of these words and I want you to let me know to whom this land is being alienated. Who are the buyers?” He said: “It is not being alienated.” I asked him whether he was sure and he said yes. He said: “It is Crown land and we are putting these natives there and we are moving them to some other reserve.” Now the matter deals to some extent with the resemblance or interchanging of the word “alienate” with the word “disestablish”. We were told by a legal adviser that disestablishment had been used on previous occasions in a Bill passed by this House. That seemed to me to be a strange interpretation of the word. You will fail to find “disestablishment” in any South African legal dictionary. As you know, the history of that word is somewhat ecclesiastical in its origin, bearing more upon the act of disestablishing a church from the State, but it seems to have been borrowed in a Bill on one previous occasion for the purpose of changing the ownership of certain land in South-West Africa. It may have been used for a similar purpose in Acts relating to the Union but I do not know of any instances. I wish to submit to you, Sir, evidence of the spokesman of the Administration to the effect that this land is not being alienated. Therefore it is impossible for us in this House to deal with any change in the land except that of alienation. This House cannot be invoked to put its blessing upon disestablishment, whatever that may mean, but I maintain that alienation is becoming a word which we must be very careful about in regard to land vested in the Government, in the case of South-West Africa and in the South African Native Trust in regard to the Union. There again the word “alienate” is used and we may only alienate native areas in the Union for the purpose of public purposes. We are limited to that under the South African Native Trust and Lands Act. There is no such limitation in regard to South-West, and I submit to you that throughout the Bill itself there is no reference to the alienation of this land. The authors of the Bill said very definitely that they are quite sure it is not being alienated, and I maintain that the Bill in its present form cannot be proceeded with before this House. I am concerned that there should not be a light-hearted dealing with land especially in the native territories, which has been the subject of debate at San Francisco, anxiety there being expressed that the rights of the backward people should be respected in a spirit of trusteeship. I hope their rights will be respected and I hone we shall not be enticed into any sort of action which is not strictly in accordance with the legal definition of the Act of 1919.

On the principle that the greater includes the less I think it can be safely assumed that “alienation” includes “disestablishment”; but in any case it is competent for the Union Parliament, which in 1919 passed the Act referred to, to exercise its sovereign powers to amend the Act either explicitly or implicitly.

May I at this stage point out the inevitable effect of granting authority to this Parliament to do any such thing. There would be no justification. Alienation is a totally different thing from disestablishment. How is the Government going to extend it to disestablishing all these native territories?

Order order. The hon. member is now questioning the ruling of the Chair. If the hon. member had given me notice I would have dealt with the question more fully, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that there is nothing to prevent the House from dealing with the Bill before it.

I move— ft

The South-West African Administration desires to disestablish the Aukeigas Reserve, which is situated in the district of Windhoek, and has set aside suitable land for the natives who are living at present in the Aukeigas Reserve in another area about which I will give details later, situated in the Omaruru district. As the hon. member who has just sat down stated, Section 4 (3) of the Treaty of Peace and the South-West Africa Mandate Act, No. 49 of 1919, lays down that any land in South-West Africa set apart as a reserve for natives or coloureds, cannot be alienated except by the authority of Parliament. As he has pointed out, there has been no alienation of the land concerned in the ordinary meaning of the word, that is, alienation to transfer ownership from one person to another, or from one body to another, or from a number of persons to a body; but the Administration of South-West Africa merely wish to disestablish this native reserve, which land Will then revert to its former status of Crown land, for the reasons which I will explain later. Now, while there is no alienation as such the opinion of the law advisers is that the term “alienation” for the purpose of this Act should be construed to include disestablishment, and therefore the ruling is quite clear, that the greater includes the lesser. That is, it should include the disestablishment of any native reserve in the South-West Africa territory. In other words, the approval of Parliament should be obtained for the deproclamation of the Aukeigas Reserve, otherwise the intention of the legislation would be circumvented by removing the natives from the reserve and thereafter, when it is no longer a native reserve, alienating it. It is therefore for the protection of the natives that the proposal was made for the disestablishment of the reserve to come under the surveillance and be subject to the authority of Parliament. A similar alienation of a native reserve in the territory of South-West Africa came before this House in 1935. I refer to items 3 and 4 of the last schedule of the Native Land Further Realisation and Acquisition Act, No. 27 of 1935. Your predecessor, Sir, gave it as his opinion that the approval of Parliament should be obtained under the 1919 Act by means of a definite Act brought before this House and passed by Parliament. Now, the native reserve concerned is situate in the territory of South-West Africa and it does not fall under my Department, but I was asked by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to handle this Bill as a matter of convenience, because actually it should have been dealt with by the Department of External Affairs, so that we could assist the South-West Africa Administration. As I said, my Department has no officials there and has no knowledge of the area. There is no one we can ask for an independent opinion and as I had no one to advise me on the position of the reserve and the interests of the natives concerned, I decided to send this Bill to a Select Committee before the second reading. As you will remember the order was discharged and the matter referred to the Select Committee before the second reading, to be investigated, and that Select Committee would have the power to draft another Bill; and had the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) raised objection there another Bill could have been drawn up. Now, the reserve, which is 13,837 hectares in size is situated about nine miles from Windhoek, and it is regarded by the Administration to be entirely unsuitable as a native reserve for a number of reasons, some of which I shall give. It is too small, too overcrowded, too overstocked, and the population will indicate this, because there are 128 adult males, 298 adult females and 160 children; and 240 of the residents own 1,803 large and 4,671 small stock. The stock-carrying capacity of the reserve is 950 large and 3,500 small stock. From these figures it will be seen that it is heavily overstocked. It is rough, stony and scantily provided with pasturable vegetation; it is tramped out, and unless given a chance to recover, it is likely that the grass may become completely eradicated. It is moreover unsuitable for agriculture and the supply of “veldkos” upon which the Damaras are largely dependent is depleted. The water supplies are insufficient and can be augmented only by costly dam construction, which as farmers know, is expensive. Now, the residents travel freely and with permission between the reserve and the Windhoek location and although they are registered as residents of the reserve many of them virtually live in the Windhoek location, while their stock are constantly trespassing on the properties of the farmers living alongside the reserve. The reserve is too near Windhoek and I am informed that it is being illegally used as a cattle post by natives living really in Windhoek who should not run cattle there at all. Moreover it is a nest of illicit liquor brewing and a direct source of obstruction to the Town Council of Windhoek in its campaign against illicit liquor. When the reserve is closed I am informed by the Administration, and it appears in the Select Committee’s report here, that it is proposed to use the land for afforestation and allowing it to lie fallow so that the vegetation can regenerate. The water needs at Windhoek are increasing and the Aukeigas Reserve, having a large catchment area, being favourably situated, will in future become a great asset in this respect; but it is interesting to note that in the Select Committee’s report they make it quite clear that it is at a lower level than Windhoek so that water caught there cannot be run to Windhoek but will have to be pumped. To compensate these natives, 60,000 hectares of land has been set aside; four times the area of the old reserve. A new reserve is to be created there and this will give the natives scope for expansion there. I might say that I am informed that there are no natives at present living on the land which is being set aside for the new reserve. The new reserve adjoins the western portion of the Okombahe Native Reserve and the south-westerly portion of the Otjohorongo Native Reserve in the district of Omaruru and is approximately 180 miles from Windhoek and is in every way more suitable as a native reserve than Aukeigas.

Is there any water?

If the hon. member will wait I will come to that point. That point was raised at the Select Committee and the Administration undertook to supply water. I see the hon. member smiling. He did not think I had read the report.

I know how valueless this report is.

They undertook not to remove any of the natives until water has been supplied. In passing I may say that the proposed new reserve lies astride the Omaruru River which provides water all the year round but there is no water for the areas away from the river and the Administration has undertaken that they will not move the natives until water has been supplied by boreholes or dams, so that all the veld can be used; but at present there is always water in this river. The value is £4,000, while the estimated value of the Aukeigas Reserve is £2,000. What affected me most—and the hon. member raised an important point when he said that the question of mandates came up for discussion at San Francisco and elsewhere—was the rights of these people, and not having anyone to advise me I was particularly anxious to make certain that the natives are being fairly treated and were consulted, and for that purpose I withdrew the original Bill before it went to the Select Committee and made it quite clear that I would not be satisfied until the representatives of the natives had been brought down here to give evidence before the Select Committee to show that they had been consulted and had seen the new area and were satisfied with it. They have been consulted and they are satisfied. They were consulted at a meeting held by the Assistant Native Commissioner at Windhoek and the headman and several members of the Reserve Board inspected the proposed reserve and have expressed their satisfaction with the exchange as is indicated in evidence before the Select Committee. At a subsequent meeting of the natives in the reserve they expressed themselves by resolution to be satisfied with the area provided sufficient supplies of water were made available. The actual people who gave the evidence were the Secretary for South-West Africa, who is also the Chief Native Commissioner, the Assistant Native Commissioner for Windhoek, and three natives from the reserve, the headman, a member of the Reserve Board and a representative of the people, and they confirmed that the people were satisfied with the new area which they described as having better grazing than they had before. As I indicated just now, the Administration had stated that they would not remove these people until water has been supplied, and they also assure me that when they do so they propose to value the improvements and to pay out to the natives of the Aukeigas Reserve the value of the dams and the value of such improvements as they made, and to put these funds into a new trust fund to be established for a new reserve. They will also value the wattle and daub huts that the natives have and will compensate them for them individually. Free transport will be supplied for the old, the children, the women and the sick, and the men will be expected to drive their cattle to the new reserve, and I am informed that the Administration has arranged with the farmers en route that they can water and graze their animals whilst trekking. These are all important points. There is only one other point, namely that the new reserve adjoins an existing native reserve for people of the same tribe as the natives at Aukeigas. These people will welcome their kinsmen who will come to live with them.

I am afraid that my impression that this was a gloomy business has not been in any way lightened by the serio-comic comments of the Minister. He speaks of this tribe being completely satisfied to go 180 miles through waterless country to a place in which water has been promised. With some knowledge of the difficulty of getting water where there is none, I think those are merely fine promises. There is nothing in this Select Committee report which shows that the area to which it is proposed to move these people will be fit for human habitation. My point about this matter, if I am still allowed to refer to it without being accused of reflecting upon anyone, is that alienation as used in the 1919 Act applies to with the whole transaction. The purpose of requiring that alienation shall be approved of by this House is this House must know the price of sale and the value of the consideration received by the natives. We are not doing this at all in this Bill and we are simply putting this land in pawn for some future occasion when the Government may sell it at its own, price and to suit its own purposes. There is nothing to restrain the Government from putting compulsion upon these natives to go to the new area which is terra incognita as far as this Parliament is concerned. We know it is 180 miles away and that it is at present completely waterless. The hon. Minister spoke about a permanent river but when the natives who visited the area were asked by the Select Committee whether they had any regrets to make, the first thing the headman said was: “Yes, water and the transport to the new area.” His anxiety is obviously in regard to water. I will refer to his actual words later, which are found at page 23. The headman, who is merely an elected headman, elected largely for the purpose of looking after the sanitation of the district is not the hereditary chief. There is no chief. The tribe numbers 596 persons altogether, but the people who attended the somewhat ragged meeting numbered 70, 70 people who authorised this headman to go and look at the land. He comes to Parliament and when questioned about it his anxiety is about water and transport. He says this land is probably better and that he is willing to move there. In regard to the cattle he says: “If the Government says so we must drive them”. When asked how the stock would get there he said he did not know. When asked whether he could drive them there he said yes, they must drive them if the Government says so. He said that if the Government helps them it can be done and they will be satisfied. In regard to cattle sickness he says that when cattle are dead they are dead and when they are alive they are live. The reason assigned by the Government for the transfer is that the land upon which they reside at present has been described as overcrowded with cattle. The test which the Minister has applied, if applied to overcrowding in other areas, would render every other native area liable to be disestablished. Nearly every area practically in the Union is overcrowded with stock but if they were all allowed to be condemned on that account it would be a sad state of affairs. That is really not sufficient reason for what is now called disestablishment. No case has been established for the action the Government has proposed here. The spokesman of the Government says there has been no approach by the natives themselves. I asked Dr, Botha—

The opinion of those who know the country has been expressed by the spokesmen of several departments to the effect that the land at present occupied and at present held by these natives is suitable for a water or forest reserve. The total distance from the territory where they are at present is from 160 to 180 miles. They state in their evidence that there is no representative of the Government there. By a process which has been in existence in South-West Africa they have gradually become dismembered as a portion of their tribe, and they have at present a very enviable position in regard to their land, as it is regarded as suitable for a forest reserve or a water reserve. That contrasts remarkably with the area we propose to send them to When this matter was before the Select Committee the most we could be told by the legal authorities was that alienation was the term used, but that, as Parliament had been satisfied on a previous occasion to disestablish the area, Parliament had given the interpretation of disestablish to the word alienate. We shall now be held to have taken final action in regard to this land. If we do disestablish we should not forget that the process of alienation made in this case or to be made in other future cases will be a very unsatisfactory one to the natives.

Those of us who sit on these benches had a representative on the Select Committee which dealt with this Bill, but unfortunately he is not able to be here. I have read the evidence before the Select Committee, and in the light of the evidence given by the headman of the tribe and those who accompanied him, that the people themselves are satisfied to be moved, we on these benches are not opposing this Bill. I want, however, to take this opportunity of making one or two remarks as I wish to support fully what the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has said in relation to moving native tribes. As a general proposition the fact that land is overstocked, denuded and overgrazed is not in itself a reason for moving any native community. My experience, borne out last Session when this House was asked to authorise the removal of people from Makoba’s location, has been that the native people usually have the strongest objection to being moved from the places where their ancestors have lived. This case, however, would appear to be an exception to the rule, from the evidence led before the Select Committee, and, without knowledge of the local circumstances, that evidence must be accepted. I do, however, find some difficulty in understanding what the reasons really are for approaching this tribe and suggesting their removal 180 miles away. Dr. Botha gave his reasons as follows—

Those are the reasons which the head of the Administration gave for this removal, that the land was inadequate for their needs and that it was overstocked. I know of no native reserve in the whole of the Union of South Africa where the land is adequate for the needs of the people. I am not questioning in the least the evidence that was given that the people concerned were consulted and that they have agreed to remove to ’ some other place. I am therefore not so much concerned on the evidence to refer to the advisability of authorising this particular transfer, but I do want to utilise this opportunity of expressing what I feel should be a general principle of administration, that unless it is absolutely necessary a native peasant community should not be moved from one place to another. There has been too much of that kind of thing in the past. If the Minister has the information I would like to ask him whether he could not enlarge to some extent on the reasons given by Dr. Botha before the Select Committee as to why the South-West Africa Administration approached this community to move. The matter of it being overstocked applies to all native reserves, and the reason given in regard to European farmers complaining about their cattle must always occur on the perimenter of a native area. I should like to know from the Minister why this particular community was approached, and why the matter is being dealt with at the end of the Session as a matter of urgency.

I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to move the stock belonging to these natives at Government expense. It is a long distance they have to move their stock, 180 miles, and I think it is neither fair nor just to ask them to move their stock at their own expense. We are very fortunatte in having a Minister of Native Affairs like the present one. Morë attention has been paid to the Native Affairs Department under his regime than there has been during the last twelve years. Realising how sympathetic he is to the natives and how he is always prepared to give them a square deal, I do make this appeal to him that he should at least pay for the removal of these people’s stock. They are being moved not in their own interests; I refuse to believe that they are moving to improve themselves. The Government of South-West Africa wants to remove them away from what is becoming a European area. I think we must accept that as one of the real reasons for them being moved. The Government will not pay in full for the improvements on their land; that is bad enough. To move a community in this way savours of Hitlerian methods. I should like the Minister to investigate the matter further and to ensure that when these natives do move they will be happy and contented. In a matter of this kind a little extra expense should not weigh with the Minister. This is a question of their livelihood, and they may sacrifice a large proportion of their stock and assets rather than move them. I think in dealing with the natives we should endeavour to secure their goodwill, and we can obtain their goodwill by being a little generous. I think we can safely leave it to the Minister to treat them in such a way that when they move it will be with pleasure, and that they will not be driven out like a lot of cattle. It is in the Minister’s power to make the removal as happy and comfortable as possible. Any employer of labour, when he is transferring a member of his staff from one centre to another, bears the whole cost of removal. In the same way let us do the right thing with the natives, so that they will have no grudge against the Union Government in the future.

I only wish to endorse what was said by my colleague. We have no intention of opposing this Bill in view of the evidence led before the committee. I wish, however, to express some anxiety that I feel in regard to this matter, and which I shall voice now so that we may not later on be accused of not having said what we thought when we had the opportunity. We often feel there are reasons for the movement of native tribes which are only revealed long afterwards. In this case, we can only echo the hope expressed by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) that the whole transference will be made as easy as possible. I do feel on the evidence before the Select Committee there was something to be said for postponing the passage of this Bill for another year. This would have allowed the Department to do what it was not able to do on this occasion, to investigate the situation itself. I admit that if the Bill was to be introduced this year, the Native Affairs Department did everything it could to get all the evidence that was available. But we would have been much happier if the Bill had been passed on an investigation by the officials of the Native Affairs Department.

It has no legal right.

Then I do not know on what legal right we are taking the responsibility of passing this Bill. That is my second anxiety in regard to this Bill. It was quite clear that the committee felt they were taking on certain obligations in supporting this Bill and that they were anxious as to how we would fulfil an obligation in this regard. I feel that the Government and the House are in a curious position in regard to these obligations, and I do not see how we can carry them out. I trust that the Native Affairs Department will feel they have a locus standi in this matter, that they will keep an eye on all the proceedings in regard to it, and particularly I would like to suggest that when they are watching the situation they should keep in mind particularly the answers given by Dr. Botha in connection with a statement made by one of the natives to the effect that they were anxious to keep away from European settlements—

Mr. Morris asked: Is the Administration going to do that?—Dr. Botha replied: It is not the intention to settle white meh there, but what is going to happen in the future as far as settling returned soldiers is concerned we do not know. There are no white farms on the border at present.

I feel that that is a statement which will have to be carefully considered and borne in mind by the Native Affairs Department when it is watching the development of the situation. It is quite clear from the passage read by my colleague that the factor of encroachment by European settlers sets up a moral obligation on the part of our Native Affairs Department, and I trust that our responsibility in that respect will be shouldered.

As the chairman of the Select Committee I think I should say a few words. There seems to be a suggestion by some hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that there is something underhand behind the removal of the natives. I should like to read the evidence of Mr. Eaton, the Assistant District Commissioner. He was questioned on the reasons for the removal of these natives and the action taken to bring this about. In his reply he said—

In 1939 the natives realised they were being overcrowded and asked for something to be done, and the Native Administration took the matter up. The hon. member suggests we should have made closer enquiry. We have the Administration in South-West Africa which deals with Native Affairs, and unless we can definitely say they have ill-treated the natives or done something wrong it would be invidious for us to investigate the position ourselves. We have the necessary guarantees, and we have the evidence of the natives themselves—

One goes so far as to say that if they do not make the change they will have no children. I think we must accept the bona fides of the Administration of South-West Africa. They have given every undertaking it is possible for them to give, and I fail to see why a small measure of this sort should have excited such a volume of discussion in this House. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) has referred to a certain location that was moved last year (Makoba’s location). That was a black spot in a white area that was removed in conformity with the legislation of the country. This is a case of a reserve in South-West Africa. The natives are being taken back to the old tribe to which they belong. The hon. member for Pinetown who raised the matter was a member of that Select Committee. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) was a member of that committee too, so it is surprising that hon. members should have questioned the bona fides of South-West Africa as to whether they will carry out their undertaking. I maintain we must accept it that they will.

There are a few matters I would like to mention and they are things which cause one to reflect a little. In the first place I want to ask why the natives should be given four times as much land as they had. The area to which they are now going—I know both territories well—is just as good as the Aukeigas Reserve. The lovely Omaruru River runs through the new reserve and it is one of the best sources of water in South-West Africa which always has water. Why must they get four times as much land as they had?

They must expand.

There are large territories at their disposal. I would very much like to have had the Minister give a little information about the reserves which are available for natives in South-West in comparison with our land which there is. Just as in the Union, these small tribes possess the best reserves in the country, and this handfull of 128 male natives have 260 women and are now going to be placed on more than 60,000 hectares of land. I have read the report of the Select Committee and it almost seems to me that the natives are more intelligent than some hon. members here. They realise the advantages of the move. They cast an eye to the future and when asked why they wanted to move, the reply was “if we look, to the future welfare of our children, it is the best”. Naturally. The The Aukeigas territory is only 13,000 hectares large, and apart from the future of their children, they cannot make a living there any more. Those who live there can no longer make a living there. They have tramped out the ground to such an extent that it is almost as barren as the floor of this House. There is no living for them, and they do not make use of the Windhoek commonages and the farms of neighbouring farmers, they cannot continue to keep their cattle there. On that account they want to move. Therefore there is actually one salvation for them and that is to go to the Okombahe area where their people are. Therefore I cannot understand that there should be any opposition to the shifting. Anyone who has the interests of the natives at heart must welcome this legislation. It surprises me that there is opposition to this legislation. If anyone wants to look after the interests of the natives he must support this legislation, but our question is, why was four times as much ground given to the people than they had at Aukeigas. The value of the new land, fixed very low, they value at £4,000. The value of the Aukeigas which they are vacating they fix at £2,000. The Minister has not yet explained why they are giving the natives land which is at least three or four times the value of the land which they are vacating. But I say that if I had to be a native representative, if I had to stand up in this House and plead the interests of the natives, then I can only say that I welcome this little Bill and I shall give it all the support I possibly can. The Government must make a plan with Aukeigas. It is sloping ground; it is trodden flat and eaten away and the trees have been chopped down by the people, and the land can now just wash away. The ground is as barren as the floor of this House. It can now fall prey to the ravages of erosion. As I have said, it is very sloping ground. It is very gravelly ground. There is great deal of mica in it and it is ground which easily washes away. The natives have no firewood there. There is no other means to make fire except to chop down the trees in the territory, and the territory is now so barren that there are practically no trees left and I consider that the Administration’s motive in wanting to presërve the ground both for the natives and the Europeans is sound. It is just 13,000 hectares in a large country, and if they do not step in and preserve this ground it will be the cause of the surrounding ground losing value, because the people have no firewood and go to the surrounding ground to chop firewood. I would very much like to know from the Minister what the Government’s plan is. The Minister spoke about a forest reserve. Are they going to plant trees there or are they going to leave trees to grow there naturally?

If they make it a forest reserve, how are they going to keep the natives out of this piece of ground? What means are they going to apply to keep the natives out? It is only 11 miles from Windhoek. It is seven miles square. How are they going to keep the natives out? It is going to be a difficult thing. I would very much like the Minister to tell us what the purpose actually is. How are they going to administer the ground? How are they going to protect the ground? What are they going to do to make it into a forest reserve? Are they actually going to plant trees there, are they actually going to spend money on planting trees, or are they merely going to leave it to nature to try and restore the damage the people have caused? With regard to the water, there is good water at Aukeigas, natural water, but nothing better than they can get at the Omaruru River. The Omaruru River has shallow and good water. It is certainly one of the best rivers in the country and on that river is one of the nicest villages in the country, namely, the village of Omaruru. That valuable stream of water will give them all the water they need for their cattle. I want to say this to the credit of the South-West Administration, that the manner in which they treat the natives in that territory gives this House every reason and cause to trust the South-West Administration to do their best for these people. Let me say this to the credit of our Administration, that I do not believe that natives are treated better anywhere in the world that the natives in South-West, and it does the Administration of that mandated territory credit, and whereas this mandated territory today is in the limelight in world discussions, I should not like to hear a word uttered in this House which at all detracts from the great work done for the natives of South-West Africa by all the Union Governments in the past, and especially by the Administration of South-West Africa, and you would have to go a long way to find a native community which lives as happily and healthily as the native community of South-West Africa, especially in the native territories. I oppose the South-West Africa Administration in many respects, but in this respect I can do nothing else but heartily support the proposal they make. It is in the interests of the country and in the interests of the natives who live there.

Are you going to organise for the native representatives there?

I shall not even answer that hon. member. There is another subject which I should like to broach and that is the question of the transport of the natives. If the Administration provides free transport for the weak and old and crippled, then I think they are doing as much as is necessary in connection with the matter. The goats and cattle which the natives have are best off when they travel with them by slow stages to their new territory. Luckily their new territory has much better pasturge than the territory they are on today, and the area in which they are. Therefore the further they trek every day, the better the grazing and the sources of water they will encounter, and as long as the Administration takes care that the farmers supply them with water and sufficent grazing on the way, they can do not better than to trek along the road with the cattle. If they were to transport the cattle by train all sorts of difficulties would arise. Between Aukeigas and Windhoek there is absolutely no grazing at all. They would have to transport them from Windhoek in broad gauge trucks as far as Usakos, and from Usakos the cattle would have to be transported in narrow gauge trucks as far as Omaruru. If the South-West Administration could arrange for water and for reasonable grazing for the animals along the road—there are only about 2,000 cattle and 5,000 goats—then it is the best means by which they can be transported. Each of the people has a small waggon or a little cart and a couple of donkeys and a few odd things with which he moves and he loads all his possession on to that little cart and treks with bis cattle. You will find that the natives from those parts know that country well. They know where the sources of water are. They know where the good grazing is. But one thing which worries me in connection with the moving is this. The natives now want to know if Europeans are going to be allowed in the new area. How is it that they ask such a question? If they are getting a territory which is more than four times as large as the one they are now vacating, how is it that they ask the question whether Europeans are going to be allowed there? Do they want to place a ban on Europeans? They ask here whether the Europeans will take their animals. We must not read into this meaning that they want to know whether the Europeans will steal their animals, but whether the Europeans will take their animals if they graze on the farms of the Europeans. There after all the white man must look after his own grazing. The kaffir does not lock after his animals. The European fences in his farm and looks after his animals. Where these natives are now going to a territory which is more than four times as large as the one which they are vacating, it worries me that they should ask if Europeans are going to be allowed there. What do they mean by that? Do they not want to have Europeans there? Because there are still Europeans living in the area to which they are going—not among them but in the vicinity—and what must you do now with the territory which is still Crown land? Must you not allot it to Europeans? I would, very much like the Minister also to elucidate this matter and tell us what the Government’s policy is. The land to which they are going is one of the best karakul areas you can get in the country. It is a karakul area to which they are going and if the returned soldiers must be placed on farms in South-West then we shall have to say: No, the natives raise objection to having Europeans in this area, we cannot give you settlements there. I would very much like to have some clarity on that matter. Further there is just one thing to do for anyone who has the welfare of the natives in view, and that is to support this Act, and to express his gratitude that the South-West Administration was so good as to give the natives a piece of land, which is more than four times as large as that which they had and I make bold to say ground just as good, if not better, than they had. But it is not reasonable to expect that we must vote for this Bill without getting proper information as to what is going to be done with Aukeigas, how they are going to protect the ground in future, how they are going to protect the sources of water, how they are going to improve the ground through afforestation or otherwise and what the policy of the Administration is or what the reactions of the Administration are in connection with the objections of the natives to Europeans being allowed in the vicinity. Nobody is anxious that Europeans should be allowed among them. The ground which they get will be theirs, no Europeans will be allowed among them, but we want to know why they want to keep Europeans away from the vicinity which has been ceded to them in connection with this transaction.

I shall be very brief, but after the speeches to which I have listened in this House I shall be neglecting my duty if I do not bring a few points to the notice of the House. The Minister appointed a Select Committee to go into this Bill. There this matter was treated absolutely on its merits, and the Bill was unanimously approved, even by the Native Representative who served on the committee. With a view to that I must now bring to the attention of the House the manner in which native affairs are discussed in this House by the Native Representatives. The natives outside are incited by members on those benches. I feel that this House must express its dissatisfaction at the manner in which the Native Representatives are constantly busy causing mischief among the people. I would just like to read out a few questions which were put at the Select Committee and a few answers to show the House how these people speak differently in the House from the way they speak in the committee. I shall mention whenever I come to questions which were put by a Native Representative. But to show the House that this move is going to mean a big improvement for the natives,

I just want to read a few questions and answers. The one question is—

The answer of the headman is this—

The following question is this—

The headman’s answer to this was—

The next question and answer is—

Further Mr. Van der Merwe put this question—

The answer was: “Yes.” Then we come to the question which Mr. Hemming put, and it is put to the headman of the natives who live there—

His answer to that was: “Yes.” He asks further—

The answer to that is—

Notwithstanding that reply a Native Representative who is supposed to represent those people comes to this House and raises objection and wants to intimate that a great injustice will be done to those people. Then I put this question—

The headman’s answer was—

The grazing there is better than it is where you are now?—What I saw is better. In the present area it is stony, whereas in the new area there is grass.

Now it is professed to the House that an injustice is being done to the natives. I have risen to bring to the attention of the House the unjust manner in which the Native Representatives are inciting the natives in the country. The natives sometimes have no grievances of any kind, but then the Native Representatives go there and rouse the people and then the natives appeal with imaginary grievances.

There is not a word of truth in what you say.

I think the time has arrived for the House to express its dissatisfaction in connection with the attitude of the Native Representatives.

I think the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is very unfair towards the Native Representatives. The Native Representatives made nd objection to this Bill. The objection was made by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). The representative of the Native Representatives on the Select Committee agreed.

†I now come to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). He raised this point and I am very sorry he did, because let me say that although this matter does not fall under my department, I have taken the greatest trouble to see that this matter is settled to the entire satisfaction of the natives in view of the Question of a mandate which is bound to come up for discussion. Realising the importance which the terrtiory must play in the future, I refused to go on with the Bill until it had gone to a Select Committee. The Union had no interest in this matter—it is not under my department—but I look to the interest of all natives, and I was very careful that this matter should be entirely satisfactory and fair to the natives in qeustion. I insisted that the native headmen themselves should come down. I discussed the matter with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Acting Prime Minister, and I felt that we should be over-generous in our treatment Of the natives because of the misunderstanding that might occur in the future. Unfortunately this point has now been raised by the hon. member for Pinetown. The world will now say: “Here is a gentleman who sat on a Select Committee and he is not satisfied that the natives were treated fairly.” The hon. member referred to my speech as a serio-comedy. That is a sort of remark which is unwarranted and unfair. If the hon. member had all these grievances against this Bill, it was his duty as a member of the Select Committee to submit a minority report. He has not done so. He should have made it clear that this measure is not fair to the natives. The hon. member has not submitted a minority report and there is no indication for the House that he was not satisfied. I have been extremely anxious to convince the world that we are going to treat the natives completely fairly, and I have done my best to watch their interests in every direction. I do not want to go into the matter any further. The hon. member raised three points. He said there was no indication that the land to which they were going was habitable. He had the Secretary for Native Affairs before him on the Select Committee; he had the Chief Native Commissioner for South-West Africa and the Assistant Native Commissioner before him and the natives themselves, and he could have asked them what their opinion was. The natives are living close to an existing location. The very next location is a native location. It is no question of this land not being habitable. It is within a stride of the Omaruru river. Then the hon. member raised the point that the natives themselves showed no initiative to move in the matter. But surely as an ex-native administrator and as a man who has a great knowledge of native affairs, he knows that no native will ever take the initiative of moving from a place, even if it is tramped out and destroyed. He will remain on the land unless someone else takes the initiative and moves him. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) says that on principle the native should not be moved without very good reason, and I agree with him. They should not be moved lightheartedly. They should only be moved when it is in their own interest, when they have to be rehabilitated, or to enable them to make a decent living. I agree with the hon. member that to move them lightheartedly is an entirely wrong principle. He asked me to give the reason why the Administration wanted this location removed. I know no more than I told the House in my speech. All the evidence was there in the Select Committee report. It is obvious that the place is heavily overstocked. I thank the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) very much for his kind remark. I appreciate his appreciation; it was very kind of him. He says we should keep the goodwill of the natives. I entirely agree with him, and that is why I insisted on the natives coming down here to present their cases in person.

Will the Government move their stock for them?

The Administration has undertaken to move all the old people, the sick and the children. They have undertaken to arrange for the European farmers to allow the stock of the natives to graze there on the trek. The Administration is going to compensate the natives for all the improvements. The natives are going to be compensated for their huts, and I think that is entirely fair. I am sorry the hon. member said that the removal of the people from Aukeigas is a Hitler-method. I would like to ask the hon. member whether Hitler appointed the Select Committee before he moved people out of Poland, or whether he even consulted them. I deprecate that remark because it gets into the newspapers and it is referred to San Francisco. It will be quoted that one of our own members said that we were employing Hitler-methods. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) asked why I introduced this Bill.

No, I said I thought it would be better if there had been another year.

She suggests then that it would have been better if this Bill had been dealt with next year. There is no reason to postpone this Bill as the South-West African Administration has undertaken to provide for the removal and for water during the removal. The question of encroachment by Europeans in the future has been raised. But the position is that if and when a new reserve is proclaimed as a native reserve, it cannot be touched by or alienated to Europeans. Where a reserve has been created, it comes under the Mandate Act, and the Peace Treaty Act, and the matter has to come before Parliament before the reserve can be touched or alienated in any way. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) put the whole question in a nutshell when he read from the evidence which I need not repeat now.

†*The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) asked me why the Administration has now given the natives four times as much ground as they had before. It is not our concern. It is a matter for the South-West Administration. It is their business if they want to give it, and I think they started out from the standpoint that they wanted to put the natives in a decent place because Aukeigas is too small for the natives who live there now and because it is trodden out, and for those reasons the Administration is prepared to give the natives four times as much ground as they occupy now at a value of twice as much as the value of the Aukeigas. It is their concern. There is no provision for expansion in that area in Aukeigas where they now are, or for them to improve their position. We did the same thing when we moved Makoba’s location. There we gave two and a half times as much ground which was worth three times as much as the ground they were on. The hon. member asks what is going to happen to the Aukeigas location. It is all in the report. The Administration says that they are simply going to leave the ground until it is restored, and then they are going to use it chiefly for water supplies for the village. This is the evidence which the Administration’s representatives gave, but I say again that it is their business. With regard to the returned soldiers, I think we can leave that in the hands of the Administration. They are going to treat their returned soldiers very fairly. The ground will be put aside for a reserve and after that it is for the Administration to decide what they want to do with it. I think I have answered most of the questions now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee;

On Clause 1,

I hope it will be a considerable time before this transfer takes place. I hope it may be a year. I want to ask whether the Minister will not agree to recommend to the Administration that they should bear the cost of transfer and to accept an amendment when we come to Clause 2.

Order, order! Clause 2 is not before the Committee.

I just want that assurance from the Minister.

I will convey those views to the Administration. They have said that they will consider compensating losses of stock on the road but whether one can expect to pay people to drive their own animals I do not know.

On Clause 2,

I move—

That will give the Administration enough time to make the necessary preparations for these people, with water laid on, and everything possible ready for them.

And gas?

The hon. member can give us all the gas required.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Frankly I am a little shamefaced and must apologise for introducing this Bill as an amending Bill to my Consolidating Bill which has just gone through, but the Consolidating Bill was held up for such a long time that it was only promulgated on the day when notice was given about this Bill. I want to be as quick as possible about this. The position is that the need only became apparent after the Consolidation Bill had been introduced. Therefore I could not proceed with this amending Bill until the Consolidating Bill had been promulgated. During the last Session the Native Laws Amendment Bill became law, and this Bill introduced for the first time the question of the Kaffir Beer Sub-Account and the Native Revenue Account of the municipalities, and laid down the manner in which the profits from the sale of beer by municipal beer-halls should be spent. These provisions were the outcome of the report by the Native Affairs Commission after a Union-wide investigation extending over months and which I laid on the Table of the House the year before. The Commission found that in many centres the revenue from the sale of this beer was included in the ordinary revenue accruing from the native revenue account and was used by certain public bodies to finance many ordinary services which should have been rendered from other revenue than extraordinary forms of revenue. That was the whole point raised by the Native Affairs Commission in that report. It was considered that beer profits should be used to provide services which the municipalities could not under the Act be compelled to provide but which nevertheless do much to improve and brighten the lives of the native location residents. There was much difficulty in arriving at a suitable formula. Hon. members will remember the debate here when various amendments were moved and there was some difficulty in arriving at a correct formula to achieve the object the commission had in mind when they took up the report. I consulted the natives and their representatives and also the municipalities. This Bill was before the Native Representative Council. It had a good deal of publicity. The wording contained in the present Section 19 (3) of the Consolidating Act was then decided upon. This section says quite clearly and categorically that the kaffir beer account shall be charged only with two types of expenditure, firstly expenditure connected with the manufacture, sale and supply of kaffir beer generally, and secondly, expenditure on the service for improved social or recreational amenities for the native residents of urban areas, or services for the social welfare of residents living in these locations. Within a very short time of this Act of 1944 coming into operation representations were made regarding the second provision, recreational and social amenities, on which money could be spent. Some municipalities had raised large loans and had already effected great improvements, so that the service and amenities were far in advance of the ordinary standards found in the majority of urban locations. And it was found that the interest and redemption charges on these loans could not be met from beer profits, nor could the maintenance and upkeep of the services installed be paid with the money so raised. They therefore had difficulty, because while they were still allowed to use the profits from the beer hall they had made large loans and started works in the interest of the communities and the improvement of the locations, and now that source of revenue was cut off. Those Works in many cases definitely would not have been undertaken had the municipalities been aware that the use of beer profits for these purposes would be withdrawn. The Department is now faced with what almost amounts to a charge of a breach of faith by the municipalities, for allowing the works to be undertaken and then altering the source of revenue from which the expenditure would be met. I should have thought that the municipalities could have raised the issue with me before, because these improvements made in the locations were made with the definite approval of my Department, but they now say that we allowed them to incur this expenditure and now cut off their revenue. I consulted the law advisers to find whether there is any way out as the law now stands. Their advice was that the municipalities had apparently made out a good case for the amendment of the law and there was no legal possibility of getting over the law as it stands today in Section 19 (3). I am bound by the ordinary interpretation of the terms “social or recreational amenities and social welfare”. I cannot authorise expenditure from profits on matters falling outside those terms. I discussed the matter carefully with the Native Affairs Commission, with my Department and with other interested parties, and camé to the conclusion that the present amendment is not only necessary but essential, not only in the case of the local bodies concerned but—and these things may still improve—in the interests of the natives themselves. Certain municipalities stated quite frankly that they could not afford to carry on the standard of improvement they had carried on in the locations if this form of revenue was taken away. In other words, the first people to suffer would be the natives themselves, not because the municipalities did not want to do it but simply because they did not have the money. The rates in one municipality I know of have already reached the limit to which they can be put up without further permission from the Provincial Administration. Therefore they cannot meet the cost of continuing this improvement in conditions in the location. This Bill is intended to apply for a period Of two years only. It is really only a Pegging Act and at the end of that period it will be possible for us to have a clear idea of the whole question and to see exactly what the position is regarding these beer profits. That is the third amendment, and the consequences are duly explained in the explanatory memorandum which hon. members have had on their desks since last February, so I need not go into that, but it will enable me to authorise expenditure from beer profits for these purposes, for improving the conditions in native locations, maintaining hospitals, etc. things for which provision was not made in my Bill last year. It is only fair and just that this provision should be made.

We are not opposing the passing of this Bill although I may say that we accepted this position with reluctance. The reason why we are prepared to adopt the Bill at all is that it is limited in its application. As the Minister has explained it makes it possible for the Department of Native Affairs to authorise expenditure of money to which the municipalities were committed before the 1944 Act was passed. That limits the application of the Bill to certain services undertaken by certain municipalities before that date and it is to apply for two years only. It is those limitations alone which makes it possible for us to accept the Bill, although we are not satisfied with the case made out for the right of the municipalities concerned to finance any services out of the beer account. I know that a case has been made which placed the Native Affairs Department in a position which they can only meet by legislation. A particular case, that of the Springs Municipality, was made out and strongly supported by the municipality itself; but it has strong opposition from certain sections of the people of Springs. While the municipality of Springs claims that it must draw upon its beer profits to finance certain services in the location, there is a strong section of opinion in Springs which maintains that it is not necessary for Springs to meet its obligations to its population from that source of revenue. This memorandum I have here was drawn up and circulated by the Joint Council of Europeans and Africans. It states: “The beer hall is a comparatively new institution. Before it was established, the deficit on the Native Revenue Account was met by means of a loan from the General Revenue of the town. And this was done without any financial embarrassment to the town. While the expenditure in the Native Revenue Account has increased during the last six years, so has the native revenue as well as the turnover of the entire town. If the town could meet financial obligations before 1938, there is no apparent reason why Springs, a town in the very centre of the richest goldfield, in the world, cannot do so today.” This section of the Springs community has opposed strongly the proposition put forward by the municipal authorities that the expenditure of funds from the beerhall account should be authorised for services which it is the duty of the municipality to render. Now, Springs is not the only municipality which claims that its standard of social services for its native population can only be raised to the level which we regard as suitable for civilised societies by using these profits. One or two others have made the same claim. They are all Transvaal municipalities, a circumstance which is of special significance to which I shall return later. But first of all I want to turn to a consideration of the general principles underlying this legislation which makes it possible for us to accept it only as a temporary measure. We would not agree in any case to a general measure allowing the municipalities to use the beerhall profits to meet the last of what we regard as essential services, the basic conditions of decent living in urban areas; and I want to make it clear that we shall be no more prepared at the end of two years to accept that proposition than we are now. It is only fair and right to make that clear at this stage. The Minister has agreed to give temporary authority under this Bill. He will return to the House in two years time to deal with the situation again, but I want to warn him now that we shall be no more prepared to accept the general principle of the financing of essential services in native locations from these funds then than We are now. In this we are supported by all responsible thought in the country. There is a general feeling amongst all groups interested in native welfare and in responsible local government, the development of whether they are particularly interested in native welfare or not, that the principle of financing essential services for the native population in urban areas out of the proceeds of the beerhall is dangerous and unsound. It is bound to lead to the extension of a practice which none of us can contemplate. We have had to deal with the question of the manufacture and sale of kaffir beer in special circumstances, in the circumstances of a transition stage in the development of the native population; but none of us can contemplate the continuance of that trade on its present scale as part of the social life of the native community or as part of the machinery of local government. If this principle were accepted, that the profits of the beerhall might be used for this purpose, it is quite clear what would happen. The native community would be forced to accept the beerhall in every town, and pressure would be brought to bear to maintain the level of profits of beerhalls. We have in this memo from Springs a very clear indication of this. The memorandum states: “It is of interest to note that, while the Council now attaches so much importance to the beerhall, originally it was indifferent to its establishment and had actually to be induced by the Government to erect it.” It draws attention further to the fact that this year the profits from the beerhall are estimated at £40,000, while in 1938 they were about £3,000, and they are still steadily rising. I have seen in the area which I represent, strong pressure brought to bear on natives to agree to the establishing of beerhalls on the ground that if the beerhall is established the people will get decent roads, lights, sanitation etc. The people, I may say, have steadily refused to accept these services at the price of the demoralisation of their people, an attitude which I endorse. And our attitude in this regard has been backed by every social organisation in the country and by everybody interested in the development of responsible machinery of local government. It was also strongly backed by the Native Affairs Commission when it investigated the situation, as the Minister himself said. They turned their faces solidly against any acceptance of the general principle that profits from beerhalls should be used to pay for the essential needs of the native people. But here is another point which has to be considered in relation to the matter. As I said, the municipalities interested in the passing of this measure are all Transvaal or Reef municipalities. That is a circumstance which must be borne in mind by this House for it has its own significance. The Reef municipalities are exceptional. They are not typical of the country as a whole. They are urban areas in the midst of a large gold mining population. They draw their enormous resources and profits not from the stabilised populations of their own municipalities but from the enormous floating body of casual labour upon which the mines are based. They therefore obtain resources which are entirely out of proportion to the ordinary resources of ordinary stabilised communities. Thus to legislate on the bases of these conditions and to accept as a general principle that beerhall profits may be used for essential services would be to put the other municipalities at a very serious disadvantage. The financial position of those municipalities, in terms of their beerhall trading, is not typical of the rest of the country and to imply that it is, by giving them power to use beerhall profits in this way must disguise the whole necessity for considering the position of the other municipalities and the obligations imposed upon them in terms of our rising standard of living conditions. That is the problem which we shall have to meet all over the country, the problem of the financial implication of an increasingly accepted standard of civilised living. All municipalities in these days are faced with the problem of financing the rising standard which is being imposed upon them by a society which is increasingly conscious in this matter that conditions of living should be improved. We have seen some of the difficulties in that connection during this Session of Parliament when we have been legislating to providing for the housing emergency, to enable the Government to carry some of the obligations in regard to housing which the municipalities cannot meet or cannot meet from their ordinary resources. In other words, under the acceptance of our rising standards of social life we are being forced to review the whole relationship of local authorities to the Central Government, if these local authorities are to carry their obligations. In other words, more and more the country is being forced to realise that behind the now long-standing demand of the municipalities for a review of their financial relationships and financial powers lies an increasingly urgent problem of local government. In the circumstances, I feel it is most important that the needs of our native communities in urban areas, if and when that review takes place, should not be disguised by the extension of the principle of deriving the finances for native civic services from purely native sources and sources of such a kind. Of course, I know there is a factor which is going to complicate any objective consideration of the position; it is the scale of beerhall profits. It will be asked, if the municipalities are not to be allowed to spend these enormous profits on essential services, what is to be done with them? That is a very pressing question, and it is going to become more pressing now, I believe, that we have taken to control the kaffir corn trade, because I believe that control is going to lead to a very considerable increase in those profits. The increased control of the kaffir com trade will result in a very considerable increase in the profits of the beerhalls. So there are going to be considerable amounts of money in these beerhall accounts; and the municipalities are going to claim, with some apparent show of justice that they could not reasonably spend those funds on the sort of services they are tied down to under the present Urban Areas Act. I am not in a position to make any acceptable suggestion as to how that situation is to be met. We did make one suggestion which we were pretty certain would be unacceptable, that is that the beerhall profits should be placed in a central fund to be administered by the Native Affairs Department itself. Where the large profits are made, in places like Johannesburg, Springs and other Reef municipalities, a great deal of the money really comes out of the pockets of reserve natives and should in justice go back to the areas where the people came from if the money is to be spent on public services for the people themselves. But it is unlikely that any of the big municipalities would agree to the national pooling of their resources and the placing of them in the hands of the Native Affairs Department, which might distribute the funds outside the range, of the areas in which they are accumulated. If that could be done, of course, it would mean that the municipalities would begin to lose interest in the beerhalls, and that in itself I think would be a very good thing. We were fairly certain that proposition would not be accepted, and I personally have no other proposition to put forward. But I do feel that the two years we have in hand should make it possible for us to explore the whole of that particular position as well as to explore the legitimate bases of financing services for natives in urban areas, exploring them in such a way that the municipalities shall be enabled to find a way out of their present difficulties. In effect we are giving them two years to place their house in order, so that they shall not be dependent on the beerhall accounts; and we are giving the Government two years to decide how it can help those municipalities and how it will deal with the beerhall profits. It is in the hope that the Department will use these two years in that way, and that the municipalities, which have requested the permission—which is temporarily granted in this measure—shall be able to find a way out which will make them independent of beerhall profits, that we agree to this Bill; and I trust at the end of the two years we shall be in a position to say that beerhall profits shall never be used for what are essential services to be provided by any municipality to any section of its population.

I would very much like with just a few words to welcome this Bill. It is a step in the right direction. This side of the House last year warned the Minister that his standpoint was unpractical, and we are glad that he has now made a little progress. To my mind the measure does not go far enough. We should very much like to have the principle adopted that the funds shall be used for essential services for the natives, not only for general social services, because if this is laid down it will not be in the interest of the native population in the urban areas. In addition I feel very strongly that at least a percentage, where necessary and with the approval of the Minister of Native Affairs, should be available for the municipalities themselves. This may perhaps be only a very small percentage, and only with the consent of the Minister, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the natives make use of all public services and all amenities which a municipality offers and they contribute very little towards them. We must meet the municipalities there. I want to stress again, what we also advocated last year, that provision must be made for the money also to be applied for essential services for the native population in the towns.

As a councillor at the time the beerhall arrangement came into being I have always felt that as the idea really was to combat illicit liquor selling then the municipal beerhall was something that was worth while as an experiment. At the beginning of that experiment there was no desire, at least not in the council I was a member of, to exploit it for revenue purposes. The desire seemed to-be to supply this drink which was claimed to be a healthy drink, and something that contributed to the needs of the native, at a price which would just balance the cost of production. Unfortunately, as time went by the tendency seemed to be to look upon this as a possible source of revenue. That is due to a certain type of mind in the person who happens to be chairman of the finance committee rather than the wish of the majority of the members of the council. The result was that in the town to which I am referring the price of beer was increased, and we went into an era of profit making in regard to it. Because of that experience I want to appeal to the Minister that he should not by any means give encouragement to municipalities in regard to making profits from kaffir beer in order that any chairman of finance may see an easy way of doing his job in a civilised community, as has been said, at the expense of what is an appetite on the part of the native. We should very much deplore running a “pub” for Europeans to enable a municipality to make roads and put down sidewalks. We have had sufficient experience and public opinion to combat that idea. Having agreed that we would not do it as a European proposition we should be very careful about allowing this kind of thing to be done merely because it is the native who is concerned as we are here really dealing with a fundamental principle and working on a fundamental belief that we are combating an illicit arrangement by a communal arrangement run in a decent and orderly way. I hope the Minister will not contemplate nor any future Minister, the running of native beerhalls for profit to excuse some chairman of finance from financing those essential services expected in a community in the proper way, but that the native will be looked upon as a potential ratepayer who will naturally grow into becoming a contributor in the normal way to the rates and taxes and thereby pay in a proper way for the amenities he will enjoy.

In introducing legislation on the subject of beer, the hon. Minister is touching a matter on which the people we represent in this House feel very strongly indeed. This Bill is a qualified and temporary departure from the principle laid down in the Native Laws Amendment Act, that beer profits should be appropriated to social welfare amenities. It is on the basis of the reasons the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has explained, that this temporary departure is always subject to the Minister’s approval and is only in respect of servicing of loans raised before 1944, that we on these benches are prepared not to oppose this Bill pending a solution of the difficulties the Minister has referred to in introducing it. But the mere fact of its introduction involves important principles that I, at all events, in this House have always opposed. The first is the principle of the self-balancing revenue account, the assumption that a native urban community, a portion of the working class of the town—and the poorest portion—should have to meet the whole cost of its own civic services. That has just been dealt with, and I am glad to say condemned, by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). It was also roundly condemned in the report of the Smit Committee, the Urban Areas Committee. The second point of principle the Bill raises is the existence of the beerhall system. I have always opposed that system, and I shall give my reasons, because I believe the abolition of that system is the proper way out of these difficulties. I am sure the Minister will recognise in this matter that this Bill has been introduced, contrary to what was done last year after careful examination by the Native Affairs Commission, this Bill has been introduced owing to pressure by local authorities, and in order to find a way out of their difficulties. This temporary provision is being made to meet them. The history of the present Section 19 of the Urban Areas Consolidation Act is as follows. In the 1941 Session, during the discussion on the Native Affairs vote, I voiced the objection of the native people to the beerhall system which had been considerably extended under the law of 1937. Then the Minister of Native Affairs, at that time Col. Deneys Reitz, agreed to refer the whole matter of the existence of the beerhall system to the Native Affairs Commission for enquiry and report. The Minister himself said he was doubtful that the system was working in a beneficial way. It was therefore in 1941 that the Minister referred the whole matter of beerhalls to the Native Affairs Commission, and the Commission travelled throughout the country and took evidence, and upon its report, as I mentioned, was based the present Section 19 of the Urban Areas Act. The Commission refused to recommend the complete abolition of beerhalls, but it did recommend a modification of the system in two very important respects. It recommended that there should no longer be an automatic municipal monopoly in the sale of native beer; in other words, that the Minister should allow the natives to brew their own beer even where a municipal beerhall was established. Previously the law was that where a municipality established a beerhall, automatically the brewing of beer by natives in their homes was prohibited. That was the first modification the Native Affairs Commission recommended. Secondly, it recommended that beer profits should be spent only on welfare services. Both those modifications of the law were introduced in the Native Laws Amendment Bill last year and were supported from these benches. I made my reasons clear at the time for that support. I said at the time that I would rather the Bill had gone further and abolished the public house system, but I valued the amendments, as far as they went, because they would tend to discourage the system through permitting competition with the municipality in regard to their beer monopoly, and secondly as striking a blow at the practice that civic services for natives should be met entirely from their revenue account, and in that no longer in the future would civic services be allowed to be financed from beer profits. What have the results been of the amendment of the law in 1944 as applied in administrative practice? What have the results been in practice of this amendment of the law, first in relation to modifying the present municipal monopolies where beer halls do exist? As far as my Information goes in no single case has the Minister’s department exercised its discretion to authorise domestic brewing where a beerhall exists. I hope he will give us on these benches in replying to this debate the assurace he is going to exercise these powers, and that he will give some indication of the circumstances under which he will exercise them. I asked the Minister the other day about a widely signed petition from location residents in Kimberely asking for the exercise of this power authorising domestic brewing, and so far as I know nothing has been done in this respect there or anywhere else up to the present time. So the power to authorise competition with the municipal monopoly has not, so far as I know, yet been exercised, and as far as the beer account is concerned we are now asked to authorise this amendment of the law. I do not want to repeat all the arguments against the principle of limiting the civic services of a native urban community to the proceeds of what can be raised from them in the way of rates and rents. Any ward in any town, more particularly a poor ward, would cry out against the principle that ’ the council’s expenditure on their services should be limited to expenditure collected in that ward. In any case I cannot imagine how it could be done. Because, what in any city is the real large source of municipal revenue? It is the rates raised on commercial and industrial buildings. Normally speaking they are the most valuable assets for rating purposes, and the rates levied on these are spread all over the town, except in the case of the native location. The principle of the self-balancing native account is applied and yet, no activities of a normal South African city could be carried on in those commercial and industrial buildings without the aid of native workers living in the location. I believe any fair-minded person would be against the principle of the self-balancing native revenue account in urban areas, and the case needs only to be stated to be accepted. In any case it has been accepted by the Smit Committee in unqualified terms. It reported it was never intended that the native revenue account should be the sole source of revenue for services in a native township. According to the Minister’s speech the muncipalities have based their case on this, that they cannot go on with those services except from the proceeds of the native revenue account. With regard to the beerhall system. I feel that the fact that there are these difficulties the Bill seeks to cope with is in itself a condemnation of the beerhall system, and indicates the real reason why the beerhall system was ever wanted by local authorities. The native objection to the beerhall system is as follows, and it is an objection overwhelmingly shared by the native population. They do not regard the drinking of beer in the same way as the European regards the drinking of liquor in public houses. The beer in its pure form is part of their food, and the partaking of it is part of their social customs. It is taken at home with a circle of friends and relatives. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) is always strong on retaining native customs, and I would remind him this is a very deep-rooted one. The situation is different when you come to the type of native who would prefer the European type of liquor. He is dealt with in an entirely different way. There is provision for giving him permission to get that. It may well be that the whole of our liquor laws applicable to the native people should be reconsidered in future. So far as the beer is concerned there is no doubt it is looked upon in an entirely different light from what the ordinary partaking of alcohol is looked upon by the European or coloured community, or by that section of the native community that has acquired a taste for European liquor. The answer put forward by the official advocates of the beerhall system is that it is necessary for control purposes—because if there is no control concoctions are mixed up in the beer. That argument has been dealt with effectively by the Native Affairs Commission itself. In Paragraph 48 of the report of the Native Affairs Commission it is stated—

In other words, the commission found as a fact that this argument that the control of beer supply through beerhalls prevents the mixture of concoctions with the beer has nothing in it whatever. As a matter of fact, when we compare the convictions for liquor offences in municipal areas where domestic brewing is allowed with the convictions in municipal areas where there are beerhalls, it is still further evidenced that the beerhall has nothing to do with the prevalence of drunkenness. Langa has never had a beerhall; it always had domestic brewing even before the 1937 Native Laws Amending Act. I gave the following figures obtained from the police in evidence before the Native Affairs Commission. The number of convictions in Langa for drunkenness over a period of three years is as follows: 1938, 33; 1939, 27; 1940, 22. Those are the convictions in respect of a native community with over 4,000 adults. That is a record any community could be proud of, whether African, coloured or European, and that is a community that has always had domestic brewing and that has never had the beerhall system. On the Witwatersrand where admittedly you are dealing with a bigger population and you cannot really compare with Langa, there appears to have been an increase in convictions for drunkenness since the introduction of beerhalls. In 1937 the figure was 46,000 for the Johannesburg municipal area.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was dealing with the contention which is so often put forward that the beerhall system is necessary in order to prevent drunkenness and prevent an undue increase in the number of liquor offences. I had already given the record of convictions for drunkenness for three years in the case of Langa where home brewing has always been in force, and the numbers were very small indeed. So far as the Johannesburg Municipality is concerned, I had already stated that in 1937 the total number of native liquor convictions were about 46,000. In 1938, the year of the establishment of the beerhalls, the number rose to 50,000 and in 1939 it rose to over 63,000. That certainly does not indicate that the establishment of beerhalls has made any marked impression for the good in relation to liquor offences, and that, Sir, is precisely borne out by the findings of the Native Affairs Commission when they investigated this whole question. The claim of local authorities, which are the main driving force behind the establishment of beerhalls, is therefore reduced, for the reason that the Minister implicitly gave when he introduced this Bill, to the fact that they want the profit from beer selling in order to finance services which on the showing of the Smit Committee, on the showing of the Native Affairs Commission, should be financed quite apart from the existence of beer profits. This subject is not a new one. It has been investigated often in the past. The Native Economic Commission in 1932 went into it and this was their recommendation on the subject—

That, I submit, is in accordance with sound principles of administration, that the aim of administration should be to carry with it the consent and the approval of the public who are being served by the administration in question. I do want to submit again to the Minister what I submitted to his predecessor, that more particularly the circumstances which have driven him to introduce this Bill should impel him to reconsider again the whole matter of beerhalls. I am not talking now about mine compounds where large numbers of single men are congregated together. I am talking about ordinary municipal townships and villages which are set aside for the occupation of natives. I want to remind him that in the course of the enquiry of the Native Affairs Commission, to which I have referred several times, the South African Temperance Alliance, which is hardly a body which wants to encourage drunkenness, favoured the domestic brewing system rather than the beerhall system. That Alliance is, of course, against the supply of liquor of any character, but as between those two alternatives, the Alliance supported the domestic brewing system. I remember years ago in the Cape there was a proposal by the City Council to establish a beerhall at Langa, and European public opinion that was in touch with the native position here, opposed the establishment of that beerhall. I can remember that a deputation of Europeans interviewed the City Council. Its spokesmen were the late Sir James Rose-Innes, a man with vast experience of native policy and administration in this country, and Mr. Walter Meares, who is the head of a large school in the Cape, and it was very largely through their persuasions that the beerhall was not established in the Cape Peninsula. It is a system against which there is an overwhelming body of evidence, at all events in the conditions of municipal townships and villages, and the circumstances which have impelled the Minister to introduce this Bill have clearly disclosed that the drive behind the beerhall system comes from a desire to make profit for the financing of services which should be provided for in the ordinary way in which municipalities do provide such services; and I want again therefore—not for the first time in this House—to advance the plea that this whole beerhall system should be reconsidered. To my way of thinking there is something very undignified about this squabble over the profits of beerhalls. The best way of dealing with the situation and to satisfy all parties is to abolish beer profits altogether by abolishing beerhalls.

Let me deal first with the points raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). She has made it quite clear that she did not approve of the Bill, but that she was going to oppose any further Billl that I may introduce in two years’ time. Well, when I come staggering into this House in two years’ time to introduce this Bill, I hope the hon. member will not oppose it. There are just one or two points which I would like to have on record. I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced by hon. members during this debate, but I want to show that this matter has to be faced as a practical issue. The 1944 Amending Act came into force towards the end of June, 1944. The hon. member referred to one municipality. I just want to take the position of this municipality to illustrate my difficulty in administering the Act as it now stands, and to show that this Bill has not been introduced without very careful thought. Before June, 1944, this municipality had actually raised loans and introduced the following services and amenities: they had established a first class poly-clinic at which doctors and nurses deal with child welfare and ante-natal work, venereal disease cases, tuberculosis cases, dental cases, and general medical work. The municipality had established a district nursing scheme in conjunction with the clinic. It had established a cheap milk distribution scheme which was very successful. They actually sold milk more cheaply than they bought it for. I am showing what they did before there was any question of being tied down. The municipality has established well laid out sports fields, a large nursery school—the créche scheme is heavily subsidised—a large modern recreation hall with bioscope performances, a public library, a post office building for the location, waterborne sewerage to each house, all streets had been kerbed and tarred, the whole location area had been drained by an underground drainage system; electric light had been provided and all streets well lit, and two social workers and sports organisers had been appointed. For the year ending on the 30th of this month, the position of this municipality’s native revenue account will be: Income £30,000, expenditure is £61,000, which means a deficit of £31,000. The beerhall shows: Income £63,000, expenditure £26,000, representing a profit of £37,000. It was possible to charge £11,000 of the native revenue account expenditure against the kaffir beer profits. So the final result is a deficit in the native revenue account of £20,000 and a profit in the beer account of £26,000. To meet this deficit the town’s rates would have to be increased by 2d. in the £ above the maximum of 7d. in the £, for which special permission would have to be obtained. That is the position and so this Bill has had to be introduced to meet cases like that. I think hon. members will realise that it is necessary to go into it. I feel that the municipality must supply the bare necessities, at least, but if the municipality supplies a lavatory system, or one lavatory to two houses, and by having accumulated profits in the beer account it can give water-borne sewerage and a lavatory in every house, I feel that should be looked upon as a social amenity in the sense that they have supplied the bare necessities and cannot afford to supply more.

What about the general principles?

I am not going into that now. We have two years to think about that. The point made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) was that the profit was only to be used for social welfare and not for general municipal services. I feel that provided the municipality has provided for their natives the full social and recreational amenities that they require, if there is still a surplus of profit, which was referred to by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger), some means have to be found for dealing with it, and if they have provided all the sports grounds, etc., and the social services necessary, if there are still profits over, some power must be left to the Minister to improve their amenities. But that can be gone into later. But the hon. member for Cape Western asked me a question and I am giving him my views upon it. He asked me whether I exercised my powers to allow brewing and he mildly criticised me. I have exercised that power. I made full enquiry into every case before coming to the conclusion I did. Only one case has been raised and that was refused for good reasons. Each case must be decided on its merits.

What town was that?

It was Wepener. Then on the question of self-balancing native revenue accounts, we know what the report said about that, and I agree with it. We are constantly urging the municipalities to subsidise as far as possible their native revenue account, whether they have beerhalls or not. With regard to the objects and principles of the beerhall this question was fully considered by the Native Affairs Commission when they sat and before delivering their report, and it was debated in this House last year, and I do not think that anything new can be said about it and I have nothing further to offer in addition to what I said last year.

†*Then I come to the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He gave us to understand that we should allow the municipalities to use the profits on the sale of kaffir beer for any purpose. I do not want to make a decision now or express any opinion about it, in view of the fact that this whole matter will be investigated further. I just want to say that there are certain essential services which the municipalities ought to undertake in respect of the natives. It is the less-privileged section of the population among them, but a population which is required for the work in those municipalities and which is important for the progress of such municipalities. Take a place like Vereeniging. If it were not for the availability of native labour, then those large factories could never have been established on such a scale. In a word every case must be treated on its own merits.

The municipalities do not agree with the member for Wonderboom.

I also do not agree with him, but I want to point out that this is a matter which will be investigated further.

What has become of the suggestions from the Rand municipalities?

I shall go into the matter. Before the Act of 1944 Was introduced, the municipalities were consulted, and it is chiefly their fault that this point was not raised at that time. I want to say again that the whole matter will be investigated, but I do not want to make any further promises on this occasion.

†The hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) raised some important points. I dealt with those in my reply to the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and will not repeat them. There was one other important point raised by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. She said that the principle of financing ordinary services from beer profits is unsound. Well, as I say, I am in full agreement with her. The 1944 Amendment was proof of our goodwill and we have found that that Act was too narrowly worded. The whole thing will have to be reconsidered in the next two years and also the whole question of the accumulated profit. That is an important point and we must go into it because we cannot have large profits accumulating and not being used. I think she will agree that it cannot be used in other areas, but all that can be raised later. Then on the question of the position of municipalities which have no beerhall, I shall not establish beerhalls merely to allow municipalities to make money for their other needs; that you can be assured of, but I will take the position into consideration. I think I have answered to the best of my ability all the points

Motion put and agreed to,

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Our objection to this Bill is not concerned with the amendments which the Minister has made but rather with the amendments which the Minister omitted to make—his sins of omission rather than his sins of commission. I should like to take this last opportunity—the Minister has told us that he will try next year to improve the Income Tax Act—to say that we are especially concerned with three questions in regard to our Income Tax legislation. We have mentioned those matters before, and one of them, which is a fundamental one, is that the restrictions which are imposed on the capital expenditure which the farmer may deduct from his taxable income, that restriction of 30 per cent., is something to which we are wholeheartedly opposed. South Africa is not yet a fully developed country. Our farms have not yet been fully developed. During the war it was impossible to proceed with the work of development and there is much leeway to be made up. In our opinion it is quite wrong to tell the farmers at this stage that they will be restricted in the development of their farms, so that they will not be able to keep up the speed of development which is necessary in the interests of South Africa. We do not want to impose that restriction on them. We think that it is unfair. Right through our history the State has given the farmer every encouragement to develop his farm. We granted long-term loans for fencing purposes, for dam construction and that kind of thing. The State has given the farmer every encouragement to undertake such work of development but now the Minister comes along and tries to discourage it. The view which we on this side hold is that this is the greatest disservice which the Minister can render the farming industry. I do not want to say much about this matter. There are other hon. members who also want to clearly state their point of view on this matter but we earnestly appeal to the Minister to take away this restriction when he revises his Income Tax Act next year. If the Minister will look at the annual report of the Commissioner for Inland Revenue he will notice that the contributions by the farmers to the country’s revenue have greatly increased during the last few years. The farming community is contributing twice as much as the amount it contributed in the past. This restriction is now being imposed. The farmers are not unwilling to contribute but these restrictions are going to discourage developments and improvements in South Africa. That is what the Minister is doing and for that reason we ask the Minister to keep this in mind when he revises the Income Tax Act.

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). I think it is most unjust to impose a taxation on these things. The hon. member for George referred to it in passing. The farmer who previously developed his farm received exemption. Those who now do so do not get that exemption. The former made use of the opportunity to improve their farms before the war. But the farmers who have been hampered by the war and who could not effect improvements are now being unfairly treated as the Government is in fact imposing a tax on improvements. But I go further. At the Land Bank we can obtain loans for fencing, we can get loans for erosion works and for the construction of dams. We pay rent on those loans but now we are also being taxed as a result of these restrictions. The farmer has to pay twice on the money borrowed by him. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) on a previous occasion said that a farmer should not spend more than a certain percentage of his income on improvements. I want to say that if we have to accept his theory, then the principle is wrong to offer facilities to farmers for borrowing money to effect improvements. The State does not only take a percentage of his income for State undertakings. If the State were to do that, we would certainly not achieve the progress which we should achieve. What is the reason that our farmers are now paying nearly twice as much in taxation as they did before? It is because those farmers were able to develop their farms and for that reason they are now better able to pay taxes. The improvements which they effected on their farms turned them into taxpayers of the State, contrary to the position in the past when they could not contribute to taxation. I want to ask the Minister to have a survey made during the recess of the amounts paid by farmers in certain districts ten years ago and the amounts they are now paying as a result of the improvements which they have brought about. Then we will be able to see how much these people paid in taxation before they effected improvements and how much they paid thereafter. We can then determine the benefit gained by these people and the State as a result of the improvements. Together with the hon. member for George I want to ask the Minister to take this matter thoroughly into revision and to come here next year with an exemption for bona fide farmers as far as improvements are concerned. I can assure the Minister that we have no objection against the cheque-book farmers paying this taxation but he should not let the bona fide farmer pay on his improvements. They do not only invest capital in those improvements but even money which they have borrowed. I appeal to the Minister to meet their objections next year.

I should like to raise a matter which to my mind is in the public interest. It concerns the complexity of our taxation system and especially the aweinspiring formulas which we notice and the difficulty which people experience to calculate the taxation which they have to pay. In the public interest I want to quote an instance in order to warn the people outside not to accept without more ado the tax assessments of the Department of Inland Revenue. The position today is that people receive their assessments from the Department of Inland Revenue either for income tax or for estate duties and in 90 per cent. or more cases they presume that the assessment is correct and they do not go to the trouble to check the complicated calculation. I wonder how many people, when receiving their income tax assessment, investigate whether it has been calculated correctly in accordance with the law. They simply pay in good faith.

How many members of Parliament do so.

Yes, it concerns them too. Estate duties and all’ those other things are assessed and one simply assumes that the officials know their work and do nobody down. I have here an instance where an estate was assessed £1,300 more in taxation than they were liable for. It was quite fortuitous that I got interested in this matter as a member of Parliament. I brought the matter to the notice of the Receiver of Revenue. He investigated the matter and according to his calculation the Provincial Receiver assessed the estate for £1,300 too much. In the end he allowed a refund to be made. I now ask how many cases there may be where a wrong assessment is made and the persons concerned simply pay because they think the calculation is correct. The reply may be: Well, a person can himself calculate whether his assessment is correct or not. That does not always happen. I maintain that the system is so complicated that the people take it for granted that the persons making the assessments have to be competent and they simply pay because they consider it too much trouble to go into the matter. I have mentioned one case in which I was concerned and where a large excess amount was paid. It was merely a coincidence that I went to the trouble, as a member of Parliament, to have the matter corrected. I raise the matter here because the Minister should try to work out a simple system of taxation for which we have repeatedly asked here every year, and he should see that his Department makes its calculations carefully. I mention this also in order to warn the public that cases occur where too much has been paid and that the public should be careful not to accept every assessment without more ado and not to pay without further investigation.

I want to say a few words in connection with the matter which has been raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig). We have discussed this matter ad nauseam, namely, the restriction to 30 per cent. of the gross income as far as improvements on a farm are concerned. There are parts of the country such as the Western Province where farms have been fairly well developed. In those cases this restriction may not make much difference. But I want the Minister to consider districts such a Gordonia and the whole North West where fencing, water supply and similar things are matters the farmer cannot do without. During the war years those people have been somewhat fortunate and now they would like to effect the necessary improvements such as fencing and water supplies. Now, however, the Minister introduces this tax on improvements. The Minister can argue very cleverly. We know that he can put his case very well, but the farmer knows that in practice things will not pan out as the Minister has put it here. Take for instance districts such as Calvinia, Victoria West and Gordonia. The farmers are not making a lot of money every year. Only during the years when there is plenty of rain do they have a good income and then they want to use some of that income to improve their farms by fencing, the erection of windmills and the boring of waterholes. I want once again to ask the Minister to consider the position of those people. It is now too late to bring about a change this year but I should like the Minister to give us the assurance that next year he will revise the Income Tax Act, especially in this respect.

I want to take this opportunity of speaking about one matter which is of growing importance, mainly the position of minority shareholders in proprietary companies. I had hoped that the Minister might grant some relief. I am not a minority shareholder myself but I hope the Minister will consider the case of minority shareholders. That might have been done if the Minister had agreed to some such amendment as I wish to suggest, namely—

That would have granted a reasonable amount of remission. If it were made retrospective from 1943 it would have met the position. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind. It is now resulting in the improverishment of people who have put their earnings into such companies.

I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to a certain matter in connection with this Bill. I have received representations from people claiming that the Commissioner in some cases will not take into account for rebate purposes, certain commissions paid. They found that if they have been paying certain commissions to representatives of firms having contracts with them, the Commissioner decided that the commissions paid to these individuals are not allowable. In one case for a number of years he has assessed them on those payments that have been made to those representatives, and not only has he assessed them but he has made them pay three times over.

Will you give me the facts of that case and I will go into it?

I shall be very pleased to supply you with the facts. It is suggested that the Commissioner’s powers are very wide indeed, and that they are not always used in the best way. Here we have an individual firm making a payment to an agent which has been the custom for many years, and then all of a sudedn they are pounced on by the Commissioner and told these payments are irregular and that they will have to pay a penalty of three times the amount

There is no appeal either.

That is the trouble.

Yes, there is an appeal.

You cannot appeal to the Appeal Board on that matter.

There ought to be an appeal. I do feel something should be done. There ought to be some appeal from the Commissioner.

If the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) will give me a copy of that suggestion he read, I shall be able to give consideration to it as far as the future is concerned.

†*The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised a point which in so far as the particular matter to which he referred is concerned, does not really come under this Bill. This Bill does not deal with the estate duties.

I only mentioned it as an instance.

Yes, but as far as estate duties are concerned our system is not complicated, but rather clear. So it was not a very good instance.

If such mistakes can be made in regard to something which is not complicated, what is going to happen where it is complicated?

As far as mistakes are concerned, I want to point out that auditing does take place and in the case of estate duties it is done in practically 100 per cent. of the cases and the mistake would therefore most probably have been noticed in any case. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and other hon. members have once more and for the last time raised the matter of the restriction to 30 per cent. I do not want once more and for the last time to advance my arguments in this matter but I just want to say that I do not think the restrictions will necessarily hamper the farmers. On the contrary, in this regard the farmers are still being favoured when compared to other sections of the community, and therefore I cannot promise that I shall make a change in that position.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is in fact not so alarming as it looks. It may be long and it deals with a large number of subjects, but many of them are relatively unimportant and need not take up much of our time. Of course there is also no continuity of subject or principle in this Bill. Every clause or group of clauses stands on its own and in most cases the questions dealt with could be better discussed during the Committee Stage than at the present moment. A request was made to me that, in order to give hon. members an opportunity to go further into the details, I should not take the Committee Stage before Friday next. I am prepared to do so, provided, of course, that all the other stages can also be taken on the same day so that the Bill will reach the Senate in time. In view of the fact that, as I said, most matters dealt with in this Bill should be rather discussed in Committee and further in view of the fact that a clear explanation of all the sections appears in a White Paper which has been made available to hon. members, I only want to refer to the principal sections at the present moment. First of all I want to make mention of a change in the form of the Bill. For quite a number of years the Finance Bill was confined to matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but during the last few years it has also been used to make provision in regard to the use of surpluses in our Railway and Harbour Fund. We therefore have already gone somewhat further than the purpose of the legislation itself. Sometimes, however, there are other matters of less importance in regard to the Railway and Harbour Fund, just as there are matters of less importance in regard to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which can more conveniently be incorporated in this Bill. It was therefore agreed that this Bill will be considered as a Bill dealing with matters affecting both the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Railway and Harbour Fund, and that the clauses of the Bill will appear in two parts. Part I will deal with matters affecting the Consolidated Revenue Fund and Part II will contain matters affecting the Railway Administration. As far as this Bill is concerned Part II consists of only one clause and if necessary that will be dealt with by the Minister of Transport. As far as Part I is concerned, that deals with matters falling under me as Minister of Finance and it might be advisable for me first to refer to certain clauses in the Bill which deal with matters which have already in some way or another been discussed in this House. Clause 1 of the Bill contains the contemplated provision, as indicated in my Budget Speech, in regard to the disposal of part of our surplus in our accounts of last year. There are two paragraphs in this connection. In the first place it is proposed, as I indicated in my Budget Speech, that £1,500,000 shall be applied to the liquidation of the Treasury’s share in the premium account in regard to the repatriation of overseas debts. That matter I have explained before. In this connection I just want to refer to Clause 4 of the Bill which deals with the proportionate allocation of the premium account and the obligations thereunder between the Treasury and the Railway Administration. The second paragraph of Clause 1 contains another proposal made in the Budget, namely the transfer to loan account of an amount which was found last year on that account for the Governor-General’s National War Fund. Then I want to refer to Clauses 5 and 6 which make provision for an increased amount in regard to the expenditure in connection with demobilisation. That was also referred to in my Budget Speech. Furthermore, I refer to Clause 15 which deals with the salary of the chairman of the Central Land Board. That point has already been raised a few times as a result of comments in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General and I undertook to rectify the matter by a clause in this Bill. That is now being done. Then I want to refer to Clauses 16 and 17. In our Income Tax Act, which a short while ago was read for a third time, we have made provision in regard to reciprocal agreements with other countries as far as the avoidance of double taxation is concerned. What we did there related to income tax. Here we now propose to do the same in regard to estate duties, so that where a reciprocal agreement exists it will not be possible that an estate shall be assessed twice for the same amount. Furthermore I refer to Clauses 23 to 25. They implement an undertaking I gave in connection with the auditing of accounts under the Marketing Act. The auditing will be done by an officer of the public service or an accountant appointed by the Minister, and where State monies are involved it shall be done by the Auditor-General himself or under his supervision. In this case I am therefore acting on certain recommendations made by the Select Committee on Public Accounts and which we promised we would give effect to. I now come to another important clause in the Bill. First of all we have Clauses 2 and 3 which contain the new basis for the division of responsibilities for interest on national debt between the Treasury and the Railway Administration. The existing basis which was agreed upon in 1934 was found to be unsatisfactory and to work out to a disadvantage for the Treasury, especially as a result of circumstances connected with the war. The first circumstance arising from thé war was the issue of short-term loans at a low rate of interest purely for war purposes. Certain 2 per cent. and 2¼ per cent. loans were issued and also non-interest bearing loans in connection with war expenditure, but under the arrangement of 1934 the Railway Administration also derives part of the benefit of that low rate of interest. That is not fair to the Treasury. In the second place the relationship as fixed in 1934 was disturbed by the issue of long-term loans for large amounts at 3 per cent., mainly for war purposes. That 3 per cent. is also a lower rate of interest than the average rate of interest was in the past. In consequence the average rate of interest of which the Railway Administration also has the advantage has been considerably decreased. They derive the benefit as a result of large loans which were issued mainly in view of war conditions. In consequence of that fact it was arranged between the Minister of Transport and myself to effect a change and to put the matter on a new and fairer basis and that is being done in these two clauses. The following clause to which I want to refer is Clause 6 dealing with our contributions to Unrra. As hon. members know we have undertaken to contribute certain amounts to the fund established for the reconstruction of countries devastated by the war. The basis on which we have agreed entails that we have to find altogether £4½ million, of course not all at the same time. But according to the agreement 90 per cent. of the amount is to be found by way of payment for purchases within the country contributing. For that purpose and in order to fulfil our obligations and to assist Unrra, part of our war supplies which can be made good use of, will be handed to them and the price thereof will be credited against the amount of our contributions. Clause 6 of the Bill provides for that. I now come to Clause 18, the purpose of which is to make provision for a further deterrent in the case of offences in regard to receiving stolen property or evading taxation. It is proposed that the court will be empowered in serious cases of this nature to order the cancellation of the licence of such a business. The proposal was made after consultation with the Chamber of Commerce which first of all brought the matter to my notice, especially in regard to stolen property. Clauses 19 and 20 deal with the collection of native taxation. So far that was done by the Commissioner for Inland Revenue although the actual work was done by the Department of Native Affairs. It is now proposed to transfer the full responsibility to the Departement of Native Affairs. Then I just want to refer to the group of Clauses 28 to 31 which deal with certain provisions in the Prescription Act of 1943. That Act reduced the period of prescription in certain cases and also made the reduction applicable to the State; for instance the period of prescription in regard to the instruments relating to advances and loans in the Transvaal, was reduced from thirty years to eight years. That is quite reasonable as far as ordinary creditors are concerned, but the State is not an ordinary creditor, especially not as far as its State Advances Recoveries Office is concerned. Some of our farmers have been rehabilitated and it is not our policy to harass people for the payment of their debts. That means that you sometimes find debtors who cannot yet pay after eight years. If the Act remains as it was passed two years ago, the State will, in order to interrupt prescription, have to take action against all its debtors before the end of the period of eight years, which of course is not desirable. Where therefore the State is in a different position from the ordinary creditor, it is fair that the period of prescription shall be longer in the case of the State and that is also desirable for the debtor. For that reason we propose to amend the Act as far as the State is concerned in such a way that the period will be increased to fifteen years, but that will of course not apply to the renewal of debts which have been prescribed as a result of the provisions of the Act of 1943. That has been done, but we think that in future it will be in the interests of all concerned that the period will be lengthened as far as State debts are concerned.

Have there been cases where the State has already suffered losses under that provision?

There have been, but the amount is relatively small.

Have those people been relieved of their debt?

It would be unfair to revive those debts, for the right was there under the Act. When the Act was passed we did not think that it would apply to the State. That was only discovered later, but it would be unfair to go back on that and it will be in the real interests of the State and the debtors to extend the period in future. There were some cases where people could have made use of this mistake and it would not have been fair to go back on that, but for the future the period will now be extended. It is unnecessary to go into further detail now but we can do so during the Committee Stage.

The manner in which matters are dealt with in this House at present compel me to say, like the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) said the other day: “We are now proceeding with indecent haste”. This Bill affects about twenty other Acts and emergency matters. If this House were to do its duty we would have to investigate twenty special Acts and emergency matters in order to find out what is the meaning of every change proposed here. We only received this Bill on Monday. Yesterday I did my best in the time at my disposal to get acquainted with the contents. All I am able to say at the moment is that in the twenty-five amendments of existing Acts which are proposed here there is nothing of such a fudamental nature that I consider it the duty of this side of the House to fight this Bill during every stage. That is all I can say at the present moment. I have satisfied myself that there is nothing of such a fundamental nature that we must oppose the Bill at every stage, but I am not yet satisfied what is the meaning and what are the implications of each of the amendments proposed here. There are a few points on which I want to say one or two words. The Minister gives us time until Friday morning in order to study the Bill more fully and that suffices for the moment. In this Bill there are three amendments which are being effected at the request of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I am in complete agreement with them.

That shows that we do take notice of your work.

That is correct. As far as Clause 6 is concerned, which refers to Unrra, I must tell the Minister that we have very serious misgivings in regard to Unrra, not serious misgivings because we are being asked to make a contribution to alleviate suffering in the devastated countries. That is not our objection. We are prepared also from our side to assist to alleviate the misery and suffering which have come over this world as a result of the war, but there are two things about which we feel somewhat uneasy. The first one is that it is not proposed to alleviate the misery and suffering where they occur, on their merits. It seems to me that a discrimination is being made between those who are in want and are suffering, and as soon as that is done you should not come here to ask in the name of Christianity that we should give assistance, for in that case Christian principles are no longer the basis of such assistance. It is Christian and humane to ask for assistance in alleviating all want and suffering. If that is the attitude which Unrra will take up we are prepared to assist but if there is going to be discrimination between the sufferings and misery of the one people and those of the other people, then we must take up a definite attitude against Unrra. In the second place right through the world criticism is heard against the manner in which the money is being spent and accepted. There is hardly a responsible government in this world which does not feel uneasy about the manner in which money is being spent in connection with Unrra, and the Minister cannot expect this Parliament to put large sums, amounting to millions of pounds, in the hands of an organisation which does not apply that money in a proper way. I should like to see the Minister satisfy us on those two points during the second reading, namely that the money is intended for all suffering and want in the whole world as a result of the war. Or is there going to be differentiation, are there certain nations whose want and suffering do not concern us at all and where we are not going to assist at all? In the second place I want the Minister to give us the assurance that the Union Government will do everything in its power to see that this organisation will function in such a way that we can have confidence in the spending of the money. I should like the Minister to satisfy us in regard to these two questions. As far as the fifth paragraph in the memorandum of this Bill is concerned, I should like to have a discussion about that with the Minister and the Commissioner for Inland Revenue during the Committee Stage, for a certain measure of unrest and concern exists among trade and industrial circles in regard to the exceptional powers which the Commissioner will have in connection with the evasion of taxation and the penalties which may be imposed. I shall make use of the Committee Stage to discuss those matters very thoroughly here and there are certain aspects on which the Minister will have to satisfy us. As far as the prescription is concerned, that is a matter which came before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We investigated it and in principle we agree with the Minister. I do not think it is in the interest of the people who borrowed money from the Government or in the interest of the State that such debts shall lapse by prescription. During the Committee Stage I shall go into the other matters.

I will confine myself to the provision which is made in Clause 6 in connection with the allocation of certain surplus supplies to Unrra. This matter was discussed last Session. Already I think an amount of something like £1,000,000 has been voted by this House.

£500,000.

But I understand that another £750,000 must be found.

No, another £500,000 must be found. It will amount to £1,000,000.

Well then, it will be £1,000,000 which is being voted by this House for the purpose. We are now asked to allocate surplus supplies.

Not all the surplus supplies.

That is precisely one of my objections to that clause. There is no provision as to the quantity of these surplus supplies to be allocated. According to information in the Press it would appear that there are already surplus supplies to the value of £10,000,000 available, and that figure can still be exceeded. Thus if this Act goes through, we are giving the Government a free hand in connection with the quantity of surplus supplies which will be allocated to Unrra. When the vote “Economic Development” was under discussion, the question of war supplies was discussed, and it was pointed out by hon. members on this side that there are a large number of indigent people in South Africa. I will leave the matter there for the moment. The difficulty confronting us as regards this request which has been directed to us, is the total lack of information which we, and I believe the Government and the hon. Minister as well, have in connection with this organisation. The Unrra organisation was established with a view to granting emergency relief, but according to the statement which was made by the Minister of Economic Development two years ago, the money for Unrra will not only be used for emergency relief but also for economic reconstruction; in other words, the money will also be used to set the wheels of industry going again in the occupied countries. Therefore it is not merely a question of emergency relief. That we must understand fully. It is not charity in the full sense of the word. Then there is an important provision in connection with Unrra, namely that the money will only be spent in those countries which were occupied by Germany. Now that the war is over, rehabilitation in a country like Germany must of necessity also take place, but the position is that the money which we are voting here will not be used for emergency relief in Germany or Austria. On the contrary, we had the declaration recently from an American general who acted there as Commander-in-Chief that the policy will be to keep the German population just above the bread line.

Hear, hear.

We pay no attention to that type of remark. I mention this because it is an important proviso in connection with the whole scheme. Then I come to the more practical aspects of the Unrra question. Like many other schemes of a similar nature it has wonderful ideals and at the time it was heralded in glowing terms. We were told as regards Unrra that it is the greatest example in world history as regards the practice of humanitarian principles, mercy and charity, and so on. A United Nations conference was held in Atlantic City, and there too wonderful resolutions were passed. If you read what was said at the time, you cannot do otherwise than think of the similar wonderful words, the wonderful ideals and the wonderful resolutions which we had in connection with the Atlantic Charter, and later again at Yalta, and also in connection with the San Francisco Conference. In view of the experience which we have had in connection with the Atlantic Charter, Yalta and San Francisco, which has practically reached a deadlock, we are entitled to ask whether we are not following the same path in the case of Unrra, but with this difference that the Atlantic Charter did not cost us any money; it is only its principles which have been thrown overboard, among others by our own Prime Minister. But it did not cost us anything. Now, however, we are asked to contribute over £2,000,000. Therefore Unrra is certainly going to cost the country money, and we have the right to ask, especially in view of the hopeless lack of knowledge which has also been made manifest by the Government, whether Unrra is not also treading the same path as Yalta, San Francisco and the Atlantic Charter. We speak from experience. This organisation was established two years ago. In 1944, last year, we raised the matter in the House. It was raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), by me, by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and others, and we asked the Prime Minister for information. On that occasion we made it clear, and again today we emphasise the fact, that we are not opposed in any way to the ideals behind Unrra, but that we definitely have our suspicions about the organisation itself, and we are not voicing those suspicions for the first time. In 1944 we asked for information. The Prime Minister was unable to give us the information. Again this afternoon I read through the Prime Minister’s speech on that occasion. He could tell us nothing, except what we had read the Press ourselves. And now today I want to ask, as was also asked by the hon. member for George, whether the Acting Prime Minister, after the passage of two years, is in a position to enlighten us a little more as regards this organisation. Last year the Prime Minister could not give us the information. I say, therefore, that we want more information. We place ourselves in the position of any business man who is approached with a wonderful scheme, one or other benevolent scheme, and I ask whether there is any business man on the other side as well who would not desire beforehand full particulars of any scheme before he invested a pênny therein. Even if he were in favour of the scheme, he would first make enquiries about it. Would he not first want to know what the organisation is? Not one of the members on the other side would contribute £5 to any benevolent scheme, if he did not know in what manner the money was to be used. And that is our difficulty in connection with Unrra. We find ourselves in complete ignorance, and the Government is just as ignorant. Two years have now passed since the organisation was initiated and we know nothing about it. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what has been done so far; who has been helped and who is going to be helped. What we do know is that serious criticism has been levelled at Unrra. The criticism has not only come from this side, but also from the Australian Minister of External Affairs. For a long time now we have had our suspicions, but here we have serious criticism coming from other quarters. The Australian Minister of External Affairs complained about the over centralisation of that organisation. We know that he spoke of the top-heavy bureaucracy, incidentally the same criticism which I made in my speech yast year. I particularly devoted my speech to that aspect of the matter. Now there is the statement by the Australian Minister of External Affairs about the top-heavy bureaucracy which has been called into being and which is going to absorb a good deal of that money. He referred to “the crisis in Unrra, its activities and functions”; he spoke of “the signs or frustration and disillusionment”. It was a Sapa report which appeared in “Die Burger” and I will translate it as I go along. He spoke of “signs of frustration and disillusionment”. When the Australian Minister of External Affairs uses such language; when he expresses his anxiety in such a way, is it not then our duty as Opposition to point out that things are not as they should be in connection with that organisation, particularly where you have a docile Party on the other side which swallows everything the Minister of Finance says? Can we be expected, in view of that criticism, to simply vote money blindly for that organisation? Can it be expected of us? Speaking for myself, I say that I am not prepared to vote that money blindly in view of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge which exists. May I also refer to the remark made by the “Economist”. There is not one member on the other side who will not admit that the “Economist” is not just a second-class paper. The “Economist” is a paper which speaks authoritatively. It is a paper which is often quoted from by hon. members on the other side. The “Economist” said: “Unrra itself has need of rehabilitation”. Far from that Unrra should rehabilitate other people, the “Economist” says that Unrra itself has need of rehabilitation! But we are now asked to give the Minister a blank cheque blindly and to say: “Give to Unrra those war supplies which we have need of ourselves.” Then I want to point out that there is another aspect of the matter. We on this side, especially when it concerns emergency relief in Europe, are more particularly interested in helping the Western nations from which we are descended, including Germany. [Interruptions.] …. the nation from which the Acting Prime Minister is descended, a nation from which the Allied Commanderin-Chief, Gen. Eisenhower, is descended. We are interested in the rehabilitation of the people in France, Holland, Belgium, and I add also the civilian population of Germany. I make no apology when I say this. We are interested in the Western nations, and what do we find? We find that the Director-General of Unrra, a certain Mr. Lehmann, stated—

We have also received reports that for the moment no assistance is being given in Holland, Belgium and France. It is said that they would rather make direct arrangements with England or the United States of America.

You were not interested in Holland when it was invaded.

We are asked to contribute money as well as an unlimited quantity of supplies. But there is another aspect which has not yet been mentioned in connection with this debate, namely this. It has been arranged that all countries shall contribute 1 per cent. of the national revenue. Good. What assurance have we that as regards Unrra we will not have precisely the same experience as we had with the League of Nations? Let the Acting Prime Minister go to the Department of External Affairs, and find out how many of the members of the League of Nations ever paid their annual contributions. South Africa is one of a small group who paid its £25,000 or £26,000 every year, but there are countries like China for example which, as far as I know, have never paid. But let us put China aside, for they are a different type of people. There were some of the South American Republics who for years did not pay their contributions. What assurance have we that as regards Unrra we will not have the same state of affairs; and that South Africa, always true to its obligations, will make its contributions while other countries will not do so? These are things which we must not lose sight of. I also want to repeat what I emphasised last year in connection with the administration costs. The Prime Minister may say that it is limited to 10 per cent., but there is undoubtedly, according to the statement made by the Australian Minister of External Affairs, large, unnecessary expenditure in connection with the administration of this body. Last year I referred to the swarm of directors and under-directors, director-generals and under-director-generals. It almost sounds like the control system in South Africa and perhaps it is still worse! We know the annoyance our control system in South Africa has caused. I say that as regards Unrra a system of bureaucracy has been called into being, and that I am not satisfied that we should simply have to vote blindly, without being furnished with more information on those points. And then there is another matter in that connection which I am compelled to mention. I shall again be accused of racialism, but to me a disturbing factor in the whole Unrra affair is this—and I think it is an aspect which everyone is concerned about —namely the great measure of Jewish influence which exists in that organisation. The head of Unrra is a certain Mr. Lehmann, a Jew. We saw in the local papers that a certain Mr. Katzin, formerly of South Africa, has now been appointed as underdirector-general in Europe. According to the names which I have seen in American periodicals a number of the high positions in Unrra are occupied by Jews. You can accuse me of racialism, or whatever else you like, but I say that I feel concerned, where we are dealing with an organisation which is going to handle hundreds of millions of pounds, that there are so many Jews at the head of it. It also happened in South Africa. When six helpers had to be sent to work in the Middle East, four out of the six who were sent were Jewesses, and the choice of those people was left to the Jewish Board of Deputies. I raised the matter earlier on during this Session. I asked the Prime Minister why that particular body was selected to choose the people, and the Prime Minister assured me that that was not the case, that it was purely a coincidence. Hon. members will remember that the Prime Minister and I exchanged words on the matter, and he gave me all kinds of assurances, as he alone can give an assurance—you know how well he can deny anything; butter would not have melted in his mouth—and he gave me this assurance: “My hon. friend is quite wrong; there is no such thing; it is purely a coincidence.” He even said that a number of Jews attended a tea party at the Carlton Hotel, and that it created a wrong impression. Naturally I could only read to him the Sapa report which I had. And what happened? While he was speaking here, a letter appeared in “New Era”, written by the Secretary of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies. I will not read the whole letter, but in this letter it is admitted that the Jewish Board of Deputies was actually asked to select these persons. They were asked by the Red Cross to choose these people. Here is the letter signed by Mr. J. M. Rich, the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies.

That was certainly not always his surname.

No, possibly it is a changed name. In view of these facts, in view of the concern which has been shown in other countries and the lack of information, I say that we would like more information and more certainty on the matter. I will repat, and it is necessary to repeat it in order to avoid any further misrepresentations such as we have had in the past. I repeat that we are not opposed to granting help, but we want the emergency relief to be effective; we want it to be allocated in the right manner and that there should be no wastage of money. In our own country we have people who deserve emergency relief. There is an English proverb which says: “Charity begins at home”, and here in our own country there are people suffering hunger. Here in our country there are people who are without homes. I say that with the facts which I have given I have submitted a prima facie case, namely that there is uncertainty as regards Unrra, and in view of the uncertainty which exists, I say that we must think twice before we spend millions of pounds, while in our country we have people who deserve emergency relief.

We have just listened to another characteristic speech of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Like the Fat Boy in the Pickwick Papers he is always trying to make our flesh creep. If he were to look round when he is speaking he will find that even his own side takes no notice of him, and even the country certainly takes very little interest in what the hon. member for Beaufort West says. But if the hon. member believes that loyal South Africans are going to be interested in the fate of the Germans, in how much food the Germans are going to get, he has another guess coming to him. The Germans are going to be treated in this war as unspeakable, persons, in fact no South African sailor or soldier in Germany today is allowed to speak to the Germans. No one belonging to the Allied troops is allowed to speak to the Germans. If he does, he is to be punished. I do not want to waste my time on the hon. member. I want to speak to the hon. Minister if he will give me his ear for a moment and if his Chief Whip will kindly move away.

His master’s voice.

I do not want to say anything against the Income Tax Department because I believe it is the most efficient department in the country, but under this Clause 18 a man can now be fined, put into gaol and his licence can be taken away from him. I hardly think that a clause of that nature should appear in an Omnibus Bill. Parliament is always afraid of an Omnibus Bill. It is one of the tricks which Ministers employ to slip something in. It is an old dodge and one which has been employed ever since I have been in this House. When a Minister wants to get in something very hot, it is put into the Omnibus Bill. Can the Minister justify this before the country that we have three punishments—first of all there is the treble taxation, a fine or imprisonment and then the man’s licence may be taken away. I think if the Minister wants to get this Session over, he will be well advised to omit that provision, because he will hear a lot about this clause from both sides of the House.

Speak for yourself.

We do not like this type of legislation, the House does not like this type of legislation, the House does not like people who make mistakes to be too severely punished. We do not do that sort of thing in South Africa. The Income Tax Commissioner and his friends are going to get nothing out of this. It will only make the Department and the Government unpopular, and why should the Income Tax Department which is doing a first-class job, be hated by the people. Today the Department is known as the Collectors of Revenue, but if this clause goes through they will be called tax gatherers. We have never had a provision of this kind in South Africa, and moreover there are not so many evasions that they cannot be treated by means of the treble tax. We are now coming along with one of the most savage paragraphs that I have seen in any measure in the whole of my long Parliamentary career. This clause provides that the man’s licence may be taken away in addition to the treble tax and the fine or the sentence of imprisonment. I want to point out to the Minister that sometimes you get very stern judges, and they will follow this clause literally. South Africa does not do that type of thing. I ask the Minister to think very carefully and consult his advisers and to withdraw this clause. I know I am speaking on behalf of large numbers of members in this House. When they saw this clause they were astounded and even shocked.

I had not intended to rise, but I would just like to say that I very much regret that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has again brought in the charge that he seems not to be able to keep out of any of his speeches. One is reminded of the ancient Roman Senate where Cato began everyone of his speeches by saying: “Carthage must be destroyed,” and one may say of the hon. member for Beaufort West that he cannot make a speech without bringing in the Jewish community or the representative body which is recognised by all men of goodwill as the spokesman of South African Jewry, the Jewish Board of Deputies. The hon. member tried to make out that there was a conflict between the statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the letter that was sent to the Nationalist paper for publication. First of all I would like to point out that there is no material conflict whatsoever. In essentials the statement made by the Prime Minister and the statement in the letter sent in independently to the paper that was referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West were exactly the same, and any man of goodwill will recognise that instead of trying to pick out a point for purposes of confusing and not for purposes of reasonable discussion, one must remember that that letter, which was sent to the paper referred to by the hon. member for Beaufort West, was written in answer to a direct attack made in that same paper on the Jewish Board of Deputies, as if the Jewish Board of Deputies had some sinister influence in securing these positions for Jewish people. The Government is not concerned in it one iota. The Government has not contributed anything towards the salaries or the expenses of these officials, and the Jewish Board of Deputies was asked, as was quite natural, when there are Jewish names as applicants for appointment by any public body, whether those persons were fit and proper persons. It is perfectly natural for any body that wants to be quite sure whether the persons concerned are fit and proper persons, to ask the Jewish Board of Deputies whether they are fit and proper persons.

Why should you be appointed?

These people were appointed because they were best fitted for the job. They were not appointed because they are Jews. They were appointed because they were the persons best fitted for that position. It was natural that the Jewish Board of Deputies should be asked whether they were fit and proper persons. As regards the Deputy-Director-General of Unrra, to try and cast an insult on a gallant soldier like Col. Katzin, who was selected purely on his merits and not because he is a Jew, but because he has shown himself to be a master of economics and administration. I say that does no credit to the hon. member. He has risen to one of the most distinguished positions that can be offered in Europe, the Deputy-Director-General of Unrra and instead of hon. members of this House saying what a magnificent thing that is for South Africa that a South African has risen to that position, they can only say he is a Jew, and therefore there is something sinister about it. It is that type of mentality which is causing ruin in this country. That Katzin is a Jew is a mere accident, no doubt a handicap in the minds of people like those hon. members opposite. Some other very distinguished men were appointed by America. They were not appointed because they were Jews but because they look round for a man and if they find the man or woman most suited for the job they appoint him, irrespective of race or religion. That is the only sound method of making appointments. But I only rose on the point to say that the hon. member, in thinking that the Prime Minister’s version and the version of the Board of Deputies differ materially from each other, is entirely wrong. There were a number of people who applied. Out of these a selection had to be made and the Board of Deputies actually adjudicated on those names. No appointments were made by the board.

It was not reported like that in the papers.

That is just prejudice. I pity those hon. members, for I feel that hatred is something which destroys, and what happened in Germany shows that people who are full of race hatred hot only destroy the object of their hate but destroy themselves.

I would like to refer briefly to Clause 6 which enables surplus military stores to be sent to Unrra, and I Would like to suggest that it would be a mistake to send clothing in the very early stages. I think the natives and the lower income groups in this country should have the first preference to obtain any surplus military clothing, that we have in South Africa. I think we can make a very fine gesture. I do not know whether this can be done by an extension of this clause or independently, but I certainly think we should make a contribution of food. We could today very well spare some of the supplies of food we have in this country and particularly some of the surplus meat with which our cold storages are absolutely filled. We find that many of our farmers are not able to send cattle to market because the cold storages are full of meat. There a very useful contribution should be made to Unrra, but I do not want it to be suggested that we are giving away something we are anxious to get rid of. I think we should be proud to be able to make a contribution of that kind. I feel that our Government would be supported by the country generally in making a contribution of this kind. The attitude of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) reminds me of the attitude of many people who, when the collector comes round, like to turn their backs. They make the excuse and say they will not contribute because someone is associated with the relief whom they do not like. I think that is a poor attitude to adopt. I hope that the Government will face the question of making a very generous contribution not only to Unrra but to Britain or any country which has fought our battles for us and has suffered much more than we have done.

This matter was raised last year, and at the time we put various questions to the Government in order to obtain information as regards the whole position. Unfortunately we did not receive much information. The Minister will know that doubt existed as to Russia’s attitude towards Unrra. Russia declared that she saw no necessity for Unrra performing relief work in the areas in her immediate vicinity; that if relief work had to be performed there, she would do it herself.

Unrra is also performing work in Poland.

At that time Russia expressed her disapproval at the establishment of this movement for relief work. We would like to know what Russia’s attitude is towards Unrra. Are they kindly disposed towards it and will they allow this money to be expended in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Southern Slovakia and so on, which fall under Russia’s influence? Then there is another matter. We would like to know why the governments of Holland and Belgium and also that of Scandinavia have not looked upon this relief work with complete goodwill. This House receives very little information from the Government and we would like to know. It is clear that the hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) knows very little about it. We have raised this matter in order to obtain clarity as regards the position, and now the hon. member is trying to throw suspicion on us. It is strange that there is one type of person who practically controls this matter. Then there is another matter which we want to bring to the Minister’s attention. We want to ask him whether only the Jewish Board of Deputies was consulted, or other societies as well? If they alone were consulted, then I would like to know why only they were consulted and not other societies in the country as well who are interested in these affairs. The Jewish population represents only 7 per cent. of the population, and why should they be asked to provide people? No, the whole affair looks very suspicious. We on this side are prepared to grant emergency relief where it is needed. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will not divert us from those views. It is our Christian duty to do so. Where hunger must be allayed in a country, then it is our duty to do so where the need is the greatest. Before this second reading is accepted, we would very much like to know these things, for in the Committee Stage we will again deal with the matter. Last year the information available as regards Unrra was very scanty, and it seems to me that it is now still as scanty as it was before.

I would like to refer the Minister to Clauses 23, 24 and 25 in connection with the marketing method and the amendments which are introduced in this Finance Bill. Whereas I welcome the fact that accounts will now be laid on the Table of the House, and also the report of the Marketing Council, I feel that this should go one step further and that publicity should be given to both the reports and the audited accounts of the various boards. I feel that what we need is a healthy atmosphere, which would be encouraged by publishing these reports and when comments and criticisms are made by the public and those sections of industry or trade, or the producer sections who are interested. At present there is secrecy attached to them by their being only laid on the Table of the House and I would ask the Minister if he would consider an amendment in the Committee Stage to this effect.

In the main this debate has centred around one article, namely Clause 6 in connection with Unrra. The question of Unrra has been discussed in general, although all that we actually want to do here, is to stipulate that, with relation to the fulfilment of our obligations, a portion of our surplus war supplies can be used. That is all that is actually proposed here. It has been said that the acceptance of this clause will result in no restriction being placed on the quantity of war supplies which we would be able to use for this purpose. That is not correct. If the hon. member refers to Clause 4 he will see that there definitely is a limitation as regards the supplies and financial contributions which we can place at the disposal of Unrra, namely a total amount of £4½ million.

I know that, but that was not my point.

At any rate that was the impression that my hon. friend gave me.

No, I know that there is a restriction on the total amount, but there is no restriction as to the quantity of war supplies which will form part of the total amount.

That is correct, but there is a restriction as regards the sum total, namely £4½ million. Naturally I cannot say now how much we will find by way of surplus war supplies. It will, however, be in our interest to cover our obligations in this manner.

But you must not send cheap clothes over there which are needed by our own people.

I am coming to that. The hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) rightly said that we must not do this at the cost of our own population who have need of those articles. I can readily assure you that this will not happen. We are making provision for those sections of our population, but we will be stranded with an accumulation of goods which we cannot dispose of here, unless it occurs at the expense of our local industries, and in that event it will be in our interest to export the goods through Unrra. This proposal in the Bill, taken merely on its own, is most certainly in the interest of South Africa.

But they want our shoes at half the cost price.

We will look after our interests as regards the prices. We will not give the goods away. The price which they pay is regarded as a portion of the amount to which we are committed, and my hon. friend can take it that we will definitely be wary as far as the prices are concerned. In connection with the general question certain matters were raised, and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) put certain questions to me. In the first place he asked whether it was the intention that Unrra will discriminate in the provision of relief assistance. That question amounts to this: What is the position going to be of former enemy countries?

Will relief work also be done in those countries?

Unrra has the power to assist those countries. It is already doing so as regards Italy. As far as Germany is concerned, the position is that for the first six months it is the duty of the military authorities to make provision for emergency relief. That problem therefore has not yet arisen. But it is also possible for Unrra to assist former enemy countries with relief.

But does the hon. Minister know that America contributed to Unrra on the condition that former enemy countries would not be assisted?

Then that condition has been violated as far as Italy is concerned.

But she is now one of their friends.

But she was an enemy country. The resolution of the executive of Unrra is such that in certain circumstances they can also undertake relief work in enemy countries. I do not say that they are going to do so, but it is possible.

If you send South African foodstuffs to Germany, there will be a revolution.

The second question was this: Will the Government do everything in its power to ensure that the Unrra organisation functions effectively; we will naturally do that. It is true that much criticism has been levelled at Unrra and that Dr. Evatt expressed an opinion in that connection. That criticism came to the ears of the Minister of External Affairs and he made enquiries, and he himself also enquired into the matter overseas to satisfy himself in regard to the matter. He then decided that we should carry on with the assistance we had undertaken to grant to Unrra. For that reason we have made provision on the supplementary estimates for a further half a million pounds. But that aspect of the matter will certainly be taken heed of. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) raised the question of the possibility of Unrra’s moneys being used not only for relief but also for rehabilitation; in other words, Unrra can provide money to help local industries in those countries which have need of help. That is correct. But the position is that this will only occur in as far as those industries make provision for local requirements. Then he said that South Africa would pay, but that other countries would possibly fail to do so. Well, I can only say that I have a long list of countries who have joined and who have already appropriated the amounts which are necessary for their payments. It looks as though it is happening fairly generally. As regards countries like Australia and New Zealand, which are practically on a par with South Africa, we know that they have already appropriated the full amounts, while this year we have only reached 25 per cent. The comparison is therefore not very favourable for us.

I was entitled to raise the matter in relation to what happened as regards the League of Nations.

Yes, we know that those things happened in another connection, and I understand why the hon. member raised the matter. But, as I said, we do not compare too favourably with countries like Australia and New Zealand.

They did it by Act of Parliament.

I do not know how they did it. Perhaps my hon. friend is right. In our case the practice is to make the amounts available by way of yearly appropriations. The question was also asked as to whether Russia is well disposed towards Unrra. I can only say that arrangements have certainly been made for Unrra to proceed with its work in countries like Poland and Southern Slovakia which definitely fall within Russia’s sphere of influence. We can deduce therefore that Russia is not unfavourably disposed.

Russia will not mind if you give their people food.

Russia is not a country which is going to benefit from it, but a country such as Poland will do so. As regards the choice of persons who are serving under Unrra, my information in connection with that matter is that those persons are chosen by a body which is called The Council for Voluntary Relief Work. It consists of members of the Red Cross and of the S.A.W.A.S. The aim of that body is to participate in the organisation and co-ordination of the work. It is the body which selects people. In any case I cannot go into the matter any further.

Why do they appoint Jews?

Quite possibly they also appoint Jews, but as far as the Government is concerned, we have only worked through that council.

Is S.A.W.A.S. not a semiState organisation?

No, it does not fall under the Government.

Is it not part of the Defence Department?

It co-operates with the Defence Department, but it is not under our control.

I do not blame the Government. I say that that organisation specially invited the Jewish Board of Deputies, and my argument is that the Jewish influence is very strong in the uppermost circles of Unrra.

That may be, but as regards the Government, we work with the council. The hon. member for George also raised a question in connection with Clause 18. I want to point out to him that Clause 18 grants no additional powers to the commissioner. It does not affect the question of the powers which he enjoys. It only affects the power Of the court.

The commissioner already has too many powers.

In any case this Bill has nothing to do with the commissioner.

†As I was saying a moment ago Clause 18 does not give additional powers to the commissioner. It gives powers to the courts and I cannot see why there should be such strong objection for the courts to have this jurisdiction to apply a penalty. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has raised a question in regard to Clause 23. It seems to me that that is a matter which had better be considered when the further amendment of the Marketing Act as a whole comes up for discussion next year.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 7th June.

I may say that I may have to rise on a number of clauses but I hope the Minister will not think I am attacking him. On the question of certain definitions in Clause 1, we have here in line 19 a definition of “dwelling”. It appeared in the old Housing Act and although it does not give a clear definition the point is that a dwelling as such is not so much what is described in words as an actual construction. My point is that I hope we will get a statement from the Minister as to the type of dwellings it is hoped to erect under this Act. In the past, under the old Housing Act of 1920, we have had a number of housing schemes. I am referring to the Jan Hofmeyr in Johannesburg, the Epping Gardens, Cape Town, the Morris Friedman, etc. One does not like to use the term but one cannot help but knowing that these housing schemes have often been described as white locations. It is sincerely to be hoped that that is not the type of dwelling it is intended to erect. If I am not mistaken I think that the majority of these houses will be occupied by returned soldiers. They have sacrificed all their pleasures and private life and we do not want to house them in a white location. I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of what type of house it is intended to erect. Before sitting down I would draw the Minister’s attention to some of these private housing schemes. One is contemplated in Parkhurst, Johannesburg, at the moment. I have seen the plans and pictures of these houses and they are not in accord with the South African standard, the standard we would like to maintain. I believe the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) saw them and used very strong language. We must not allow that sort of thing to happen. To erect “pondokkies” for returned soldiers is not right. When erecting these national houses, we must also see that they will vary and that there will not be that monotonous outlook about them, but that they are different in design. Let us hope that the Minister will give us some idea of what type of house he contemplates under the Bill.

Before replying to the hon. member I would like to say that when we come to Clause 2, I intend to move that the sub-sections should be taken seriatim. I think that will be to the convenience of hon. members. The hon. member has asked me what type of house the Commission contemplates building or approving, if the house is to be built by the local’ authorities. “Dwelling” is defined in the Housing Act itself and that definition has been taken over in this Bill, and the hon. member will see that it is defined that dwelling includes a building which when constructed, adapted or enlarged does not contain more than five living rooms, together with a kitchen and the usual appurtenances, out-buildings, fences, etc. I hope the hon. member will agree with me that for the purposes of national housing a house with five living rooms, apart from the kitchen, etc., is of adequate size.

Is a dining-room included in the five?

No, that is the maximum. The Bill prescribes what a dwelling is. We are contemplating building dwellings and the maximum size is defined. So far as building by private enterprise is concerned the only limitations upon those are laid down at present by the building controller and permits are not given in excess of 2,000 square feet. The commission has a number of plans for submission to the local authorities and to be used by themselves. I entirely agree that we do not want to build rows and rows of monotonous houses all to the same design. The commission realises that, and is busy at present on schemes for so arranging the lay-out that any idea of monotony is eliminated.

In connection with the size of the houses, I want to ask the Minister whether farmers will now be able to build larger houses on the farms, farmers who have waited for years to be able to build houses; will this still fall under the Minister of Public Works? Many farmers have not built because the size of houses permitted would be impracticable for farms. If the scheme is now accepted and started, will the control as far as the farmers are concerned still rest with the Minister of Public Works? I am not speaking now of houses to which the State contributes, but which people build themselves.

It this respect the present position will continue. Permits for private dwellings will be issued by the Building Controller, and therefore it falls under the Minister of Public Works. Our aim, however, is to appoint an executive committee, comprising inter alia of the Under-Building Controller, and the purpose will be to help all private people with the building of essential houses.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move—

Agreed to.

Sub-section (1) put.

I take it we will first deal with sub-section (1), and I would like at the outset to say in general that where such powers are asked for, and this relates to all the clauses, by which “the Governor-General may by proclamation issue regulations as to certain matters”, powers are being granted to the Minister in connection with the building of houses which are practically unlimited. We do not know what the proclamations will be, nor do we know what direction they will take. It is indicated here only in certain groups, the possibilities are indicated, but the powers which the Minister can take are not specified. Accordingly we feel in general that if we were to try to propose amendments to the paragraphs of the sub-sections, by so doing we would practically take the responsibility in connection with, and give our approval to, the method which is being followed, and from the debate at the second reading it was clear that we on this side are not in favour of such powers being given. Accordingly we cannot try to make verbal alterations to try to further define the Minister’s powers or to extend them, for then we give our approval to the method. Therefore, while we want to try to protect the authority of Parliament as far as possible, while we want Parliament to retain control over the powers which are being taken by the Minister we cannot try now to curtail the powers by amendments, because however careful we were to couch our amendments, the Minister would still have the power by proclamation to do something different to what was intended by any proposal which we might make here. It is not possible for us in this respect to endeavour to produce clarity out of the complete vagueness in which Parliament and the country find themselves as regards the powers which are afforded under Clause 2. We are still of opinion that the Minister ought to define every power, and that without proclamations he should determine every phase of the requirements for the building of houses in the Bill. If the Minister does not see his way clear to do that, we are not in a position to make proposals which may perhaps create the impression that we are giving our approval to the method which is being followed. Therefore we will vote against the clause, for we want to try to preserve the authority of Parliament, and as far as possible to restrict the Minister, but we are not in a position to propose amendments as we would like to do.

I hope the Minister is not going to restrict this housing scheme to the towns, and I hope that he will make a special attempt to extend it as far as possible to the platteland. In the past we managed to have houses provided for bywoners on the farms through a former government. It was an outstanding and ideal scheme, which enabled many people who would otherwise have migrated to the towns to remain on the platteland. But apart from this, we have still had no provision on the part of the Government as regards the needs of housing for labourers on farms, in spite of the fact that repeated attempts have been made by the platteland, and especially by means of the agricultural unions and farmers’ organisations, to get a scheme by which the platteland can be helped with housing. We have never succeeded in doing so, and I cherish the hope that in connection with his housing scheme the Minister will seriously consider devising an acceptable and convenient platteland scheme, under which we will be enabled to provide the necessary housing for people on the platteland. This does not only apply to people who are today living on the platteland and who in many cases have to make do with a poor class of house, but I am thinking as well of the numbers who will be able to return to the platteland on demobilisation and also others who will be drawn away from the towns by better housing on the platteland and who will settle there. It is so easy to initiate a scheme for the platteland because the platteland will see to the building of the houses itself. In the towns the Government or the local bodies will have to be called upon to make provision for housing, but if there is a platteland scheme which is acceptable enough, the farmers themselves will build houses, and we will not have the difficulties which you have to contend with in the towns, shortage of labour and all the other difficulties in connection with the building of houses. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the difference. When we have a housing scheme for the platteland, then the farmers are in a position to provide their housing and their labourers’ housing themselves, but when you have a housing scheme for the town, then the local bodies and the Government have to make provision for the labourers and for the housing in the towns. And if the Government is prepared to make provision, then it must also look after the platteland and the housing of labourers on the platteland. A scheme will be very much cheaper on the platteland than in the towns, because the costs are much lower on the platteland. There are many farmers who are too poor to erect housing for their labourers, but if housing were ensured on the platteland, we would also thereby prevent people migrating to the towns and causing a surplus of labour in the towns, while they will be kept on the platteland to a large extent if housing is provided for. It is a well-known fact that there is a migration from the platteland to the towns, and it is quite natural in the circumstances. The people are drawn to the towns by better conveniences and higher wages. It is our duty to develop the platteland to retain a sound economical agricultural structure there, and if we want to do that, we must provide the necessary conveniences on the platteland, as far as is within our power. As soon as difficult times come, you get unemployment in the towns and such conditions that the Government has to step in and local authorities experience great difficulties, and they have to grasp at any remedy to lessen the unemployment; it has often happened in bad times that people have been taken out of the towns to go and work on the platteland; it has happened in the Western Province and elsewhere as well; but it has never happened that there has been unemployment on the platteland. The people who are settled on the plattedand never form a problem of unemployment. Cost of living is much more expensive in the towns, and we must prevent people as far as possible from migrating from the platteland to the towns, where they often become a burden for local authorities, and make the housing problem bigger. The food which is produced on the platteland has to be transported to the towns over long distances, and water has also to be brought to the towns, all of these are factors which make the cost of living higher than on the platteland. We are aware that the wages on the platteland have risen. I will not talk of the towns. The wages on the platteland have risen anything from 100 to 150 per cent. since the commencement of the war, and we also know that the standard of living has risen considerably—the wages will never descend again to their former level and the standard of living will remain higher, and it is self-evident that if you have a higher standard of living and higher wages, there must also be better housing. It is self-evident that if there is not better housing, then something is wrong with the economy of the workers. Therefore I want to urge the Minister with all the earnestness of which I am capable to help us to make the necessary provision for an acceptable and convenient scheme for the platteland under which we will be enabled to provide housing for our labourers. There are some of us who are better off, and more well-to-do, and who have already tackled the necessary housing schemes. There are cases where people have spent considerable amounts on better housing for their labourers out of their own funds, but unfortunately not everyone can afford to do this, and therefore it is the duty of the Government, where such a huge scheme is being tackled, to ensure that the platteland receives its rightful share, so that the labourers on the platteland will also be assisted.

I think it would be appropriate if at this stage I dealt with the amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper and I move—

The purpose of the first amendment is to enable the Housing Commission to come to the assistance of a member of the public who wishes to build and who may be held to ransom by the owner of land which may be suitable for that purpose. The next amendment is to enable expropriation proceedings to take place, through the agency of the courts if necessary, or through some other agency. I hope that in carrying out its powers the commission will seldom have to resort to expropriation. These very wide powers are being taken to prevent the commission or the local authorities being held to ransom. We want people to be reasonable, and if they are reasonable we can come to an agreement with them; but if people want to make exorbitant profits they may be put to expropriation. Provision may be made for determination of the price by the court; it may be that other machinery will be set up and this amendment will enable that to be done. But whatever the tribunal for determining compensation it will be bound by Clause 3 of the Bill. The amount of the compensation will be governed by the terms of the Bill. The next amendment has been introduced to enable the regulations to be framed if necessary to prevent expropriation proceedings being unduly protracted. Then we have an amendment to correct a typographical error and to bring the English into line with the Afrikaans. The effect of the next amendment will be to enable the commission, if it takes over a scheme from a local authority, to vary the scheme if it considers this advisable. Then there is a small amendment in line 28 to rectify an error in drafting. The next amendment, in line 63, is to give effect to the undertaking I gave during the second reading debate that the guarantee the Government proposes to give to members of building trade unions is for a minimum period of ten years; as the clause stands the guarantee may be up to a maximum period of ten years. The next amendment is a new proviso that no regulations shall be made unless the Minister of Labour has consulted the trade unions. I may say that it is my intention to have all the regulations published in draft form in the Gazette before final promulgation. They will be published at least three weeks, probably the period will be three weeks, before promulgation. During that time the members of the public and all interested bodies will have an opportunity of making recommendations in regard to them. Only after they have been open for inspection for that period will they be promulgated and have the force of law. But this amendment makes specific provision for the regulations relating to the control of labour being submitted to those unions concerned. Then there is an amendment in line 16 on page 8. It is intended to remove any possibility of doubt as to the validity of regulations made under this paragraph, which enables the commission to enforce an order to admit a tenant to his premises. It is to prevent houses standing empty. The next amendment is in line 19 on page 8. It is to give the commission power to prevent the demolition of buildings—which might be used for residential purposes—in order to replace them by business premises. It is felt that before any such demolition takes place during this emergency period one must be satisfied the building cannot be used for housing purposes. The additional amendment I am moving in line 22 on page 8 (not appearing on the Order Paper) arises in this way. Buildings may be put up by small builders and building societies are in a position to make special advances under the Additional Housing Act to enable people to purchase those buildings. Under that Act it is not competent for such a loan to be made when the house has already been erected. The commission is contemplating assisting members of the public to procure houses by enabling advances to be made up to 90 per cent. in certain circumstances and in order to ensure such assistance will apply not only to houses that are being built but to a newly-constructed house that has been acquired. These words are being added after “dwellings”, or the first acquisition of dwellings after their construction.” This is in the interests of the public who require houses. There will be special provisions for financial assistance to ex-volunteers on demobilisation.

If a private individual gives up to 100 per cent. you are not going to stop him; if a speculative builder is prepared to sell and allow the purchaser up to 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. you are not going to stop him?

If a small builder has built a house and he wishes to sell and the person who buys wants financial assistance we propose now to give him up to the hilt.

But if the builder gives that assistance himself?

Then, of course, it is not necessary to invoke the aid of a building society.

I am glad that the Minister has removed a good deal of my objections by his amendments. I endeavoured to follow his explanation. A good deal of my objections now fall away, but I would like the Minister to furnish us with a little more information. Take (a) and (i) for example. Under (a) we grant powers to the commission or local authority to build houses, to devise and carry out a scheme, and to acquire material and equipment for this purpose. I would like a little more information. Things are moving at such a pace in this House that it is impossible to give everything the necessary attention. Where a local authority is authorised to build houses, it is empowered under (i) to dispose of the houses. I would just like the Minister to explain to us which paragraph contains stipulations in connection with the disposal of houses which are built in this manner, and what the basis is on which the houses will be disposed of. There are two ways of providing people with houses. Some will want to buy a house, other individuals will pay rent. One of the things we would very much like to know is whether the houses will not be fixed at such a price level that it will be too high, with the result that these people will not be assisted. My primary object in raising this matter is to say to the Minister in all earnestness that he will have to exercise care so that, in his attempt to build these houses, he does not perhaps unconsciously create a practice of keeping the prices of houses high as regards both the purchase price and the rental. For that reason we would like an explanation from the Minister as to the manner in which people will gain possession of these houses, either by way of purchase or lease, for on that depends the success of the Minister’s scheme to build houses. If he builds the houses and the purchase price and the rental is so high that the ordinary salaried man cannot afford it, if an attempt is made to keep the prices so high that they cannot stretch to that figure, then this undertaking is doomed to failure. This can be done in two ways. The one is to fix the prices artificially high, and the second is to ensure that there is an artificial shortage of houses. We hope that the Minister will make every attempt not to create an artificial shortage, but to build sufficient houses. We hope that the Minister will tell us on what basis people will gain possession of the houses, what the rental will be and what the purchase price will be; for on that depends to what extent we can give him our further support.

I think it would be convenient if I dealt with that point now. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is the aim of the National Housing Commission to try to bring down the cost of houses in South Africa. With that object in view it is quite obvious that what must be done at the start is to build houses for letting purposes and charge reasonably cheap rents. That is the first necessity, Hon. members know that the cost of land has risen and the cost of building has risen. We are attempting under the powers sought in this Bill to limit rising costs of land and building and profits once and for all. Quite apart from what may be achieved in this Bill, it is obvious that houses built now will probably depreciate considerably in value in the next five or ten years. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) asked whether I can indicate at what price the houses will be let or sold. I do not wish to tie myself down to figures this afternoon, but what we have in view is, as far as the lower income groups are concerned, persons earning up to £25 a month, to ensure that they do not pay more than a fifth of their income, so that their rent will be about £5 a month. That rent will be sub-economic. There will be a loss on the transaction but the State and the local authorities will bear that loss. If the State runs this scheme itself it will bear the whole loss, and that will allow the houses to be let at rents within the means of the lessees. There are other persons who may be within the £25 to £45 a month group. Some of them may feel that they can purchase houses. We will make it possible for them to purchase houses and we are trying to ensure that where houses are built for that category prices and rents will be reasonable and interest will be kept as low as possible with Government assistance, and the interest and redemption payments will be able to be maintained by the purchaser. There will be others however who feel that they will not wish to enter into an obligation at this stage. They would like a house but do not necessarily want to go in for a housing scheme. They will wish to hire a house but do not wish to incur the obligation of ownership. We have to provide for them also and if such a person hires a house for four or five years he may then find that his financial position has improved and that he wishes to go in for a house on the home ownership basis. We are working on those lines also. Where a man has rented a house for five years and then wishes to buy it we will revalue the house after five years and he can enter into a hire purchase agreement. I think we are entirely at one in the goal we hope to reach. I am not able to give details down to the last penny in regard to rentals but we are working all along on the basis of one-fifth of a man’s income with due regard to not saddling a man with obligations other than the purchase price, such as rates and taxes, which may make it impossible for him to carry on. The interest on loans for national houses at present is 4 per cent. If that rate can be reduced and if we can spread it over the period of redemption, 20 to 30 years, it obviously reduces the monthly interest. The Commission is trying to meet that eventuality.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph (m) and to enquire what his policy is in that connection. I do not say that the Minister should not take more powers. He is taking extraordinary powers, and one can understand it to a certain extent. I personally said years ago that it is the duty of the State to ensure that there are sufficient houses for the population of the country, but according to this paragraph it would appear that the Minister is going to come into conflict with the local authorities, and I would like to know whether as regards this legislation under which he is asking for such extraordinary powers, he is first going to try to co-operate with the local authorities and municipalities, and along what lines he is going to set to work. I read in paragraph (m)—

Further on the clause deals with houses which are to be built in this connection and there it mentions houses which are built out of monies which are advanced by an administrator. As I understand the position, under his powers the Minister is now taking unto himself the right, say for instance if there are 50 houses built at Burghersdorp to inform the municipality that it may not impose at tax on those houses. But the clause stipulates further that this will also apply to houses which are built out of monies which are advanced by an administrator. It seems to me that this act will be retrospective and that this clause will relate to houses which have already been built out of monies which were advanced by a municipality through the administrator of the province. We know that under the Housing Act of 1920 all the money was advanced by means of the provincial administrator. Now I would like the Minister to make a statement as to what his policy is going to be in this connection. To quote an example, supposing there were 50 houses built by the municipality at Burghersdorp under that Housing Act, does the Minister intend to take the power to prevent that municipality from imposing a tax on those houses?

Not if they provide the necessary services. I will explain it later on.

The Minister will come across places where he will have to co-operate with the local authorities and municipalities. They will have to provide him with electricity and water as well as sanitary conveniences for those people. The Minister cannot act as if he were hostiley disposed towards the local authorities. I would like to have an answer on this point from the Minister before we go any further.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understood that the House had decided to deal with. Clause 2 seriatim, and the hon. member is already dealing with paragraph (m).

We are now dealing with the whole sub-section.

I do not wish to hold up the House but there is one aspect of this Bill to which I must draw attention. I cannot help considering it absolutely wrong in principle and in fact immoral that provision should be made by this House to pay anyone anything less than his property is worth. The value of property is only what it can fetch in the open market, and provision is now being made in this Bill to pay less than that, and that is immoral. We dare not do it. It is a form of expropriation of a man’s property, against his will, and to pay him less than it is worth is wrong. Property is worth what it fetches in the market. Many laws provide that valuations are calculated at the price property will fetch in the open market. I therefore want to ask the Minister this, although I know that this is an emergency to let his policy at least be that as far as possible the owner of property will be paid on the basis I have suggested, and that the powers granted under this Bill should not be used to expropriate merely to get it cheaply. If the State thinks that properties have enhanced in value 150 per cent. above the pre-war value, I ascribe that to the fault of the Government in introducing the Property Profits Tax. If the Government is responsible for the undue rise in values, I think the State ought to pay in the difference between what the property is worth in the open market and what they want to pay. Then there is another aspect. Supposing a working man has had property for some time and owing to some development round him it has risen in value, he now gets back the cost plus 6 per cent. By expropriating this land the owner may become liable to two taxes, the Excess Profits Duty and the Property Tax. It is one one of the recognised principles of democracy that every person should be allowed so to govern his own affairs as to regulate his income as he thinks fit. Here the Government can enforce an income upon a person who may as the result be subjected to harsh Excess Profits Duty or to the Property Profits Duty. That is why I merely ask that the Minister will exercise these powers very discreetly and not complicate the position, because it will be an unnecessary hardship, and the Minister, popular as he is today, may become very unpopular.

On a point of order, I thought we started off by deciding to take these sub-sections seriatim. The last speaker was on sub-section (3). Can we not take them seriatim?

May I suggest on another point of order that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) realise that he is not running the House of Assembly, and the sooner he does so the better.

On paragraph (b)(1), I move the amendment standing in my name—

I am prepared to accept that amendment.

I wish to refer to the Minister’s amendment to Clauses 2 (s) (4). The amendment is that the State can give artisans a guarantee of full-time employment for a period “not less than” ten years, instead of “not exceeding” ten years. I suggest that the Minister should limit the period to ten years, otherwise there will be confusion, because who has to decide in a particular case whether the guarantee shall be for ten, twelve or fifteen years?

It is done by negotiation and agreement.

The clause does not deal with organisations but with individuals. Take, for example, different areas. You may have one period in Johannesburg and another in Durban.

No.

If that is not so and if the intention is to have a fixed period, let us put it in the Act. Why should there not be agreement about it?

Because the building workers have accepted dilution.

When the Minister made his second reading speech it was clearly understood that the limit would be ten years. Now they say it might be more than ten years. I think the House should limit the period to ten years and not allow a body of officials to say that in a particular case they will guarantee work for 12, 15 or 20 years. The intention was that it should be ten years, and I ask the Minister to make it clear that the guarantee should be for ten years and no more. I ask him to modify his amendment so as to read that the guarantee of full time employment be “for ten years”.

It is a most extraordinary thing that a member like the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) should ever have been elected to the House because surely if the Atlantic Charter means anything and the present situation in San Francisco means anything, or this Government, it means full employment for all. The first sentence in the report of the ad hoc committee which dealt with the returned soldiers in this country said that the first benefit which the Government are prepared to guarantee to all returned ex-volunteers is permanent employment.

This applies to artisans, not volunteers.

You are not an ex-volunteer, unfortunately. I say that with malice because some of the queries raised by that hon. member are no credit whatever to this House. But apart from that the hon. Minister of Labour, or as I prefer to call him, the hon. member for Benoni—he has been the member for Benoni since 1910—has always advanced the idea that we should guarantee employment and that is the policy of the Labour Party. But here we find in 1945 that the hon. member, a K.C.—I do not know whether he is a leading member of the Bar; I should hate to be defended by him—is trying to restrict the guarantee which the Government is prepared to give the building workers. They have given that guarantee in Britain, but they were bombed in Britain and houses are needed badly. That hon. member has not been bombed. I say this, never mind the ten years to the building workers, every worker should be guaranteed full employment.

Hear, hear.

If the Nationalist Party in this House agree with that and are prepared to guarantee full permanent employment for every single individual, and give them sufficient money to let them live civilised lives, and they go no further, I will join the Nationalist Party. We have the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) who waxes eloquent about the Jews. We have the hon. member who talks only on bilingualism. We have the hon. member from the wastes of Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) who with a thrill in his voice recounts the history of the concentration camps in the Boer War. That is why I cannot be a member of the Nationalist Party but if you say that you will give this guarantee of full employment for everyone, that is the policy of the Labour Party and has been for many years. It is the beginning of a policy which will be the salvation of the country in future. I am including non-Europeans also. A non-European is employed and discharged and left to his own devices even by my friends of the United Party, although I have no United Party friends now. One of the most important things in the modern development of relationships between employer and employee is the guarantee of permanent employment. I believe that Socialism is round the corner. I am a socialist and my Party is a socialistic party. What we do believe can be achieved before we get into a socialist state is a state where on the one hand the worker will be guaranteed employment at a reasonable rate of wages and the investor will be guaranteed what is called stone walled investment. [Time limit.]

I want to raise a matter which is very important, and I should be glad to have the Minister’s attention. When I as a private contractor undertake to build a house for a man, say, for £1,000 and I give him a binding tender and enter into a binding contract with him, what have I got to do when I have finished the house, as far as the profits are concerned, because it distinctly says here that no building contractor shall make a profit exceeding 6 per cent. If I make less than 6 per cent. how do I recover the difference? Then I want to put this point to the Minister in regard to the fixed percentage profit. Is that going to apply to everyone in the building trade— the timber merchant, the iron merchant and the other people who supply building material? I do not think the 6 per cent. should be made applicable to one person in the building industry and not to the others. If it is going to be made applicable, I think it should be made applicable to everyone in the building trade.

On the occasion of the second reading on the representations which I made then, the hon. Minister readily agreed in his reply so to amend this particular clause that the guarantee for building workers would be not less than ten years, and I hope the hon. Minister does not recede from that point. I hope he will not listen to the voice that comes from Pretoria City because that is the voice of a ribald or piebald reactionary. That is the voice that goes back to the industrial age of Great Britain in the last century, the time when the working class people were asking and making effective demands for a guarantee of work or maintenance. After the Atlantic Charter and after all the sentiments expressed by the Government during the period of war, it is not too much to ask that building workers get a guarantee of not less than ten years, and I am quite satisfied that the building workers themselves are expecting a guarantee of something more than ten years, a guarantee which I think they are entitled to ask for. [Interjections.]

Will they work?

It appears from the interjections of hon. members of the United Party ….

Oh no, no.

These are not interjections made by the Opposite side of the House. It is quite clear from the interjections of the United Party that they are loath to give a guarantee of ten years to the workers. The Minister must not fail to realise, and I am prepared to believe that he recognises, that the building workers are foregoing something that they hold very dear when they agree to the right of the introduction of Africans and unskilled workers being trained over a very short period for the performance of skilled work, for which building artisans over the years past have made great sacrifices; they have struggled to build up decent wage conditions commensurate with the work they perform, and now they are foregoing that to meet a national emergency. In these circumstances, it is not too much to expect from this Government that in return, as a quid pro quo, as a reciprocal act on the part of the Government, they will give a guarantee to the workers of not less than ten years. Personally I am not satisfied with a guarantee of ten years. It should be a guarantee of something more than ten years, and unless the Government rejects completely the suggestion which comes from Pretoria (City), it can only be accepted by members on these benches and by other people in the country that the promises and the assertions made by the Government in the past and during the course of the war, were merely sentiments expressed under the duress of war, things which they never intended to implement when the war is over. That is what I will believe, if there is any endorsement of the reactionary thought expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis). I hope we hear no more of any suggestion that there should not be a fixed period of ten years, and conversely that members should get up and ask not only that the guarantee should be one of not less than ten years, but more than ten years. I hope that when the Minister introduces the appropriate regulations he will see that the guarantee is more than ten years.

I think I should dispose of this question of the guarantee straight away. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) exercising his right as a member of this House, has made a suggestion to me. He has asked me to limit the guarantee to ten years. I am unable to go further than the provisions of amendment. I am asking the House to enable the Government to enter into negotiations with the building trade union, to enable it to give its trade unions a guarantee of full employment for at least a period of ten years. Whether it should be longer or not is a matter for discussion, but I would urge that hon. members do not pursue this matter any further. I want to emphasise a point I tried to make in replying to the debate on the second reading. A number of hon. members have asked why this Bill was not introduced earlier. This Bill in its present form would not have been practical politics in this House unless the Government had entered into negotiations in the building trade union and had come to an agreement with them. It is a very big step forward that we have been able to enter into full agreement with the building trade union. That agreement has enabled us to tackle this problem of housing from a fundamental point of view. We are now for the first time beginning to control labour; we are going to control land prices; we are going to control profits, but these three things are inextricably bound up with one another, and having reached this agreement after careful and delicate negotiation, after having come to full understanding with one of the parties to the contract, if we now attempt to whittle down anything it would do the country a great disservice and it will make it impossible for the Government to give effect to this Bill. I suggest we leave this clause as it is in the light of the amendment I have moved, and then it will be for the Government to complete these negotiations, to bring the agreement with the building trade union to finality by entering into the requisite agreement. May I just deal briefly with the point raised by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). It is not the intention of the Housing Commission to deprive local authorities of rates. We are anxious that local authorities should build houses. They have not succeeded in doing so according to their undertaking. That may be due to a number of causes. If we can help them to do so, we will do so. If they can complete their buildings, they will be rateable. If they cannot complete the buildings we will help them. It may be that in certain cases the local authorities are not able to do the necessary servicing. It may be that the director of housing will have to build certain roads, put down the drainage and link up with electricity and so on. If the local authority does not perform those services, then what we have in mind is not the payment of rates, but what we have in mind is payment for the actual services rendered. If light is given, if electric service is given, we will pay for this specific service but not full rates. If the local authority is itself prepared to provide those amenities we shall be prepared to pay rates. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has raised a question which is more germane to the discussion under Clause 3 of the Bill, and I think it will be more appropriate if I reply to him when Section 3 is under discussion. So far as the points raised by the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) are concerned, if losses are made under a contract entered into by a private contractor with the Commission, or a local authority, I assume that will be taken into consideration in assessing the over all profit in respect of the transaction. Obviously if we are going to limit profits, then in equity one should take into consideration losses. The hon. member has asked whether the limitation of profits will also apply to brick fields and timber merchants and others who supply the building material. I take it the control will be exercised through the price controller. Finally he has asked me whether the costplus-system is to be introduced. It will be introduced but not on the basis previously used in this country. The Director of Housing has tried to find an agreed basis on which to cost houses, and when that basis is agreed upon, contractors will be asked to build for that cost plus 6 per cent. In other words, the cost won’t be an indefinite figure, a previously unascertained figure. The costs will have to be ascertained in advance of the construction, of the building, and then that cost plus 6 per cent. will be the amount awarded to the builder.

I want to pursue further the matter to which the hon. Minister has just replied dealing with paragraph (r). The Minister tells us that cost will not be on the ordinary cost-plus system, that the Director of Housing is apparently going to set up a certain model house, which will be costed to the last screw, and that is going to be the basis of cost for future houses. But building does not go like that; it does not run as smoothly as the clock, and I cannot conceive how it is going to be possible to arrive at some static cost. There may be shortages of material; there may be shortages of labour; there may be weather and the many other dislocations, which occur every day in the business world, and all these factors must have a bearing on the cost. If the cost is going to be based on a price arrived at in advance then it is quite likely that that cost may allow a bigger profit than should be allowed. On the other hand it is possible that the cost may in certain circumstances be inadequate. Then again, is the Director of Housing going to build houses in every town and dorp, because the cost of housing must vary in every place. This whole idea seems to me to be completely impracticable, and the point I want to come to is this. If building is going to be carried out on the cost basis plus 6 per cent. then there can be no losses provided that a comprehensive list of costs is drawn up. That list should cover all the items of cost. If that is done there can be no loss, but if one is going to work on a figure of costs, arrived at in advance, then it is quite conceivable that losses may occur or that excessive profits may occur, in both cases with equally undesirable effect. I think it is regrettable that paragraph (r) was not constituted as a special clause in the Bill. Surely the Minister could have done that. He could have set out the whole basis, then the House would know where it stood. As it stands now it is now equivalent to a blank cheque.

Are you objecting to the 6 per cent. Will 12 per cent. satisfy you?

No, I am not objecting to the 6 per cent. That is not my object. My object is this, that if one is going to limit profit, then one must indemnify loss— I do not say limit loss but indemnify loss. It is quite impossible to work on 6 per cent. and to stand any loss out of that.

What is your alternative suggestion?

My suggestion is that cost must be provided for adequately, not on the basis of some figure arrived at in advance, but on a practical basis.

What is your formula?

My formula is to lay down exactly what headings will constitute cost for the purposes of this Act, and I think that is the only way in which you can work it out. The Minister must have the details worked out. There is last year’s Walker Award as a guide. It was, however; deficient in the headings, a factor which is easily remedied. It is for this House to lay down the different headings of cost. Then I want to say a word about paragraph (s) sub-paragraph (iv), which is not subject to the three years’ limitation in the Bill, and here again I think this should have constituted a separate clause in the Bill. This agreement is a matter which is going to be difficult. I fully endorse the idea of giving a ten-year guarantee. I am quite in sympathy with that idea, but if a guarantee of full employment is going to be given over a period of ten years, there must be a quid pro quo in the form of an assurance or some provision that for that guarantee a full day’s work will be given and that an efficient day’s service will be rendered. We are going to control the cost of land; we are going to control the cost of building material, and we are going to control the cost of building. The cost of a building, as far as labour is concerned, is roughly 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the total cost, and if is essential that in respect of that the State will get efficiency. I mention this because at, a meeting which took place not very long ago, a committee that was set up by the Housing Commission, was informed by the Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union that at least 70 per cent. of the workers in the building industry today must be regarded as inefficient and this was further confirmed by Colonel Holdgate, Deputy-Military Controller. It is due very largely to this inefficiency and a go-slow policy that the cost of housing today is so high. And if the State is going to give a ten years’ guarantee, I say there must be a quid pro quo. Furthermore there must be a certain safeguard to industry in this country, because if this guarantee is given it may be that there will be such an influx of workers from other industries to the building trade, that it may upset the economy of the country. The Minister is asking us here to give him a blank cheque. He can enter into an agreement for anything that is not less than ten years. We shall not know what that agreement is until we see it in the regulations. I am sorry that this was not brought in as a separate clause of the Bill. In view of the negotiations which have taken place, surely it would have been possible to reach agreement with the trade unions long ago and have the terms stated in this Bill.

I have an amendment to move on this clause which reads as follows—

1. (w) the acquisition, provision and maintenance, in connection with schemes, Of sufficent and suitable land for the purposes of recreation and play.

This amendment is designed to encourage the development of playing fields and open spaces for recreational purposes in any housing schemes under this Act. This amendment does not “force” the Minister, of course, or his commission to provide such open spaces, but it does give him “power” to do so. I feel that the Minister himself will be sympathetic to this amendment for two reasons. First Of all, I know that he himself is connected with the Playing Fields’ Association and that is one of their objects. Secondly,’ his constituency which marches with mine, Woodstock, is one, I think, in which all the evils of lack of space and playing fields in connection with town planning have been very amply demonstrated. I know that, in both of our constituencies there is very little space, other than the streets, for children to play in. That is one of the evils of a town planning situation which we now seek to abolish. I hope that the Minister will make use of this power. If this amendment is passed it will give the Minister this power, and I hope he will take advantage of it and give specific instructions to his commission to include open spaces in all their schemes. It costs very little to leave an open space in a planned scheme, but it costs thousands and sometimes millions of pounds to create open spaces once they have been built up. Particularly in areas where big blocks of flats are to be built are neighbouring playing fields necessary. When our soldiers come back, they too, will want to feel that their children can play and develop on healthy lines in open spaces left in schemes created for their benefit. I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and, if he does, that he will take full advantage of the power that he will get under it.

I will accept that amendment.

I would like to refer to one or two sections of this Bill. In the first instance, in regard to the preamble of this section, I understand from Press reports on the second reading debate, that the hon. Minister was prepared to accept a suggestion by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that we should have a Parliamentary committee to keep an eye on these regulations which are framed under the Act. I notice also that the Minister has moved an amendment to Section (s) Paragraph 8, whereby he undertakes to consult the trade unions on regulations which may affect labour in the country. I think that is a good principle. I am pleased the Minister has moved that amendment, but even so it is my submission that where regulations may affect industry and cocmmerce, those people should be consulted and I sincerely hope that some machinery will be created, either in the form of a Parliamentary committee or an advisory committee, which will be able to advise the Minister in regard to these regulations. The hon. Minister in his opening remarks stated that private enterprise would be given an opportunity to build. I do not want to prolong the discussion except to add that I hope full use will be made of whatever builders are available in the country. I have in my possession a long list of names of unemployed builders in Johannesburg, people who are wasting their time on garden walls and garages, at a time when we have a national emergency. I understand it was stated somewhere that the private builders have failed to build. That is a misrepresentation of fact. The fact is that these people could not build houses, not because they did not want to do so, but it was due, if I may say so, to excessive control. The third point I want to raise is under Paragraph (f), which refers to replanning. Let us hope that when we have built houses for the people who are now living in slums, those slums will be demolished. It has happened in the past time and again that a local authority or a utility company or even the State spends thousands of pounds to house people who have been living in slums; those people are taken out of the slums but as soon as they are housed elsewhere, others go back to the slums. We must not allow that. We must demolish the buildings as soon as the people have been housed elsewhere. The fourth point I want to raise is under Section (k). I am pleased to learn from the Minister that he intends to re-introduce the system of the 90 per cent. loan. That is really a very important step. In that connection it may be said to the credit of our returned soldiers that Demobilisation in Johannesburg finds today in many instances that the wives of the soldiers have been saving money during their absence. These soldiers are today coming to Demobilisation with savings of £200 or £300 which they want to invest in a house. Under this section, and the amendment these men will now be able to obtain their houses, because they will have the initial deposit. One might go even a little bit further; it may be an experiment, but there is such a thing as a moral risk in business. It has been done and it is done daily in Johannesburg where some builders put up houses without any deposit from the man at all. The builder then pays off until such time as he can obtain a bond from the building society. In other words, he reduces it gradually until he can take a bond from a building society. If a private builder should take that moral risk, I can see no harm in the State doing it, provided it was a good risk. However, the Minister has already gone quite far and I do not want to press that point. As time goes on and as the experiment advances, I hope they may find better ways of dealing with the situation. Then there is the question of the cost of the land and the Land Tax. I would have liked to have moved an extra section but I shall not do so now. While the Minister is prepared, particularly in the case of the middle classes to help them even to the extent of a loan of 95 per cent. it is very unfortunate that a substantial portion of that loan which will be advanced to them will go back directly and immediately to the State. It does seem Irish. On the one hand the State says: “I am now going to help you to build a house”, and on the other hand the State takes a substantial amount back again. One sincerely hopes that the Minister will thrash out this matter with the Minister of Finance and see to what extent land which is genuinely used for the building of houses cannot be exempted from the land tax. We have gone so far during this Session that we have granted exemption in the case of utility companies and municipalities, but that will benefit the lower income groups. The income group that carries the country, that pays proportionately the biggest amount in taxation, that squeals the least and that gets the least, is the middle income group. The members of this group will not benefit to any appreciable extent under this Bill unless the Minister can find some means whereby exemption can be granted to them where they are definitely using that ground for building purposes. That aspect is very important indeed.

Under Clause 2 (1) (b) one point gives me concern. The Bill, as a whole, controls the cost of building and of land. The point that worries me is that under this paragraph the Housing Commission can expropriate a piece of land for a housing scheme, or under the amendment proposed by the Minister this afternoon they can do so for any one individual. I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that there will be control on the profit arising from the sale of a house, or houses, built on land which has been expropriated in this way. An individual may apply to the Housing Commission for land to be expropriated in a certain area to enable him to build a house. He may take possession of that house and then within a year sell it at an excessive profit. It is true that at the end of the clause it says the Housing Commission shall be able to control the conditions of expropriation but I should like the assurance from the Minister that the profit in a case of that sort will be limited.

I shall ask the chairman of the commission to see that point is taken into account in the regulations.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Sub-section (1), as amended, put and agreed to.

On sub-section (3),

In my second reading speech I made some suggestions regarding publication of regulations. It is my hope that proposed regulations will be published and adequate notice given in the Government Gazette to all persons likely to be affected. I understand the Minister has already given the assurance of such publication. Is that so?

Yes, I have mentioned that.

Sub-section put and agreed to.

On sub-section (5),

I move—

1. (5) Any regulation made under subsection (1) shall lapse unless approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament passed within 30 days after the opening of the Session in which they have to be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament.

The hon. Minister knows that at the second reading I drew attention to this matter, and the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) also pointed out that the Minister is now receiving full powers to promulgate far-reaching regulations, and we pointed out the desirability of his stipulating, when he promulgates the regulations, not only that they should be laid on the Table of the House, but that there should also be an opportunity of discussing the regulations. The only opportunity which now offers is to bring them under discussion by a special motion. All that this amendment proposes is that the regulations shall be discussed and be accepted by this House. It is the duty of us all to afford Parliament the opportunity of expressing an opinion in connection with the regulations. The Minister is depriving Parliament of its authority to some extent, and our amendment is only än attempt to restore to a certain extent the authority of Parliament, and I feel that this is a very fair amendment.

I feel that the Minister will say that he cannot accept the amendment because we have at present, under our Parliamentary system, nothing that permits of the control of regulation-making on a non-party, non-partisan, non-political basis. The Government itself is not wholly blameless in not having such machinery. Members would more willingly have given the Minister powers under this Bill if there was machinery for, automatically, checking “legislation by regulation” more effectively than we can now. We all know that the safeguards we have been given here are not really very effective. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. But if he does not I feel it will be for reasons of political expediency. Because we have no established non-party machinery each party seems to suspect the political bona fides of the other. I appreciate the Opposition’s desire for safeguards. I also appreciate the Minister’s fear that, if regulations lapsed through not being affirmed within a defined period, obstruction tactics might be used to destroy their efficacy. This surely is an argument for the setting up, as speedily as possible, of some non-party safeguarding machinery. May I quote from a House of Commons memorandum recently published which describes exactly the conditions existing in England and the conditions now existing here—

Is not that the position we are now faced with in connection with this Housing (Emergency Powers) Bill? May I recommend that, if the Minister will not accept this amendment he give consideration to methods recently adopted in Britain to control ‘regulation” legislation. In the House of Commons they introduced a Bill, in March, 1945, called the “Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Bill”, to deal with the subject. I will attempt to outline very briefly the procedure in the House of Commons in terms of their new Bill. As I go along I will try to adapt what I say in such a way as to make it understandable in terms of our own procedure. I think we will find that we may get some helpful guidance as to methods of checking regulations. First, before regulations are laid before Parliament there must be publication of notices and considerations of objections. Then, within a period of 14 days after the regulations are laid before Parliament, “petitions” may be lodged against them. Thirdly, these petitions are placed before the Chairmen of the Committees of each House—“petitions of amendment” or “petitions of general objection”. The Chairmen may have to decide if an objecting petition to a regulation is “proper to be received”. In our case the Speaker would probably decide on that point. Fourthly, if it is decided that the objection to the regulation is “proper to be received” it becomes competent for any member of either House to move that it be annulled and the House decides. It is interesting to notice, fifthly, that there is a distinction drawn between objections based on broad grounds of policy and those based on individual rights or private interests. The conception is that, objections based on broad grounds of policy are discussed on the floor of the House, while those affecting individual interests are referred to a Select Committee. Point number six is that discussion, either in the House or in Committee, is confined to the issues raised in the petition, so there is no possibility of people wandering off on irrelevant issues in the course of the debate or in Committee. The Minister might well consider this procedure or something similar during the recess, and I am sure no member of Parliament would object if, next Session, he comes forward with amendments to sub-clause 5 based on what I have outlined; if he introduces some machinery which constitutes an adequate check on the control of the regulationmaking power, which he possesses in this Act. I do hope, if he cannot accept the amendment, he will consider during the recess the suggestions I have made, in the light of our own procedure. There is not time now to adopt the Commons procedure. But if he cannot accept this amendment, I hope that he will give us some guarantee, on behalf of the Government, that any motions we might move, next Session, against regulations in terms of this sub-section (5), will be given time, by the Government, for discussion and debate on the floor of this House. At present under this sub-section we will be dependent entirely on the whim of the Government, and that is not right.

As representing what might be termed the lay members of the House I may say that we have no desire to be diverted from the main issue by quibbles about procedure however interesting they might be to lawyers. It is obvious to everybody that here a job of work has been tackled which will tax to the utmost not only the Minister but the ability of the Government. Their concentrated energies will be required for carrying out the practical measures involved in the whole issue of housing. As a lay member of the House I am prepared to ’ accept that our law advisers are perfectly competent to deal with legal matters entailed in the compilation of the Bill. Surely we are not going to argue now about every jot and tittle and wander off on these little side issues and lose sight of our real objective? I am convinced many members of this House are not facing up to the real problem that the Minister is facing up to. I should regret if we bother about piffling little alterations in this Bill when we know that in regard to what has to be accomplished we have not yet envisaged the total extent of our responsibilities. Are we already forgetting the blank cheque arrangement? I am not forgetting it. I am accepting it because if the Minister is going to face up to this task he will have to be helped and not hindered. If we adopt a clause on the lines it has been suggested it will open the floodgates for the merely legal mind. I am going to stand by the clause as it is. The safety and the liberty of the subject is not in the hands of people who follow the mere letter of the law. That is evident every time we look around us. I do feel the proper construction of the Bill is in safe hands, as safe as they can be, when they are in the hands of people who draft our Bills for us.

I do not think it is necessary to dwell at any length on the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne), for it is quite obvious from what he said that he has not the slightest idea of what it is proposed to do. We do not propose to deprive the Minister of these powers. He will still retain all the powers. We are only proposing that he should answer for the regulations, and the onus must rest upon him to do so, and it must not be left to a private member. Thus the whole argument advanced by the hon. member is based on a misconception. As regards the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell), I must say that I am very disappointed at his attitude. At the commencement of the Sitting he moved an important motion and to a certain extent I supported it; I supported the spirit and meaning of the motion, but I issued a warning at the time that the hon. member was talking at random, that he was academic and would not bring home to the people who are to blame the responsibility for the evil which exists in our system. I said that he should not come along with academic platitudes, but that he should make the motion practicable. This is our first opportunity of applying the principle in practice to which we accorded lip service to the motion of the hon. member for Woodstock. What, however, is the attitude of the hon. member for Woodstock? He says that the amendment is a very good one, that it represents his own view, but that he knows that the Minister will reject it.

I said that I wished that he would accept it.

But the hon. member has in so many words suggested to the Minister not to accept it. And then the hon. member for Woodstock made a second proposal which means nothing at all. We cannot adopt the system of the House of Commons here in haste, for our system is not that of the British House of Commons. We have the provisions of this Bill, and must try to keep them in check as much as possible, and that is the intention of this amendment. The powers remain vested in the Minister, but we would nevertheless like the Minister to come to this House and say: This is what I have done under the powers which you accorded me, do you approve or disapprove? Then the onus does not rest on a private member to rummage through the regulations to see whether there is not something which goes too far. As matters stand now a private member will have to determine whether there is not something which goes too far, and then he will have to take a second step, he will have to endeavour to bring the matter under discussion. What guarantee is there that he will be given the time? It is unfortunate and inconvenient to grant such powers to the Minister. But if he must have them, in heaven’s name let us try to retain our self-respect to some extent and not bind ourselves hand and foot. Let us expect of the Minister that he will lay the regulations on the Table and come and say to us within 30 days after the commencement of the Sitting: This is what I have done under the powers which I was given. Either approve or disapprove. Then the hon. member says that there may be obstruction. But this is at the commencement of the Sitting, within 30 days. And there is always the guillotine and the closing of the debate, all these means are at the disposal of the Minister. It is an important matter we are dealing with, and there must be an opportunity of discussing the matter. It must not be left to chance whether we will have a discussion or not. It must not be left to chance that an hon. member will go to the trouble of studying the regulations and raise objection by way of a motion. Possibly he will have to introduce it on a private members’ day, and we know how unsatisfactory that is. We are not asking for much, in view of the important matter with which we are dealing. There is just one other example of this type of Henry the Eighth legislation, and that is in the Act of 1933. There is, however, a good example for the Minister in the Sea Shore Act of 1935. There a much stricter stipulation was incorporated, in Article 10 (b), namely that a regulation promulgated in accordance with that Act would only be in force if it were approved of by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Here we are dealing with a much more important matter, and we say that if the Minister frames regulations, they can become operative immediately—he need not wait until they are approved of by Parliament—but within 30 days after the commencement of the Sitting they must be approved of, otherwise they will become hull and void. That is fair, and I appeal to the Minister and to members who have any feeling for the rights of Parliament to say that this is the least we can ask, especially when we take into consideration the exceptional powers we are giving the Minister under sub-clause (3), namely to suspend this Act by way of regulation, or any other Act which in the future may be accepted by Parliament. This compromise is the least we can ask for. We owe it to our own self-respect and in view of the role we ought to fulfil as members of Parliament which is jealous of its dignity. Give the guarantee that those great powers will remain under control. Show a measure of willingness, where you want to place yourself above Parliament in the Act, where you want to frame regulations of a far reaching nature, by stipulating that this House will have to approve of them, and that otherwise they will become null and void. I ask the Minister to give us this assurance at least.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) have put forward cogent reasons for the House to agree to this amendment. I regret, however, that I am unable to accept it, and I am unable to accept it on grounds of convenience to the House. It would entail that every single regulation published in terms of the Bill will have to be scrutinised by the House.

Are you afraid?

I am not afraid. The Government will have to be judged by the manner in which it exercises its functions under the Bill. The hon. member for Fauresmith has said it is a question of where the onus rests. The onus under the Bill rests on every private member to raise objections to the regulations. He asks that that onus should be passed to me. I am quite certain if any regulation is contrary to the wish of the public, if there is any grave measure of dissatisfaction either with the regulation or the way in which the regulation is being exercised by the commission, hon. members will know it and they will raise the matter in the House; and they will have an opportunity to deal with the matter. They will have an opportunity of dealing with the matter. If it is issued a week before Parliament starts it obviously will be issued in order to be used and one assumes it will be used before the time of Parliament has lapsed. However, on general grounds of convenience I do not think that the course suggested is a practical one in the present case.

I think you are funking it.

The hon. member said that if one is afraid of many discussions one can apply the guillotine. We have rather forgotten that instrument during the present Session and I am surprised to hear that he wants to revive it.

Only to meet your fears.

I would like to say to the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) that I shall be glad to go into the suggestion he made during the recess; in so far as the House having an opportunity to discuss the motion is concerned obviously the time for bringing forward such a motion will be at the beginning of the Session. I leave out the rare cases suggested by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), but quite obviously in the beginning of the Session enough time will be available for discussion. I cannot conceive of the Government not having it discussed.

What is the difference between you bringing it and a private member bringing it?

The difference is this, that there is no occasion to bring them under review. But if the hon. member feels he does wish to bring them under review he now has the opportunity in terms of the section for doing so.

It is very evident that the Minister is not only desirous of usurping all the powers of Parliament; it is not only evident that he is placing himself quite above anybody else in Parliament, but it is also evident that he is afraid to subject the regulations which he is going to frame to the approval of this House. In this Clause 2 he is asking for powers which are not asked for in any democratic country of any Parliament in the world, and the man who is asking for those powers is afraid to come before Parliament with those powers. It is quite clear that he is asking for the right of repealing any Act and to do as he likes, to insult the municipalities and to be able to tell them that they may not impose a tax upon buildings in their own area.

I have already replied to that point.

I know that the Minister has replied, and now I am replying once again. He is asking here for powers which are so extraordinary that even persons on his side are afraid of them, and he in turn is afraid to subject the powers he is asking for to this Parliament. In other words, the Minister is placing himself above Parliament and above democracy and above the right of the nation to say what it wants. We do not know what his plans are. The Minister says that we can introduce a motion. He knows as well as I do how many motions are talked out in this House.

A motion of no-confidence always enjoys preference.

The Minister makes me laugh when he argues in that manner. We moved a motion of no-confidence at the commencement of the sitting, and then they disputed as to whether it was a motion of no-confidence. The position is quite clear, that the only loophole we have, if the Minister merely lays the regulations on the Table, is to move a motion, and then the Minister knows himself what chance we have of conducting a thorough discussion on the matter. The only reason which the Minister advanced is that it will not be convenient. In other words, we must study his convenience. It does not depend on the convenience of the House, but on his convenience. He must realise that this matter will have political repercussions. We will declare from the platform that the Minister has not only taken these powers, but we will also tell the people that he is afraid to come to Parliament to subject himself to the decision of Parliament. We have the right to say this. The Minister cannot adopt the attitude that such a discussion will take up too much time. There are rules that arguments may not be repeated and prolonged. If we violate those rules, the Chairman or the Speaker will stop us. If matters are discussed which bear no relation to the motion, then members will be prevented from speaking. The Minister knows that there are also other ways of putting an end to a discussion. During the last five years the Government has made use of every possible trick to put an end to discussions. They have made us sit on a motion from 2 o’clock in the afternoon until the following evening at 6 o’clock. That is not all. When criticism is levelled at the Government, they postpone the discussion of a motion. If there are regulations which its own side is afraid of, it will not allow the matter to be discussed to a finish. My experience of this Government is such that I can say with every right that it makes a farce of Parliament. They have come with a Bill asking for dictatorial powers, and then they say that they are fighting for democracy and freedom. The only freedom we enjoy is in this Parliament, and they still want to deprive us of that. I can only say that this proposal of the Minister is yet another nail in the Government’s coffin. I cherish no expectation that this proposal will bear any friut. The Government has come along at the end with this Bill and truly it has as yet no plan as to how it intends building the houses. The Minister will say that we can discuss the matter under his vote. That again will also come at the end, and then everything will have to be rushed through in haste. It simply amounts to the Government wanting us to allow it to govern the country. My family was born and bred in this country. From my mother’s breast I drank democracy, and I am not going to allow the Minister to make a farce of those principles.

But you are an Englishman.

Let the Minister carry on. Let him do as he likes. He is now making a noose with which to hang himself.

Question put: That sub-section (5), proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—60:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander. M.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J, M.

Davis A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Sonnenberg, M.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer K.

Brink, W D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus’ H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Dr. Van Nierop dropped.

Sub-section (5), as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman’ L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J S.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Sonnenberg, M.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren. C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—30:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel. M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Clause, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I should like to move an amendment on this clause which does not appear on the Order Paper—

1. “(4) For the purposes of, this section the amount or price at which land was acquired includes any transfer duty, war-time surcharge on transfer duty payments, or costs of transfer or survey for which the owner concerned became liable in connection with his acquisition of the land.”

This amendment I am moving to make it quite clear that if expropriation proceedings take place and the compensation is based upon the cost to the owner plus a certain amount, then in taking into account the price at which the land was acquired, the tribunal computing the compensation may have regard to any transfer duty which the owner had to pay, to any war-time surcharge on transfer duty payments or costs of transfer or survey for which the owner concerned became liable. It means only just that these items should be included in the costs when computing the compensation.

May I ask whether that applies to land bought 30 years ago?

The Minister has power under this clause to pay an ascertained amount as compensation for property expropriated and in terms of this clause he is confined to paying such an amount. He is only entitled to pay the lesser of either the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent., or the cost of acquisition of the land to the owner plus 6 per cent. per annum from the time of the purchase. Now I welcome the Minister’s amendment because I think it is fair that costs which are actually incurred should be allowed, but I am very concerned with the limitation which this clause imposes upon the Minister. The figure of cost plus 6 per cent., that is 6 per cent. gross, is in itself inadequate. A price computed on that basis must be inadequate. It takes no account of rates and taxes paid or any other expense. 6 per cent. is not a nett figure; it is a gross figure, and it is inadequate. After all, the object of the expropriation is just this, that a fair price should be paid for the land expropriated. That is essential. I think a basis which lays down as a starting point a price which is inadequate is a wrong basis. This clause gives the Minister no latitude at all. It does not follow that the municipal valuation is a reasonable one, and it is not necessarily in itself satisfactory; it may be entirely inadequate or it may be excessive. Let me give the House an example. In the case of a certain property in Johannesburg the municipal valuation was £1,590 and the property changed hands at £12,500. What would the Minister do in a case like that? He would have been obliged to expropriate the property at the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent., approximately £2,000, and yet within two years the municipal valuation was increased to £10,000. It is essential, I think, that a further sub-clause should be introduced to provide for the case, where the two bases laid down are inadequate in themselves, so that the matter can be referred to arbitration if necessary with the right of appeal. I expect the Minister to say that the Housing Commission will only expropriate when the person asks an unreasonable figure. But this is too powerful a weapon to place in the hands of anybody. It is too important an issue when you start to deprive a man of his fixed property rights.

I regret I am at present not able to put this amendment as it involves increased expenditure and there is no recommendation from the Governor-General.

In view of your ruling I shall ask leave to report progress, but before doing so I would like to reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell). His point is that if expropriation proceedings take place the owner might be paid less than the value of his land. Let me remind him that under Section 11 of the Housing Act the only basis of compensation is the municipal valuation. The Bill adds an alternative form, and it has been placed there to deal with cases of land outside the jurisdiction of local authorities. It might very well be that if the commission or a local, authority seeks to expropriate and permission is given, that the compensation will fall below the municipal value at present. But the policy that the commission has in mind is not ruthless confiscation but to build houses, and houses cannot be built unless land is available. But the commission wishes to give a square deal. If an area of land has been bought for £20,000 and the purchaser is asked to sell it to the commission, I have no doubt the coinmission would be prepared to negotiate in the light of what was paid for it provided it does not fall within the category of a grossly > speculative deal. If £20,000 was a fair price irrespective of the municipal Valuation, I assume the commission would be prepared to enter into negotiations to buy and to offer reasonable profit. But if the owner turned round and said: I will take nothing less than £50,000; we would expropriate, and if he got £12,000 we would tell him that he could not squeal because he would be getting less than he cosidered the value of the property. The policy is one of equity and justice, and a fair offer in the light of the circumstances, but once and for all to put a stop to the reckless exploitation of land, to holding up the commission and the local authorities to ransom and preventing the building of houses for the people. If my hon. friend looks at it from that point of view he will see that if the Government has taken wide powers it is a stick to beat unscruplous persons, but if the Government abuses those powers I am perfectly certain hon. members on this side of the House— let alone hon. members on that side of the House—will be the first to attack the Government for abusing those powers. I now move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 7th June.

The incidental appropriation involved in the amendment had since been recommended by the Governor-General.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move—

1. (a) the reference in paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of the said section, and the first reference in paragraph (d) of the said sub-section, to the Minister, shall be deemed to be a reference to the administrator concerned; arid
2. (b) the second reference in the last mentioned paragraph, and the reference in paragraphs (e) and (f) of the said sub-section and in paragraph (a) of sub-section (7) of the said section, to the Minister, shall be deemed to be deleted”;

to insert the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (3):

1. (4) A provincial council may, by any ordinance referred to in sub-section (1), make provision for the raising by the housing board concerned by way of loans, or the advance or grant out of provincial revenues to such board, of moneys required by it for or in connection with the exercise of its powers or the performance of its functions: Provided that no payment of any such moneys or in respect of any loss incurred by such board, shall be deemed to be normal or recurrent expenditure for the purpose of determining the subsidy payable to the province concerned in accordance with the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945.;

and to add the following new sub-section to follow sub-section (4):

1. (5) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to derogate from any power which a provincial council may have, to make any ordinance not inconsistent with this section, in relation to any matter connected with the construction of dwellings or the carrying out of schemes: Provided that no such ordinance shall provide for the expropriation by a housing board without the consent of the Minister, of any land or any right in respect of land.

The purposes of these amendments is to meet certain representations which were made to the Government by the Administrator of Natal. The main amendment has this effect, that if any province has certain powers which it may in terms of the Constitution confer upon the Housing Board, remaining over from the powers which are at present possessed by the Housing Commission, it will be competent for the Provincial Administration to confer such powers on the Housing Board. Hon. members will see that in terms of Clause 4 of the Bill as it now stands the province may confer upon the Housing Board the powers possessed by the Housing Commission, but it may very well be that there is a residue of powers not possessed by the Commission which it is competent for the provincial administration to confer upon the Housing Board, and it is in order to leave that position open that that amendment is moved.

I have already expressed my opinion in regard to this Bill at the second reading, but if I may, I would like to elaborate on Clause 4. In this clause Natal has been given the privilege of appointing a Housing Board with powers almost similar to those of the National Planning and Housing Commission. One wonders why it is that in almost all instances Natal is singled out to have ordinances and privileges of their own. I would like the Minister to realise what is going to happen when the other provinces follow suit and ask for the same powers as Natal has, which will clash with the Housing Commission. I have here a letter which I want to read and I want the Minister to listen to it very carefully. It is from someone very closely attached to the Housing Commission. He says this—

This is an emergency Bill, but it is a national Bill. We have appointed a commission of 10 men. They get £400 per annum and meet, I understand, once a month. They get railway passes and subsistence allowances while they are in Pretoria. Evidently, if the other two provinces do what Natal is doing or is allowed to do, they will only have the Free State to deal with. One wonders why Natal wants this. Natal has done very, very little for housing. As a matter of fact it is the worst of the nine principal municipalities in regard to the building of houses, yet we pander to Natal on all occasions. I under stand that the reason why they were allowed to do this is that we do not want to raise the constitutional issue. Well, the constitutional issue being raised is not nearly as bad, to my mind, as some of the other difficulties raised from conferring special privileges upon Natal. Take education, for one thing. Natal has far greater liberties there. Take hospitalisation. The same applies. I understand just recently that Natal was excluded by the Welfare Organisation Bill also. I suggest to the Acting Prime Minister that we should stop pandering to Natal. I do not dislike Natal but I dislike the fact that she gets greater privileges than the other Provinces and I wish to protest against these powers being given to Natal.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I have a small amendment to move which is really consequential upon the amendment already accepted. I move—

I accept that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 5,

I move—

1. 6. Section 13 of, the Housing Act is hereby amended by the insertion after the word “administrator” of the words “or the commission, as the case may be”

Agreed to.

On Clause 8,

According to this clause the Minister is being given the right to exercise of abuse these extreme powers for ‘three years. I would like to move an amendment to restrict the period to one year. I therefore move the following amendment—

I do that because, when we reached Clause 2 yesterday afternoon, we recorded our protest against the power given to the Minister by way of proclamation to issue regulations, and our advice to him was that he should first submit the regulations to the House, but the Minister gave us the advice that we should come to this House and introduce a motion if we took exception to the regulations. We now want to give the Minister the advice that he should come to this House every year for a renewal of those powers. It is unfair to ask superhuman powers and to exercise them for three years. It will be a good thing to see how the Minister uses these powers during the first year before we grant him an extension. There are certain people who, in my opinion, whether they obtain powers or not, will just leave things as they are. It will make no difference to them. Therefore I think that the Minister should after one year come to this House and report to it his actions and then he could be granted further powers if he had done good work. I do not think that the Minister who has a majority to support him need be frightened of this amendment. If he has done good work he may leave it to the House, and his Party will be prepared again to grant him all the powers given to him in 1945, in order that he may continue, if he had made good use of those powers. Although he be a good Minister he may nevertheless perhaps abuse those powers, and we must have a brake or a safety-valve. I think the Minister needs it, for himself as well as for his Government. I trust that he will not be reluctant to accept my amendment.

I appreciate the motives actuating my hon. friend in moving his amendment, but I would urge on those who feel that this limitation should be placed upon the Bill that this measure is a drastic one. It is in the nature of a major operation. There is an evil in the body politic, a sore which must be removed.

No, it is a vacuum that has to be filled.

We first of all have to remove the sore, or whatever metaphor my hon. friend wishes to use, but anyway something pretty drastic has to be done. The director and the commission have been asked to build houses. They have been given a mandate to carry out the task and have been told that this task must be performed. It seems to me unfair to have a measure of uncertainty about these matters if the country do not know that they would be operative for three years. I can assure my hon. friends opposite that I shall be only too glad to have their advice on the regulations which are to be published from time to time, and I want to assure them also that there is no intention to use these powers arbitrarily or ruthlessly, except when one deals with people who need ruthless measures.

You mean it is a case of kill or cure?

Yes, it seems to me that in major operations one has to take a risk.

It depends on the doctor too.

That is so, but the doctor can sometimes be struck off the roll, and I realise that one may have to meet those who think on those lines. But do not be afraid. There is such a spirit of goodwill in the country at present in this matter of housing and such a desire to see houses go up that I think the people of the country are willing that these drastic powers should be given for three years.

Question put: That the word “three”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, "

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—57:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

Du Toit, A. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Humphreys, W. B.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H, G.

McLean, J.

Marwick, J. S.

Morris. J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

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

Noes—22:

Boltman F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Ludick, A. I.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

Amendments considered.

In Clause 2,

Amendments in Clause 2 put and agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 3, 4 and 5 and new Clause 6 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

I object.

Bill to be read a third time on 8th June.

I move—

I reserve my speech.

I second.

I must honestly say that the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is not so damning this year as it was last year. The Committee is even in a position to report that there has been considerable improvement. I think that I may say that the improvement which is noticeable and which the Select Committee was able to report to the House, was in a large measure attributable to the watchfulness of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It is my experience that the Select Committee on Public Accounts is the one factor in our Parliamentary system which still keeps our Parliamentary system democratic. An official may be at the head of the Controller’s department, he may have been granted so many powers as to imagine himself a miniature dictator, but when he appears before the Select Committee on Public Accounts he feels that the Government is still there. In that Committee we tame the little dictator to a certain degree.

You certainly also want a few Ministers to appear.

Gladly. My one feeling is that this Select Committee has not sufficient time at its disposal to do its work as thoroughly as we feel that Parliament expects of it. We have done our utmost to expedite the work during this year. We agreed that there were certain accounts which we could only examine very superficially. We were unable to do it more thouroughly, and yet we find ourselves in the position that we held the last investigatory meeting this morning, and we were unable to complete our work. We are in the middle of one of the most important enquiries with which the Select Committee on Public Accounts has been concerned. It simply had to report that we were unable to complete the work. Next year, in accordance with the Finance Act to be passed during this year, the Select Committee will also have to enquire into the accounts of Control Boards. We shall have much more work. If we were unable to complete our work during this year, what are we then going to do next year? I am glad that the Acting Prime Minister will be in the House for a short time. I want to ask whether it will not be possible to have discussions during the recess with representatives of the Select Committee, and if possible, with the representative of the House of Assembly, let us say the Clerk of the House, to take place in Pretoria to find the best course open to us for placing more time at the disposal of the Select Committee to enable us to do the work thoroughly.

I welcome that suggestion.

I am glad to hear that. We have a sub-committee of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, consisting of the Chairman and myself, to consider the expediting of matters. We were unable to make much progress during the current year, but if the Acting Prime Minister will have such a discussion in Pretoria, or anywhere else, it may perhaps be possible to submit concrete suggestions next year. I am glad that the Acting Prime Minister is accepting the suggestion. With reference to the recommendations submitted by the Select Committee, I desire to draw the attention of the House for a short while to recommendations Nos. 1 and 2. They deal with the position in the office of the Paymaster. In recommendation No. 2 we refer to the big improvement which has come about, and we are very glad to be able to record it. The mistake which was made at the outset, when the office of the Paymaster was established was that the Secretary for Defence made the unpardonable mistake of appointing somebody as Paymaster who, I regret to say, had no knowledge whatever of his duties. He did that against the advice and warning of the Public Service Commission. It was a great blunder which resulted in the books of the Paymaster’s office getting into a state of complete confusion. Fortunately shortly after that a change was made and Colonel Kearney was appointed to make an attempt to create order out of the chaos. It gives me pleasure to testify to the valuable services rendered by Colonel Kearney to the State. Since that time he has been promoted. He is now Brigadier Kearney and if there is one man who has deserved recognition by the State for his services that man is Brigadier Kearney. He has undoubtedly done good work for the State, and I am glad that I am able on behalf of this side to express our appreciation. But it now appears to me that the Government is going a little too far, and we record our protest in that regard in recommendation No. 1. The Treasury took the exceptional step of delegating certain of its authority to the Chief Paymaster, namely, the authority to write off overpayments. That is a power which only the Treasury has and which it only may exercise, and we, the whole Select Committee, object to such power being delegated, and, moreover, to a section which had sinned most in this respect, namely, the Paymaster’s office, which was jointly responsibe for the overpayments, and the unheard of step is being taken of delegating the power to effect writes-off to a person who had sinned and is responsible. One immediately feels, when it is put in this form, that it is something which Parliament cannot agree to.

What alternative was there?

The alternative was action taken by the Government in connection with overpayments subsequent to May, 1943, i.e. to appoint a permanent official of the Treasury in the office of the Chief Paymaster, and to say that it was not necessary to refer every case to the Treasury, but that it should be dealt with in consultation with the representative of the Treasury. If that was possible in cases of payment subsequent to 1st May, 1943, it is a procedure which should also be applied in connection with overpayments prior to May, 1943. I can see no reason why the procedure followed in respect of overpayments subsequent to May, 1943, cannot be applied to those prior to May, 1943. We have a second objection, and that’ is that the Treasury proposes to write off moneys which are recoverable. It was admitted in evidence that it was recoverable, but the exceptional step was taken to write off moneys which were recoverable and the Controller and Auditor-General adopts the point of view that the Treasury has not the right to do it, that Parliament only can do it. What did Dr. Holloway say—

Permit me to read his exact words contained in his evidence printed on page 3 of our report—

I think we would like to learn the political reasons from the Minister. Are they afraid of the effect in the political field?

He means matters of policy, that it is a matter of policy.

Oh no. Dr. Holloway is very careful in putting a case. If he means “policy” he says “policy” and if he means “politics” he says “politics”.

There is no political aspect.

The political aspect may be that they are afraid of public opinion if there are overpayments which are recovered from soldiers. If an overpayment is made by the Commissioner of Pensions, they recover it, whatever the results may be, but here, because it took place on a large scale —an amount of approximately £200,000 is involved—affecting many soldiers and families of soldiers, the Government withdraws on account of the political aspect.

That was never in our thoughts.

Dr. Holloway is somebody who weighs his words. We know him. And we would like the Minister to give a clear reply to the question. It is very important. If a person is in receipt of a disability allowance and an overpayment is made to him in error, he has to make repayment. I know of a case where £30 was overpaid and the £30 had to be recovered from the poor person, and they did not ask whether perhaps his family would for the succeeding 12 months not have sufficient food. Here, for political reasons, overpayments are written off even though’ they are recoverable, and here power to write off is given to the person who is responsible for such overpayments. The whole matter is unsound. There is a third matter which we do not like. Differentiation is made between soldiers to whom overpayments have been made; if they are officials the Government is doubtful whether such overpayments should be written off, but if they are private individuals who are not in Government employ such amounts are written off. The amounts are placed to Suspense Account, and if it is an official of the Union Government it is possible that those amounts will be recovered, but if a person is not in the employment of the Government, it is the policy of the Government to write off. You have the case of a person earning £1,000 per annum who received an overpayment, and it was the policy of the Government to write off in his case, but there may be a poor road worker who, on being released from the army, again takes up Government employment as plantation worker or something else. He received a small wage during the year and it is assumed that the overpayment will be recovered from that man, but it is not recovered from a person who is not in the employ of the Government and who is in receipt of a large salary. We consider the whole policy of the Government in this respect as altogether wrong, but we especially disapprove of being told that a write-off should be made for political reasons, and we would like to be satisfied. It is a terrible thing to say to the country that writes-off may be effected for political reasons. I now want to deal with another point. I would like to devote some attention to military buildings erected during the war. The Government had a responsible officer there, the Quartermaster-General. He is in fact the officer who was responsible and he had two main organisations to execute the works for him, namely, the Department of Public Works, and another organisation which was established by him during the war, namely, the Directorate of Fortifications and Coastal Works. I have served on the Select Committee on Public Accounts right throughout the war period. The Cost-plus Commission disclosed that the Department of Public Works did in fact err here and there but it gives me pleasure to say here today that the Department of Public Works comes out of the war period with a clean name, without a smudge on its name. After a thorough investigation by the Cost-plus Commission and the Select Committee oh Public Accounts, the Department of Public Works comes out of the matter without a blot on its name; nothing has been disclosed in connection with that Department putting a blot on its name. I wish I could say that the same applies in respect of the second system followed by the Government for carrying out its work, namely, the Directorate of Fortifications’ and Coastal Works. In the first place, I may briefly describe the difference between the two organisations. The Department of Public Works tried to distribute its military work as wide as possible amongst the builders in the country, to give work to every builder, to every contractor, while the Directorate of Fortifications practically put all the work into the hands of the “Big Four”. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) uttered a warning that the whole housing scheme would again be placed in the hands of the “Big Four”. The Directorate of Fortifications practically put all the work in the hands of what we call the “Big Four”, with the result that there were certain contractors who became extremely, extremely wealthy. We cannot deprecate that enough. But, moreover, the Department of Public Works fixed a certain margin of profit for contractors on which to work and Fortifications and Coastal Works always made their margin of profit bigger than that of the Department of Public Works. They drafted a brand new contract and it was so bad that a number of court cases resulted, unless those contracts are interpreted consistently in favour of contractors. A third matter with which I find fault in respect of Fortifications and Coastal Works is not that the work was right throughout given to a few contractors only, not that they allowed contractors a bigger profit than the Department of Public Works allowed, but that everywhere where buildings were erected the contracts were not strictly adhered to, and there were continual changes in favour of contractors and to the disadvantage of the State. If there was any way in which Fortifications and Coastal Works were able to execute a contract to the detriment of the State and in favour of the contractor then they followed it. One need only read the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts of last year as well as the present one. The Select Committee consistently has to point out how the Director of Fortifications and Coastal Works executed contracts to the detriment of the State and in favour of contractors. I want to devote some attention to one matter here, and in this regard I regret that I have to reproach the Minister of Finance and the Treasury. I consider it of so much importance that I must devote attention to it. According to the contract made between the Director of Fortifications and the contractors, it was the position that tools of trade were not to be taken as part of the costs of works. It was something for which the contractors themselves had to pay. What did the Director of Fortifications do? He simply said that articles such as paint brushes and brooms were not tools of trade. The Department of Public Works has always from the beginning of its history in South Africa held that paint brushes, brooms and similar articles were tools of trade, but the Director of Fortifications comes along and decides that paint brushes and brooms were not tools of trade. The contractors need not pay for it themselves, but were permitted to include, it in costs and still make a profit on it. What happened? As far back as 1942 the Controller and Auditor-General warned the Directorate that they could not do it, that paint brushes were tools of trade and he warned the director not to continue like that and to obtain Treasury approval for altering the contract. He informed the director that he was not in a position to make any alteration to the detriment of the State, that he should adhere to the contract or should obtain Treasury approval. The Director of Fortifications did not take the slightest notice of that. He ignored the remarks of the Auditor-General, in fact he took very little notice of what anybody said to him. He just carried on. Correspondence ensued. The Auditor-General uttered repeated warnings and ultimately, at the beginning of 1944, the conscience of ’ one official in the Directorate of Fortifications was awakened. He started to think about the existence of a Parliament and that the Auditor-General would perhaps report to Parliament and that it might be submitted to the Select Committe on Public Accounts. Then the official said: No, wait, we cannot continue. He then issued instructions that paint brushes and brooms were tools of trade and ordered contractors to pay for those items. Well, that was done. Eventually the matter came before the Treasury and that was where the Treasury came in and where I blame the Treasury. What was the decision of the Treasury? The decision was that brooms and paint brushes were tools of trade and that as from 1st April of this year they should be treated as tools of trade, that, they should go on the accounts of the contractor, they were not entitled to add those costs to cost, but the Treasury condoned the previous action, where the director had acted against the advice of the Auditor-General. Thereby the Treasury threw overboard the insructions issued by the accountant in the Directorate of Fortifications who had said that it should no longer be paid out, and said that the contractors, even though they had acted contrary to the terms of the contract, could retain those amounts. In this way the Treasury undermined the position of the Auditor-General who had uttered warnings as far back as 1942. The Treasury should have said that the Auditor-General had expressed warnings from the commencement of 1942 to approach the Treasury and ask for approval, but that they had not done that. The Treasury went along and undermined the position of the Auditor-General, and the Treasury made a fool of the poor accountant who last year gave instructions that the payments should not be made, and the Treasury supported the wrong action on the part of the Director of Fortifications who never paid any attention to any control exercised over him. For two or three years he acted in conflict with the warning expressed by the Auditor-General, he acted just as it suited him and eventually the Treasury came along and supported him in his wrong action, although they admitted that paint brushes were tools of trade. How do you follow that? I must say that the Treasury has keenly disappoited me in that respect. As far as other matters affecting Fortifications and Coastal Works are concerned my feeling of sympathy has developed lately because I am more and more finding out that when Colonel Craig established his department he was unable to obtain the required staff for carrying out his work efficiently. I gradually feel that there is somebody else who was responsible for the state of affairs which arose in the Directorate, and I consider it in the interests of the State that an investigation should be made into the Directorate of Fortifications to clear up everything; in the first place, the Directorate, and in the second place, to fix responsibility, who should be held responsible by Parliament for the state in which matters are. The other day the Acting Prime Minister informed me in Parliament that scandals and so on did take place but that if we were to add up the amount it ultimately was not so bad. Nobody knows the amount we have lost in connection with the Directorate of Fortifications. If I were to say that the State has lost five millions or ten millions nobody is in a position to doubt it. Nobody knows. The Auditor-General informs us that there are cases and cases of accounts and other things but that they are so confused that one is unable to make head or tail of it. The Cost-Plus-Commission ascertained—and I have not as yet received a reply to the question—that in respect of one work executed by Fortifications the lorries of a certain firm in Cape Town entered one gate with materials, as if proceeding to the works, and left with the same lorries by the other gate. We then took no further steps in the matter because we learned that a court case was to take place in that connection. What happened? That matter is dead. Who killed it by silence? Nobody is able to say what the amount of State funds is which the Directorate of Fortifications has cost South Africa, and if the Minister of Finance comes along and tells us that the scandals are not so very considerable, then nobody, not even the Auditor-General, would be able to tell us the amount which has been lost. It is such a muddle that nobody is able to make anything of it. “Call it a day.”

You had better now leave that also.

The State intends undertaking many big works at present. There is demobilisation. Will we again in that connection find the same things taking place which took place here? I regret that the Minister is not present. I merely want to say to the Minister of Demobilisation that for housing he is using one of the officials of the Directorate of Fortifications and we warn him in advance.

What is his name?

I do not want to give his name. He is using the official to carry out his housing scheme and I object to that. I do not like officials of Fortifications being taken to carry out a big scheme such as housing. We cannot be satisfied with what has taken place in Fortifications, and we cannot take officials from Fortifications to carry out the big housing programme. The Minister who does that assumes a very great responsibility. What I want to say is this: If there is one section in respect of which no complaints ever came before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it is the Air Force. They have in charge of supplies for the Air Force officials to whom I would entrust housing. They will give service to and show results for the State. I again do not want to give names. But now they take officials from the Directorate of Fortifications, the one section which has done bad work. They say: “That department has delivered the goods.” Public Works has also done that, but without a blot on its name, without State funds disappearing. I cannot enter into all these matters. There is only one matter in respect of which I am especially dissatisfied and that concerns certain transactions which took place between the Director-General of Supplies and the head of Iscor. The Minister will find a complete report of that in the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Certain transactions took place between the Director-General of Supplies, Dr. Van der Bijl, and the head of Iscor, again Dr. Van der Bijl. He negotiated with himself in connection with transactions between the two bodies and Iscor was never at the short end. Only read what the Select Committee on Public Accounts reports in that regard. And the head of Iscor is Dr. Van der Bijl and Dr. Van der Bijl negotiates with himself in connection with the transactions between the two and Iscor is never at the short end. Only read what the Select Committe on Public Accounts reports in that respect. I could take this matter still further but there may perhaps be other members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts who desire to make some remarks in this connection. I only know what our work on that Select Committee is hard but it is pleasant work. When I sit on that committee I feel that I do not sit there as a party man. Every case is dealt with on its merits, and I think that is the case because most members are imbued with the spirit that the Select Committee on Public Accounts is becoming such a power in the Parliamentary system and it gives me pleasure this morning with thanks to acknowledge the impartiality and the ability and impartial guidance in connection with our proceedings on the part of the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet).

Is it such a strong power?

It gives me pleasure to speak appreciatively of his ability and impartial guidance.

I only want to deal with one matter in the report. Before doing so I would like to pay my own tribute if I may to the work of this committee. They have spent a great deal of time. It is one of the most important committees in the House, a committee whose work is growing each year and the value of whose reports increases each year. The only pity is that as a rule we have not had the opportunity to discuss these reports and to go further into the very important matters which are raised therein. But there is no question that the committee does bring before the House the many aspects of our public expenditure which is right and proper for the House to know. I want to deal with just one particular item in this matter, one that I think will certainly cause surprise to the many thousands of contractors in this country who have suffered from disabilities in the payment of their accounts. I refer to Section 11, the payment of interest, the payment of interest to Iscor in respect of certain work carried out by Iscor by Dr. Van der Bijl, the Director of Iscor on behalf of Dr. Van der Bijl, the head of War Supplies. I should not like my remarks to be considered derogatory to the most valuable work that has been carried out by both these organisations, but this question of the payment of interest is certainly one of the most extraordinary incidents that has taken place. May I say first of all that it was a very strict rule which was laid down—and I had charge of the section of War Supplies which dealt with the main portion of contracts—that no interest was to be paid to any contractor on his account. I have a very vivid recollection of many accounts which were held up through perhaps some avoidable delays and in other cases unavoidable delays. I remember that the accounts were held up for many months. The contractors were very seriously embarrassed as a result of the nonpayment of these accounts. They had to run a bank overdraft to meet those demands, but we made it an absolute rule that no interest was to be paid on those accounts. I thought at the time that in many instances it was unfair, but since the rule was laid down, it had to be carried out, and therefore it is a matter for surprise when one sees in an account today that the head of the corporation who was responsible for laying down that principle has agreed in respect of his own corporation that interest should be paid. There is only one justification and that is that the contract was on a no profit or loss basis, and Iscor can justifiably claim that on the presentations of their accounts they should be paid on due date and that there should be no delay in the payment and therefore no losses. But what actually happened was this. Iscor failed even to render accounts for a period of 18 months, or even longer and then claimed interest from apparently the date when that particular job was completed, a most unheard-of claim, and what is more, the terms of the agreement were only signed on the 8th September, 1942, or three years after the work had started, and what is to my mind even more serious is that at that time, when the Government with due regard to this question of expenditure, with the care that is necessary, had appointed an Authorities’ Committee of which the Minister of Transport was chairman and whose duty it was to check up these contracts, that committee was apparently never even consulted at all. The committee was certainly never consulted up to the time when this contract was signed. Not only was interest claimed by the corporation but they claimed interest at the rate of 5 per cent. which was more than the amount they were entitled to. Well, I would very much have liked to hear the Director-General’s comments on any contractor who had put in a claim on a cost plus basis, and who had tried to slip in an extra 1½ per cent. as part of his expenses. It was due to the initiative taken by Treasury that this matter was taken up. They wanted a definite statement of account, and it was only then that it was discovered that Iscor had overcharged Treasury. But there is another point which is even worse. If Iscor had referred these accounts promptly to the Director-General and the Treasury, the Treasury would have saved this interest because it had money available at the time to meet these accounts, and furthermore if they had not had the funds available to meet the accounts, they would have been able to raise the money at a very much lower rate of interest than was actually charged by Iscor. I say that this contract leaves a very unpleasant feeling ….

It leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.

I would not say that, because it is not a question of an outside contractor. It is between two Government departments, but it does leave an unpleasant feeling that no proper care was exercised in this particular matter, and that the same principles were not adopted by the Director-General in dealing with Iscor as were applied to the ordinary contractor. I say that that is unfortunate. We were very strict indeed, and it seems to me that in this particular matter we had a right to expect that the Director-General and Iscor combined should have set an example in the charges that were made in their particular work. I do not want anything I have said to be construed in any way as an attack on the quality of the work that has been done by Iscor, but I do say that following on the remarks made by the Committee, that the attention of Iscor should be drawn to this matter and I would almost venture to say that the displeasure of the House should be conveyed to them and what I consider as a very unsatisfactory piece of work.

I should like in the first place to associate myself with the remarks which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) made in respect of the usefulness of the Public Accounts Committee in keeping tract upon various financial matters of the kind we are discussing today. I am not going to dispute whether or not the Public Acounts Committee is wholly responsible for the improvement, as the hon. member indicated.

I said in a large measure.

Very well, in a large measure then. I hope he will give credit to those responsible for listening to the Public Accounts Committee and who, having listened, acted upon the good advice of the Public Accounts Committee, with the result that, as the hon. member admits, there is now a considerable improvement all round. I recollect the attack which was made last year On the Department of Defence and the Director of Fortifications, and that attack was in much stronger terms than it has been this year, and I think both from that and from the reading of the report, it can now be admitted that there is indeed a very general improvement in the defence works organisation. May I, however, just once more emphasise this point. The hon. member referred to the fact that there were two departments at work on the buildings of the Defence Department, one being the Public Works Department’ and the other being the Director of Forticifations. He commended the Public Works Department and he did so very properly. But let him remember that the Public Works Department was an existing department. They had all their staff; they had all their engineers; they had all their architects. The unfortunate Director of Fortifications had to start from scratch with no one but himself. He had to take on such men as were offering, and whilst all these men did their very best, the fact remains that a great many were untrained in administration.

But they refused to learn anything from the Public Works Department.

But let us remember the conditions under which they came into this work. It was at a time when this country was really threatened. I do not want to enlarge on that, but we must cast our minds back to that time, and what was important was not just how the job was to be done and controlled but how it was to be finished in the minimum of time. The threat was there, and here was the Directorate which built, I think, something like £30,000,000 worth of work in a matter of a couple of years, and having regard to that, it is inevitable that there were mistakes in regard to the conditions of the contract; it would be almost impossible to apply in detail the conditions which normally apply to Government contracts. Let me also say that the Director of Fortifications as the head of the organisation must naturally accept responsibility for anything that has been done, but I think in fairness to that officer himself, I am sure the hon. member will admit that he had to employ large numbers of untrained men, and it would have been quite impossible for he himself to track down everything that went wrong. Having regard to these facts and to the one complaint made which boils down to a question of whether he should not have allowed paint brushes or brooms to be regarded as tools of trade, there is nothing very seriously wrong.

I only gave one instance. Do not think it is the only one.

One must assume that it is the worst case that can be produced, because usually the worst case is chosen; I only want to indicate that on the whole the Situation has not been at all bad. Having regard to the fact that this was entirely an improvised staff, having regard to the fact that men were literally taken off the streets, when not much was known about them, having regard to the fact that right through the investigations of the Public Accounts Committee, except in one or two cases, there has never been any indication of corruption and there has never been any indication of dishonesty, I think a high tribute is due to the Director of Fortifications that in all that work there was no corruption and no dishonesty. After all, what interest had he in settling disputes between contractors? The only interest he had was to get on with the job. Every member of the staff had to get on with the job, that was their main concern and they were not so much concerned with seeing that every Treasury regulation was observed. I think if we had appointed an Administrator of a Financier, we would probably still have been building the buildings.

The Pubic Works Department also delivered the goods.

But they had their own staff and they had an organisation in existence. I know from my experience on the railways that we could pay far more people that the Paymaster was paying, and we could do that without a hitch. Why? Because we had the organisation. I think that is the explanation and I think in fairness to the Director of Fortifications I should emphasise that fact. To deal firstly now with the problem of the writing-off which was the first matter really raised by the hon. member for George, let me say that I understand the hon. member said that the Minister of Finance had admitted that there had been scandals in connection with the work of the Director of Fortifications. I have asked the Minister of Finance if he made any such statement and he said that he is not personally aware of having made such an admission. In fairness to the Minister of Finance I think I should say that. In regard to the question of writing off over-payments in the case of soldiers, I would like to impress upon the hon. member that the Chief Paymaster can only write off certain categories of over-payments. He could not write off every category. Certain categories were agreed to and the hands of the Paymaster were tied in respect of those categories, and all those categories were categories that involved mistakes on the part of the Department or on the part of some senior officer. If a soldier got over-paid as a result of a mistake on the part of some senior officer. It was obviously not fair to get the money back from him some ten months later, when he has not got the money. Here again I think the hon. member should have stressed the figures; we have a very striking fact when we look at the actual figures involved. Notwithstanding the liberality, if you like, with which we agreed to the writing off of charges against soldiers, we paid out a sum approximating £200,000,000, and the amount written off by November, 1944 was £200,000, in other words, 1 per cent. That is not a scandal. That is a condition of affairs that could never have been attained under any private corporation—£200,000,000 paid out and £200,000 written off.

But all the accounts have not been reconstructed. There are the accounts of the native corps, the coloured corps and the Malay corps.

There may be some small adjustments to make to these figures, but I think the main figure is so striking that we can see what this trouble involves. Let us work up on that. Supposing we had decided to recover from the soldiers. It was I myself who suggested that we should stop writing to the soldiers because what I found was this, that we were sending out literally hundreds of thousands of circulars. Clerks were noting the fact that they were being sent out; postage was being paid on them, and they were all going out to people against whom we thought we had claims and nobody was taking any notice of them, and the Government was perfectly powerless to do anything about it. We could have gone on doing that and we would probably have spent very much more than £200,000, and we were doing this at a time when we could not reconstruct the accounts of the soldiers, because we were losing the work of half the Paymaster’s staff in sending out the circulars. If we had gone on with this, it would only have been at the sacrifice of putting the soldiers’ accounts in order, and I am sure the hon. member will admit that taking the advisability of doing one or the other, the best thing was to concentrate all our pay accountants on the question of getting the pay accounts straightened out for the Defence Department. In regard to the reference made to the concentration on what the hon. member called the Big Four, I think the main reason there is that most of the work of the Director of Fortifications was very big work and it could not be tackled by different small contractors. He had really to limit himself very largely to those firms who could take the whole job on, who could do every phase in the job, although these contractors doing the job, very often had small contractors working for them, but it was not possible for him with the staff at his disposal to handle the whole of the contract.

The Public Works Department had more big works and they split it up.

†The ACTING MINISTER OF DEFENCE But again my answer is that the Public Works Department had an organisation in existence and the Director of Fortifications had not. I think that is a good answer. I would say this in regard to the question of the tools of trade, that one of the things that may have influenced the director in this matter was this—because the Treasury did not rule that these were tools of trade; the Treasury never gave such a ruling; what the Treasury did say was that they would merely meet the irregular payment in the refund of contractors in view of the ruling given by the Director of Fortifications.

They ruled on the 1st April, that brooms and paint brushes were tools of trade.

†The ACTING MINISTER OF DEFENCE They may have taken account of the fact that someone ruled that, but I am advised that Treasury did not decide that brooms were tools of trade. Let me say that what the Controller and Audtitor-General said was that he would agree to this payment if the Treasury agreed to it, but that they must first get Treasury authority and for that reason, I think the Department of Fortifications thought that their principal business was not to decide whether they were tools of trade or not but to get Treasury authority and that is why they pressed for Treasury authority and in due course got it. It seems to me that that was the inevitable reaction of the Director of Fortifications through the action of the Controller and Auditor-General himself. I would like to say this in regard to the question of the over-payments. I am sorry I am mixing up my notes a little bit, but I would like to say in regard to the over-payments, that next year the Treasury will get authority for these over-payments. In regard to the question of discrimination as between employees of the State and others, that is a matter which will still have to be considered. I can give no undertaking in that respect now. In regard to the irregular payments, I would like to say that the Department agrees that the courts of enquiry which ascertained the circumstances surrounding these irregular payments, should, in fact, have been consituted much earlier. But I would like to give this assurance to the House that similar difficulties are not likely to arise in view of the high standard of efficiency that has been achieved.

Is it necessary for the Minister to keep everything so confidential? We cannot hear you.

I am sorry. I think the air-conditioning plant seems to drive the voice away from that end of the House. I do not know that there is much else that I can deal with on the points raised by the hon. member except to say that in regard to the last point he made, in which the Director-General of Supplies is involved, as between him and Iscor, I am afraid I know very little about this particular transaction, but I will undertake that the strictures of the Public Accounts Committee will be conveyed to the Director-General of Supplies, and we shall follow the matter up on the lines they suggest. In the light of what I have said, in respect of these very difficult matters, in respect of this improvised organisation, in respect of the great contracts that were carried out, I think on the whole our democratic system is working well. There have been flaws, there have been mistakes; there have been errors of judgment, but not one of them has escaped the notice, the limelight shed upon the whole question by the Public Accounts Committee, not one of them has escaped notice of Parliament, and as Parliament has criticised them, the Parliamentary machine and the Executive Parliament have done its best to put matters right, and I think that on the whole the results have been satisfactory, and I ask the House for that reason to adopt this report.

The Minister has already dealt with a few of the points I had intended to deal with, although in rather a different manner. I do not think it is for this House to defend the points criticised by the Public Accounts Committee, but simply to express its general opinion. I have one regret, namely that my friend, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) should have again attacked the Director of Fortifications for giving contracts to the Big Four. That has repeatedly been brought before the House and it has been explained that, to a great extent he was obliged to do it because the small people could not undertake the work, and as even the Big Four would not individually undertake the contracts, the Director of Fortifications had to bring them together and ask them to do it in a combined manner, a course which was approved of by the Union Tender Board. The other criticism that has been levelled against the Director of Fortifications was unjustified, because the interpretation of tools had to be given by the Defence Department, and it was only after a great deal of trouble and many references to the matter by the Auditor-General and the public Accounts Committee that the opinion of the law advisers was taken which decided against the wrong interpretation being applied, and then Treasury waived the recovery of the amount involved by the wrong interpretation.

But their complaint is that the sum involved will never be known.

The point I am making is that in effect the fault really lies with Treasury more than with the Director of Fortifications. But there is another point I wish to deal with, particularly this question about politics entering the matter of over-payments to soldiers. I think that in addition to what the Minister has said I should refer to what was said by Dr. Holloway, to whom the hon. member for George referred, which shows that the political policy referred to was not a matter of party politics. He referred to the difficulty of sending out accounts to recover the money.

No, that is the Administrator.

The point I would like to make is this: What would have been the moral effect upon the men busy fighting the battles of this country if whilst they were fighting we were to take action for the recovery of over-payments? But the main point I wish to touch upon is the question of the Director-General of Supplies. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) has very effectively dealt with this question. In principle it is wrong that the same person being head of one concern should enter into contracts with himself as the head of another concern. It leads to difficulties. Some of the results flowing from that position have been referred to by the Public Accounts Committee and by the hon. member for George, and by the hon. member for Sunnyside. There is another item affecting the D.G.S. to which no reference has yet been made and which is exposed in the Public Accounts Committee’s report and which was referred to repeatedly by the Auditor-General, namely that in spite of certain principles which were laid down by the Cost-Plus Commission as to the percentage of profit and the prices allowed to contractors, in particular cases, the profit allowed to contractors in certain cases was greater than than recommended by the Cost-Plus Committee and accepted by the Treasury. I draw attention to one item in particular, the question of recovery in respect of unjustified profits. It is shown in paragraph 10 of the report, that as the result of the reports of the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee’s resolution, in some contracts, particularly that of cigarettes supplied, the firm concerned refunded £5,121 9s. 4d. I must frankly admit that I believe that if the matter had been dealt with effectively in the first instance the amount that Treasury would have saved would have been considerably more than that. Then we have the case of motor tyres, and there again the D.G.S. entered into agreements at prices which obviously were in excess of what we were justified in paying, and as the result of the Auditor-General’s report and the Public Accounts Committee resolution £40,000 per annum was refunded by the firm. Compared with what could have been done if the matter had been dealt with in the first instance, that sum is probably insignificant. The same applies to the case of Bellman hangars where there was a reduction but not a refund. These are cases where the Director-General of Supplies entered into contracts contrary to the principles of profits laid down, and it is only after a great deal of effort that these matters have been adjusted, although not adequately adjusted. I draw attention to this in support of what has already been said by the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for George from another angle, and that is that where we have a corporation financed with public money such as Iscor, those very facts to which we referred are a sufficient argument and a sufficient indication that it is essential that an organisation of that kind, like Iscor, should definitely be subject to the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee, in order that the public shall know what is happening, because today we do not know to what extent that organisation is doing work in respect of which money might be saved if its activities were subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General and the Public Accounts Committee. And I do want to say this, in reference to what the hon. member for George has said, that the work that is being done by the Public Accounts Committee today is such that the time has arrived when the Government should take into consideration some arrangement by which that committee can be able to continue its work during the recess. I am entitled to say that that committee has shown not only that it is doing useful work in maintaining a Parliamentary watch over public activities, but it has been saving considerable sums of money to the State, and it is due to the fact that that committee has attempted, with some success, to deal with these matters as the watchdog of Parliament, as an impartial body, and not as a political party body, that I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for George has said about the chairman of the committee, Mr. Mushet. A fact to which I can bear testimony is that the hon. member for George and the other Opposition members on the Public Accounts Committee also have dealt with the questions which came before the committee not from the point of view of making political capital, but as an impartial body which has to do certain work for the State.

I think that this House should express its protest, as it has done so many time’s in the past, against the manner in which the reports of this important Select Committee are discussed in the closing hours of the Session. It happens every year. Members who serve on that Select Committee may have an idea of the contents of this report; but members who did not serve on the Committee require time to study the report. I regret very much that the report of such an important Select Committee should be discussed here so hastily. I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister, and I want to recommend it to him, that some other arrangement should be made as to the manner in which the reports of this Select Committee are dealt with.

I will discuss it with representatives of the Com mittee.

I am glad to hear that I rise to raise another matter. We on this side feel dissatisfied because wë have been given what I can refer to as a promise that we would have an opportunity during the current Session to have a thorough discussion in Parliament on semi-State bodies in which State funds have been invested, especially the corporations, I say that in connection with this report. I do not want to say that it amounted to a promise, but I do think that I can say that there was an understanding that such a discussion would take place and that this House would have an opportunity to review the financial position of our corporations. In any case, we were brought under that impression’ I blame nobody. I only regret that circumstances are such that we will not now get that opportunity. But I do think that the Acting Prime Minister owes the House an explanation in that regard. As we did not have an opportunity during the current Session of dealing with the financial position of the corporations in Parliament, I want to express the hope that the Select Committee on Public Accounts would have an opportunity, during the interim sitting, to investigate the whole question of the corporaions. While the control boards have now been referred to that committee—I do not know whether I am correct—while I gather from this discussion that the financial affairs of the control board will be referred to the Select Committee, and I hope that it is the case, I hope that consideration will also be given to dealing with the affairs of the corporations. But apart from that I want to make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister that an opportunity be afforded the interim meeting to consider this question relating to the corporations.

Are you referring to the meeting which is to take place between myself and representatives of the Committee?

Yes.

And you also mean that we should there discuss the matter of procedure?

Yes, but we want to go even further. The Acting Prime Minister will remember that we on this side have been pressing for a number of years for the creation of a special Select Committee to discuss the financial affairs of the corporations, because we say that the Select Committee on Public Accounts has not the opportunity nor the time to deal with the matter. This Committee is one which does most work. That is generally known. To now give it additional work and work of such an important nature as the affairs of our corporations will simply put that committee in a position where it will not be able to dispose of that work in the time at its disposal. Millions of pounds of. State funds have been vested in the corporations and I want to appeal to the Minister, if he cannot now reply, that he should have an investigation made during the recess as to how far it would be possible to appoint a standing committee of this House which will be in a position, as the financial committee, to conduct a continuous investigation into the affairs of the corporations. It is a duty of this Parliament to keep an eye on the finances of the country. It is the watchdog for the country’s finances, and it is unable to do fit’ thoroughly as matters are now, certainly not when vague reports of those corporations are laid upon the Table and remain there. On a previous occasion I pointed out that these reports are Very vague. They amount to profit and loss accounts—the Chairman’s speech accompanied by the profit and loss account. Only an auditor and a thoroughly trained financial expert are in a position to learn anything from those reports, and much more information is required. It is definitely impossible for this House to do it. To have á discussion in this House simply on the financial reports which are submitted to us by those corporations is not sufficient, and what this House should have is a permanent Select Committee to deal with the corporations. There is Iscor; there is Escom, which it is true does not at present receive State funds but which has been established with State assistance. It cannot escape investigation. There is also the Industrial Development Corporation, the Fisheries Corporation and I want to add the Broadcasting Corporation, because the financial position of that corporation should definitely not escape investigation. There are also others in the country and we have not yet seen the last of them. More corporations will be established. For that reason I say that this House should appoint a special committee to investigate their affairs. There is alarm not only on this side of the House and on the Government side of the House but also outside there is alarm over the corporations. I should put it in stronger language —there is suspicion and things take place in connection with the corporations which shout for an enquiry. One thing we want to know is why the heads of some of the corporations has never during the past years appeared before a Select Committee. How is that possible, when a Select Committee asks the heads of certain corporations to appear before it, for those persons not to appear before it? It is generally known that one of the heads of the corporations holds such a powerful position that he refuses to appear before the Select Committee.

Who is he? Give his name.

I think that it is a matter of so serious a nature that this House ought to know more about it. Let us be clear. If, we get matters in connection with these corporations before us, why, in the first place, is time being wasted and why, in the second place, is or are there a head or heads who do not want to appear before the Select Committee? I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the time is not ripe for the Cabinet to put down its foot? Are there people in South Africa who have obtained so much power through an Act of Parliament that they want to dictate to the Cabinet and refuse to appear before a Select Committee, and that the Cabinet dare not summon or compel them so to appear? I do not want to speak Out of my turn and say too much. I speak carefully. I could have put it in much stronger language. But I want to appeal to the Acting Prime Minister and ask him while we have had no discussion on the corporations—and I regret the fact that we have had no Select Committee to investigate this matter—and while the Select Committee on Public Accounts whose report we have before us did not have an opportunity of going into the matter, that during the recess, when he meets the Select Committee, he will discuss ways and means with a view to the possibility of our obtaining a special Select Committee for this purpose.

I will discuss that with the committee.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) is quite right in saying that we had hoped to make provision for the discussion of this question during the Session. Unfortunately he was not here the other evening when I replied fully on the point when the matter was discussed. I do not want to go into it again. I can only say that the whole question of Parliamentary supervision of semiState corporations is one to which I and my colleagues have given very much consideration during the past twelve months, but the question is one of great difficulty. I personally am still far from being satisfied that the solution of the problem is by way of a Select Committee. I see grave difficulties in that: But during the recess we will continue to give consideration to the matter, and as regards this meeting which is proposed now, we will certainly take advantage of that meeting and put the whole question up to them to see whether a solution can be found.

I merely want to make one remark in connection with this debate. I merely want to say that I do not in the least blame Defence when fortifications had to be constructed. I want to make no reproach, but I think that at this stage it is the duty of the House to put its point of view clearly and to direct the attention of the country to this fact, not to blame the Government, that when the country was in dire peril, when we were practically prepared to do everything to expedite fortifications and to have them properly constructed—and that is why I do not want to make any reproach against Defence or any other person—but I want the country to remember for generations and that the Government and this House should remember that at that time when we were hard pressed, the so-called “Big Four” were prepared to execute that work, but then we had to allow them to fleece the country. They have fleeced the country to such a degree that the Treasury to the best of its ability was unable to say to what amount they did take from the country. During the war I was a member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It was not only a matter of cost plus 10) per cent., but we found that the “Big Four” sometimes not only received the 10per cent. but they also received 10 per cent. for services performed by others for them. They never saw spoons for example nor handled them. The people who did the work for them received 10 per cent. The 100 then turned to 110 and after that the “Big Four” came and still received their 10 per cent. on the 100 and on the 10 per cent., so that the figure was 121. That is why I want to say that the people must for all times remember the role played by the “Big Four” in our dark days. They did not hesitate for a single moment to fleece the country to the utmost. They did not, along with the rest of the country which supported the war effort, say that they were prepared to do something for the population at minimum rates. They did it at maximum prices to collect the last penny. When the Government in future comes with its big schemes it should not forget the attitude adopted by the “Big Four” in the dark days, that they did not do work at the ordinary rates of pay, but were, in addition to that, prepared to take a percentage on work which they did not execute but was performed for them by sub-contractors. They were out to fleece the country as far as they were able to. It is the duty of this House, it is the duty of the Government and the duty of the people for all times to remember the role played by the “Big Four”. Where in peace-time the big schemes have to be carried out we should not forget their conduct in war-time. I cannot put this point in strong enough language.

In replying to the debate I want first of all to thank the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in regard to the kind words he said about myself. I take the opportunity also to pay tribute to him for the excellent work he does on this Committee. There is little doubt about it that his enthusiasm is a very important factor in the success of the work and I want to pay him that tribute. There are also other members of the Opposition who are members of that Committee, and who display equal zeal, and that is largely the reason why the Committee functions so successfully as it does today. There are one or two points I would like to refer to because I would not like a wrong impression to go abroad with regard to the attitude of the Public Accounts Committee. Firstly the member for George dealt with this matter of the Paymaster-General paying out sums of money. The Committee does not object to these sums of money being paid out. What we are really in the resolution drawing attention to is the assumed fact that the Treasury has delegated powers which powers they themselves have assumed to the Paymaster-General which we consider is unconstitutional. That is the whole point. With regard to those amounts that have been paid out the hon. member for George referred to evidence given by the Secretary for Finance, who used the word “political” but he should have used the word “State” or “State policy”.

He never uses the wrong word.

I shall keep that in mind perhaps for later use but the fact remains that we, sitting as members on that committee, had a very definite expression of opinion given by this House that these soldiers and their dependants should not be made responsible for the mistakes made by the Defence Department. That was the consensus of opinion. I do not remember even Opposition members raising objection to that. We, as members of Parliament, have cases brought to our attention every day of a wife suddenly finding that her allowance is cut down. She was not responsible for the mistake that had been made, nor was her fighting husband, and the mistake may have been made ten months or one year ago, and the House definitely gave us to understand that in such cases consideration should be given, so the Committee in not objecting was’ carrying out what I believe was the consensus of opinion, including that of the Opposition. Then we also heard that Treasury delegated the power which only belongs to it. That is a very definite principle of public finance and I think the Committee, in drawing attention to the point, is only doing its duty, and I am sure that the Minister of Finance will agree that they are doing their duty. With regard to the payments, we expressed no opinion about that, knowing what the consensus of opinion is. Attention is particularly directed in Paragraph 2 to the fact that the Committee considers that discrimination between employees of the State and other volunteers is inequitable, and they recommend what should be done. I hope that our recommendations will be carried out. I agree entirely with the hon. member for George on that point. Now, when we come to Fortifications, the trouble between my hon. friend and myself is that I prefer to be factual but he always insists upon being eloquent.

He cannot help himself, because he is always eloquent.

My hon. friend will never see this background. To compare the work of Fortifications with the work of the Public Works Department is not a fair comparison. The engineer in charge of Fortifications was right at the start confronted with a task for which there was no groundwork, no preparations whatever. I shall bring in this question of the Big Four. I do not think it is fair for the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) to have spoken of the Big Four as he did. The position in regard to these fortifications was that they had to be built; they were of a highly technical character and the only man in South Africa who knew about modern fortifications was the Director of Fortifications. He had been in England where he had studied modern fortification on the spot, and he was ready to the hand of the Government to come in on this job. He did a very great public service in agreeing to undertake this job. The biggest work in this part of the country had to be done on Robben Island. The war is over now, so we can talk about these things. That work presented tremendous difficulties. There was not a single individual contractor in Cape Town who would undertake this job. They knew nothing about it. They could tell you nothing about costs. They had to carry all the stuff over to the island. There were difficulties in regard to transport and so forth, and at one time the obstacles appeared to be insuperable. In these circumstances the Director of Fortifications called together four big firms in Cape Town and said, will you come and help me? These four’ big firms were not interested in doing the job from a builder’s point of view, but when they heard the importance of the job, it appealed to them personally, and they said they would pool their resources and carry it out.

At a price.

My hon. friend says at a price. He seems to know a lot about it. There may have been mistakes, there may have been wastages, but there was the situation. And the important thing is that the work was completed in something like six months, and right around the world experienced fortification engineers said there had not been a job of work like that done anywhere in the world in less than 18 months. That is the background. My hon. friends should be fair; they should give that background, otherwise you do not know the whole position. I had experience myself. I was called in on War Supplies; I was considered a wonderful fellow in my job, and where the wonderful part came in was that I disobeyed all rules that had ever been written. I cut all red tape to shreds, and within two months had the thing going successfully, but if I had allowed myself to be tied down by all the usual rules the job would never have been done in the time at the country’s disposal.

But you stuck to sound business principles.

That is the position you had with the Director of Fortifications. I give my opinion factually. You should never get rid of that from your mind. I do not say there is not criticism; there is criticism. But I do want to say when it comes to paint crushes and brooms and so on, the matter was so involved that I think we were all agreed on the committee that on the evidence in the circumstances all the Treasury could have done was to pay the amount and be finished with it. Otherwise all sorts of complications would have arisen and the Treasury, faced with an ex post facto position, dealt with it in the only way they could reasonably have dealt with it. Those are the two points. At this stage I would like to say, generally, we have been served in this war by some very excellent officers in the army.

I admit it.

And some very excellent officers have been doing the war job who are not in uniform. We have a special privilege as well as the opportunity in the Public Accounts Committee of having these gentlemen come before us, and I am perfectly certain there is no country in the world that has been better served by its public servants and by its officers than we in South Africa during the war.

Hear, hear.

I believe in the army you get decorations, but in other countries at the end of a period like this even civilian officers get decorations. We have civilian officers serving their country, serving the State over these war years in a way so meritorious that no honour conferred on them would be sufficient recognition for the work they have done. We know officers who have come before the Public Accounts Committee regularly during all these war years who have never had a single holiday; they have accumulated leave which runs into years in some cases. In every way they have always given of their best, rendering this country efficient, honest and honourable service, and I want to take this opportunity in passing, seeing reflections have been cast on certain people, to say generally speaking that was the position in regard to these men.

The worst have received the most promotion, the best have not received recognition.

I pay this tribute and I do it in all sincerity. The remarkable thing is this document before us, people have remarked about its voluminousness; if nothing else its voluminousness shows evidence of a very thorough manner in which the Public Works Committee has sought to do its job. We have been most searching in our enquiries, we have allowed nothing to be held back from us, and after those searching enquiries, after that thoroughness in examination, the result is one, I think, very very satisfactory indeed for South Africa. I make bold to say that there is no country in the world that has a better record to show than we have during this war period. We have not had one single case, in all this evidence brought before us, of corruption, not one single case of malpractice. Where would you get a record like that anywhere else in the world? I do not know of a better record in spite of the handicaps we had in South Africa such as perhaps no other country in the world had. I think even the hon. member for George will agree with every word I say. Having the privilege of being a member of the Public Works Committee over these years, having gone into the accounts to a degree that I think few people in this House have, I would like to pay this tribute and to say how proud I am of our country, and how proud I am of the officers placed in charge of the executive side of our Government, and I wish before sitting down to pay them that mead of praise.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 177 of this House—

I second.

Agreed to.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule? The Agriculture Vote is generally known to us as the most important vote which comes before this House, and I want to give one or two reasons why I call it the most important vote. The value of the agricultural industry, movable and immovable, is £478,000,000, and the production of that industry, taken over the last three years ended 1939, was £60,000,000 per annum. Furthermore the inland population is 6,580,000 or 68 per cent. of the population of the Union. From these figures we realise the extent and value of the agricultural industry in which such a large proportion of the population finds its existence. We cannot get past the fact that the agricultural industry occupies a key position in our national life, because it is the task of producers to supply food and raw materials to the country. If we take that into account and we take into consideration, on the other hand, that this large agricultural industry, representing 68 per cent. of the population, has only contributed 13 per cent. in 1936 in respect of all the branches of the industry to the national income, from all its branches, we cannot do otherwise than say that it is disquieting, that there is something radically wrong. Why has the agricultural industry contributed such a low amount to the national income? There is only one reply, the low standard of prices with which farmers had to be satisfied for years in respect of agricultural produce. That is why the farming community has been unable to make a large contribution to the national income. We do not get away from the fact that the farming community is entitled to social security. And it has a right to protection of the Government, which should make the industry its concern, and which should take steps to ensure that the population receives its just share. It is especially necessary to have a Minister of Agriculture who is sympathetically inclined towards farmers, who is aware of the difficulties of farmers, who knows exactly in what respects and when farmers should be assisted. The Minister of Agriculture in our country should be acquainted with and should have a thorough knowledge of agriculture, he must have a good knowledge of the difficulties which are caused by drought, too much rain, by hail, by insect pests, he must know what the position is in connection with stock diseases, surpluses and shortages, etc. If I ask whether the Minister complies with these requirements I must immediately reply: “No.” Our reply today must be that the present Minister is definitely the most unsympathetic and ignorant, or most wilful Minister of Agriculture who has for years been in charge of this vote. He is a Minister of threats, he wants to deal with the interests of the farming community by threats. For example, we have in mind the requisitioning of slaughter-stock. We have in mind his import measures. I do not want to enter into all the details, but he imported food which we could have produced in this country if the prices were satisfactory. On the other hand he exported. He has also decided that margarine should be manufactured to supplement the shortage. I will return to that. But the result of all this is that our agriculture is being forced downhill and the farmers ruined. Farmers are facing bankruptcy if the Minister continues in this way. No wonder that farmers refer to this Minister as the Minister who wants to administer his Department with a pistol in his hand. And you cannot blame them when you see the measures adopted by him to compel farmers to accept certain things. If the Minister does not turn over a new leaf and improve, I fear that not only one branch of agriculture but the whole agricultural industry will be ruined. I want to deal only with one branch of that industry, viz. the dairy industry. The dairy industry produces the products which are the most essential articles of food for the nation. Without them we cannot build a healthy nation and in the course of this debate we shall show how the Minister is ruining the industry. I want to restrict myself to the treatment which was meted out to farmers during the past year when they insisted upon economic prices. They asked the Minister not to give them an opportunity of making exorbitant profits, but to grant them prices on the basis of which they could exist, in other words, prices which, after deduction of production costs, would leave them sufficient to enable them to make a reasonable living. But has the Minister complied with that? Notwithstanding droughts and high prices for fodder he made it impossible for dairy farmers to produce dairy products, because he definitely refused to give them economic prices. The Minister sheltered behind a commission appointed by him and which had to work out the production costs of dairy products. I want it clearly understood that dairy farmers had no objection to the commission. On the contrary it was welcomed by them. But as the commission, as was said by the Minister, would be engaged upon the enquiry for several months, they asked only for a temporary increase to tide them over the investigation so that they should not produce at a loss, because dairy farmers have been producing for a considerable time at a loss and have made no profits in view of the facts referred to. The Minister refused and consequently farmers had to struggle through the winter, had to buy expensive fodder and sustain losses, and numbers of farmers took their best herds on which they had spent large sums of money and on the development of which they had spent years, to the auction sales. Others simply again sent their cows into the veld and let them go dry because they could not produce at a loss. Is it human on the part of the Minister to treat the industry in such a manner? Is that a Minister who should look after the interests of the farmers? Dairy farmers in the Eastern Free State are mainly small farmers and dairy farming is their main source of income. They all have had to suffer under the present Minister. The result was that they came together during this year and again approached the Minister and prayed for an increase of prices. A conference was held at Ladybrand which was unique in the history of this country, because it was attended by representatives from all branches of the dairy industry in the Union, and a deputation was there appointed to go to the Minister to request him so to increase prices that they could make a living. They went to the expense and remained here for several days but they had to return with a refusal by the Minister. He again referred the farmers to the commission behind which he is hiding. Now I want to point out that when the deputation arrived here almost a year had expired since the appointment of the first commission. That first commission submitted a report which the Minister did not want to accept because it was too favourable to farmers. The commission found that farmers were producing at a loss, but the Minister did not grant the farmers any increase and for that reason said that the report, was still incomplete and that there was not sufficient time to draft a full report—although they had been engaged on the matter for a year. The difficulty was that the report was favourable towards farmers. They went into costs of production thoroughly but the Minister refused because the report was not to his liking, and he appointed a second commission, a commission consisting of the Marketing Board, just for the purpose of keeping the prices for dairy products of farmers as low as possible. When that report appears we shall also see that the Marketing Board is trying to depress prices as far as possible. Farmers are producing at a hopeless loss. In 1939 mealies which are used by dairy farmers for feeding their cattle cost 9s. 3d. per bag; at present it is 18s. 6d. per bag, an increase of 100 per cent. At that time teff was 2s. 6d. per bale, today it is 5s. 9d. per bale, an increase of 120 per cent; at that time lucern cost 3s. and at present the price is 8s. 3d., an increase of 175 per cent. Labour has gone up by more than 100 per cent. All those increases dairy farmers have to pay at present and they are unable to produce at a profit on the basis of the ruling prices. The Minister has stated that the products of dairy farmers have gone up by 47 per cent. in price. If that is so then there is the incontrovertible fact that prices for the main types of fodder for cattle have increased by more than 100 per cent., and that proves that farmers are unable to produce at the ruling prices. Just compare the value of a pound of cheese to the value of any other produce. We know that 3 lbs. of meat are equivalent to one pound of cheese, and one has to pay 5s. for 3 lbs. of meat; 1½ lbs. of ham are equivalent to 1 lb. of cheese, and ham costs 5s. 3d.; 3½ lbs. of fish are equivalent to 1 lb. of cheese and the cost is 3s. 8d.; 26 eggs are equivalent to 1 lb. of cheese. A pound of cheese or of butter has as much nutritive value as 25 lbs. of mealies. A comparison of dairy products with other products illustrates the unfairness of the prices of dairy products. There is a great shortage of dairy produce. The demand far exceeds the supply. One of the main reasons is that the Minister refuses farmers an opportunity of making a reasonable existence. Consumers would have been prepared to pay a few pence more for the produce, but it was refused. Farmers however have to pay more for all their fodder.

Business suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business was suspended, I was speaking about the demand for and supply of dairy produce. The figures show that when the supply of dairy products fell as low as 33 per cent. last year, and that is a fact which shows the scarcity of butter and cheese in the country, some families had to go without butter and cheese and other families had to be satisfied with half a pound or a quarter-pound per week, and that was taking place when the Government even in 1943-’44 was exporting 12,000,000 lbs. of dairy produce to the detriment of the people of this country. I want to show that dairy produce last year was 5,000,000 lbs. less than five years ago. That proves that the position is deteriorating in respect of dairy produce. The production of three years ago exceeded last year’s figure by 9,000,000. Our farming operations are therefore retrogressing and the cause of it is the low price level obtained by dairy farmers. It proves that dairy farmers are turning their backs on dairy farming because it does not pay them. And that is happening on account of a matter of one or two pence per gallon. It is a foodstuff which everyone should have on his table, and there is therefore no reason why the Minister should refuse that consideration to dairy farmers. On the contrary, the Minister agrees that farmers should receive reasonable prices, and I want to quote his remarks from Hansard. He stated—

That is what the Minister stated but not what he is doing. That has been the experience of dairy farmers. The Minister is able to fix better prices for dairy products for the reason I have advanced here. The demand exists and the public are prepared to pay. If he were to fix higher prices dairy farmers would give him an assurance that he would be able to supplement the existing shortage. We now have figures which demonstrate that we produced 5,000,000 lbs. more dairy products five years ago than last year. That is proof that farmers are selling their best herds and that they are turning their backs on dairy farming. Recently the Government had to pay a subsidy of £73,000 on dairy products imported into this country to compete with the products of our own country. Is that consistent? Why did he not use that amount of £73,000 for increasing the prices of dairy products produced in this country? I still want to state that if we were to receive that allowance that we would wipe out the shortage which exists at present. Now to supplement this shortage the Minister said that he intended having margarine manufactured in the country. That is the consolation given to the farmer. Some months ago he increased the price of milk by 1d. To satisfy fools, as farmers say. But he pays £73,000 to import products, to compete with the products of the only stable industry in the country, or an industry that should be stable, the only industry which has stood on its own legs for years without Government assistance. The dairy farmers had themselves to export surpluses which cost this country £2,718,788. That is the amount paid by farmers of this country in levies for exporting surpluses. Notwithstanding the events which preceded the war, notwithstanding the nightmare of the farmer to find a market for his surpluses, the Minister now intends to supplement that shortage by the manufacture of margarine, and he intends importing dairy products. I want to prophesy, if that is the manner in which he intends assisting dairy farmers, that it will be the end of dairy farmers. Cheese and butter of this country were before the war dumped in London at 6d. and 7d. per lb. Furthermore, in the immediate future matters will be normal again and we shall have these surpluses to dispose of. How does he intend solving the question? Is it not the duty of the Government to take steps for putting these things right in the country? We hear about subsidies. I think farmers take exception to that word “subsidies”. It is not necessary for farmers to look to subsidies and mercy. What we desire is a reasonable price for our products, a price giving us a reasonable profit so that we can make a living. A subsidy is simply just a blinker hung before the eyes of the consumer. If it is necessary to grant a subsidy consumers should receive it and not producers. Producers must receive their desserts, that is an economic price, and that is why the producer objects to that word “subsidies”. I now want to ask the Minister what he intends doing to save the dairy farmers as far as this critical position is concerned. We know that a commission is now investigating the matter. Supposing the Commission of Enquiry submits its report to the effect that the farmer has sustained a loss on the fixed price. Will the Minister be prepared to compensate farmers for such loss, and will he be prepared to make it retrospective? Will he be prepared to compensate farmers for such loss or is he going to waste time with this commission until next Session? We have had this enquiry for 15 months while farmers could have told him more than a year ago what their costs of production were. In the case of other products, such as mealies and wheat, prices have been fixed. There is a basis on which they work. Why should dairy products then be chosen; why is it impossible to determine the price of a gallon of milk? Dairy farmers are unable to follow that. They held one congress after another and they sent telegram after telegram to the Department to no avail and matters cannot go on like this. If we ruin this industry other industries will follow suit. When the deputation from Johannesubrg arrived here recently the Minister saw his way clear to increase the price of creamery milk by 1d. We have nothing against it. But the difference between creamery milk and fresh milk is so big, viz., from 8d. to 9d. On what basis did the Minister work when he increased the price by 1d.? It costs the person supplying fresh milk nothing more to produce a gallon of milk than it costs the farmer supplying milk to creameries. Why is it not possible to reduce the gap between the two prices? Why is it not possible to increase the price of creamery milk so that those farmers may also receive an economic price? No, I think the time has arrived for the Minister of Agriculture to pull up his socks or to resign. We simply cannot carry on like this. The Secretary for Agriculture himself admits that those farmers are unable to exist. In his report he wrote as follows—

He himself admitted that it was an achievement and that in this respect it was impossible for farmers to produce at ruling prices. The Department knows it. Is that policy wilfully being pursued or do they want to destroy the industry? What are the Minister’s intentions? My time does not permit me to enter into all the details. I just want to refer to another matter in connection with this industry. The cheesemaker on the farm is at present still only paying 1d. levy on every pound of cheese. Previously that was intended for the export of cheese. Such export took place at a loss and that subsidy was intended to compensate for such loss. At present no cheese is being exported but the levy is still being paid. I would like the Minister to go into this matter. There are sixty of them and they have up to the present paid in levies an amount of £17,167. For what? I here want to prophesy that if no change is made the dairy industry would later on be under the Department of Social Welfare because it would be the cheesemaker on the farm who would have to place his products at the disposal of the low paid groups, Europeans, coloured persons and natives. That is taking place at the expense of cheesemakers on farms and is ruining them. If matters continue like this it will ultimately mean that the dairy industry will come under Social Welfare. They will then be compelled to produce for their own ruin and ultimate bankruptcy. I want to refer to another matter in connection with the Dairy Control Board. That Dairy Control Board is the dummy which is being employed to mislead farmers. That body finds itself in the position that it is unable to do anything because it has no final say and no executive authority. More than a year ago it recommended that dairy farmers should be granted an increase because they were unable to come out, but notwithstanding that recommendation the Minister went so far as simply to veto their recommendation and he gave to dairy farmers what he wanted to. For that reason I want to put the matter to him as follows: Either give power to the Dairy Control Board to carry out its recommendations or abolish it. The Dairy Control Board was still further watered down on account of the fact that it, in the end, falls under the Marketing Board. Later it also came under the Department of Commerce and Industries and the prices which were recommended were watered down until eventually they reached a level on which farmers could not exist. I trust that this matter will now receive the attention of the Minister and that he will take into serious consideration the remarks made by us here so that dairy farmers will receive their desserts. I also want to ask him to expedite the report of that commission and immediately to make its recommendations retrospective so that dairy farmers will be compensated for losses sustained by them during the past two years during this unprecedented drought by which farmers were compelled to even feed their cows in summer. Their mealie and wheat crops have failed. Those were the only industries on which they could fall back. What farmer, who is able to sell his mealies at 18s. per bag, will feed it to his cows eventually to receive a return of 12s. per bag? Such a farmer would be a fool if he were to do that. The result is that he sells his mealies and he lets the cows go dry. These are the facts in connection with the dairy industry which we have to face, and now the Minister comes along with a nightmare that we are unable to produce sufficiently and that margarine should be manufactured. I want to warn him that the manufacture of margarine will simply destroy the dairy industry in this country. It will mean that one or two capitalists will make money. People from overseas will make money and it will mean that people in our own country will not find employment here and that thousands of families would find themselves on the street. That will be the final result. If the Minister wants to see the matter in the right light, he must take steps to prevent the manufacture of margarine in this country. He must take into account the fact that when times become normal again we shall have a surplus of dairy produce. Distribution should be provided for because we know that we had the position in the past where people in England ate our butter and cheese at 6d. per lb., while people in our own country had to pay the usual prices. We want the Minister to give his attention to these matters and take steps …. [Time limit.]

Speaking as one of the older members of the House who represents farming interests and who is in close touch with farming opinion, I feel that I can, with other members, express the feeling of the farmers on the matter I wish to raise now. I understand that Dr. Viljoen, the Secretary for Agriculture, is shortly taking up an important appointment overseas, and we will have his services as head of the Agricultural Department for the last time this Session. If that is correct. I wish to request the hon. Minister to convey to Dr. Viljoen our thanks and great appreciation for the great services he has rendered to this country and especially to the farming industry during the time he has occupied that position.

Hear, hear.

In saying this I do not mean to convey that we have always agreed with him. There are many members of this House who do not see eye to eye with Dr. Viljoen in many of his views, but knowing what farmers are, who cannot even agree with each other, we can easily understand that, farmers are individualists, but we farmers will have to realise that until we speak with one voice not only in this House but in the country, agriculture will not get what is due to it from this Parliament. Now, we will miss Dr. Viljoen sadly, but I venture to say that his work will live a long while and that we will have much benefit from it in future. I wish to say on behalf of many of us that we wish him every success and happiness in his new appointment and we will welcome him when he returns to this country. Dr. Viljoen has been responsible for much that has been of great benefit and for the advancement of the agricultural industry of this country. Now, I wish to deal with a few matters for which he was responsible in the past. I wish first to mention the report of the Agricultural Department on the reconstruction of agriculture in South Africa. That report has been before the country for quite a long time now but we have heard nothing yet from the Government as to what it thinks of the report and whether they are likely to adopt the recommendations which have been put forward there. Those of us who are practical farmers feel that the Government should adopt the recommendations of that report for their future agricultural policy in this country. If they do, we see some hope for the future of agriculture in South Africa. If they do not we will go on in the same way as we have done in the past, just dealing with crises one after the other as they arise. We require some definite stated policy on which agriculture can be built up for the future of this country. I cannot in the short time at my disposal go into the recommendations of the report but I may say this, that if we are going to save the soil and the land in this country it is only by means of the recommendations of that report that we can do so and it is only by the recommendations of that report that we can build up a successful agriculture for the future. I wish also to deal with another matter, with regard to the Marketing Act. The Secretary for Agriculture was, I think, responsible in a large measure for that Act which we accepted in this country as the Magna Charta of the farmers in this country, but the Marketing Act has not functioned as we expected and as it was, intended it would. In fact, it has functioned in many instances in the very opposite direction. Instead of fixing prices on the basis of the cost of production and a living for the farmers, it has been used for the very opposite purpose, to depress the farmers’ prices to below the cost of production, at which prices farmers of this country cannot expect to make a living. I make that statement and I should just like to quote some instances to prove that what I say is correct. It is in regard to milk, the price of milk. Now, the milk products of this country which are controlled by the Dairy Control Board which was appointed under the Marketing Act have been depressed and kept down to a very low level. Fresh milk, which is not controlled by the Dairy Control Board but the prices for which are laid down by the Price Controller and the Government itself, these are on a very much higher level, although the costs of production are very much the same. As you know, the price of fresh milk in Johannesburg today is 1s. 9d. a gallon, in Natal it is 1s. 7d., and in the Cape Province it is 1s. 8d

Why the difference?

I would like to know why too, but I expect the Minister will tell us. In other places it is much lower. If the costs of production are more or less the same, why that difference in price? When we come to the dairy products which are controlled by the Dairy Control Board we find that for factory milk, which is produced in exactly the same way as most of the fresh milk and at the same cost, 7d. or 8d. a gallon less is paid. That milk is produced by neighbours on adjoining farms. I don’t think the price of fresh milk is too high, it is not. But one sends his milk to town as fresh milk and the other to the factory as cheese-milk and that is the reason for the difference in price. I want to ask the Minister how he can justify these differences in price. The only way we can see that these prices have been arrived at is that the Dairy Control Board has adopted the policy of keeping down the costs of dairy products to the consumer at a level at which the poorer section of the people can buy it, a policy of cheap food at the cost of the producers, but in the case of fresh milk the Price Controller has tried to encourage the production of fresh milk, so that the townsman shall not go short, and by higher prices in comparison with factory milk they have encouraged the production of fresh milk for the towns for the benefit of consumers, that is the right policy. I feel that the Minister, acting on the advice of his Dairy Control Board and the various other bodies who advise him has adopted a very wrong principle. The principle they have adopted has not had the effect of encouraging production, but has had the very opposite effect, to reduce production to the very minimum, and people go short of valuable milk products, and producers produce at a loss. [Time limit.]

Speaking as one representing consumers I want at the outset to pay tribute to Mr. Jack Gibson, the Food Controller, who in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture, is doing good work for the country in connection with the regulation of food facilities for the consumer. It is because I feel confident in his ability that I want this afternoon to draw the attention of the Minister to the plight of the lower income groups owing to their inability to buy certain essential foods on account of the heavily inflated prices. I want to appeal to the Minister to intervene by using the offices of the Food Controller to a greater extent; and by using his own ministerial powers to import certain foods. We have in effect a Food Ministry in this country, but it is lacking in one essential respect. If the Food Controller had power to control the food prices then we might say that we had an effective Food Ministry in this country. If we intend to control rationing and supplies and reserves of food, then that control cannot possibly be efficient unless at the same time we ask the Food Controller and the Minister to control food prices too. I hope that if any policy of exporting South African food is decided upon the Minister will insist that internal prices are controlled more efficiently than today, and that a system of rationing is introduced, so that the public generally will get än equitable distribution of the food that remains in the country. Our Food Controller only indirectly controls prices. Until he controls prices directly we cannot do justice to the lower income groups. We can have full employment in the country; we can have a glut of essential foods; and yet we can have mass starvation; in the case of four-fifths of our population today, the fact is that certain essential food products are far beyond their capacity to buy. I want to illustrate that by referring to a document issued in November last by the Natal University College. It gives figures of approximately 100 households in the lower income groups. The average family wage earned by these households, the breadwinners of which are employed by the Durban Municipality, is £6 12s. 5d. per month. The food costs in the family budget come to £6 13s. 7d. The total family budget per month is £11 0s. 6d. To make up the difference between the wage of £6 12s. 5d. and the total family cost of £11, extra money has to be brought in by the wives and the children, with the result that most of the children do not pass Standard III. Another result is that these families are in debt to an average of £16 each mainly as a consequence of the heavy food prices. These are Indian families, but I believe their cases are typical of the coloured and native families also. I wish to give some of the inflated prices. Rice has increased from the 1939 level to November last year, from l½d. to 8d., that is 430 per cent. Dholl has increased 140 per cent. These two items alone account for 15 per cent. of the costs of the family’s food. Beans have gone up 350 per cent. and condensed milk 60 per cent. Here I want to support the case made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) that the disparity in the price between condensed milk and fresh milk be removed by the Minister. The Minister, it is true, has imported some 80,000 case’s of condensed milk from the United States. By December or November of this year the families who are now benefiting by that imported milk will require further supplies. If then he continues with his policy of importing milk, and can remove the disparity in prices, so that more condensed milk is made in South Africa, a very definite service will be rendered to the lower income groups. I return to the family budget. Dried fish has increased in price by 500 per cent.; tinned fish by 300 per cent.; and cooking oil by 150 per cent. 23 per cent. of the family income is spent on fish and cooking oil. These figures indicate an alarming state of inflation in the country. Such conditions exist today amongst the lower income groups. The physical results in disease and inefficiency are only too well known. In these 100 families 46 babies die yearly in their first year of life. I need not emphasise the unhappy moral results. I appeal to the Minister this afternoon to use the services of the Food Controller, not only to examine this serious state of inflation, but at the same time to endeavour to bring these prices back from their black market levels to normal levels. I want also to ask the Minister to consider the question of importing certain necessary foods in greater volume. I would suggest that he investigate the possibility of bringing in food from Madagascar. Here is a valuable potential market with which we can establish two-way trade. Before the war 60,000 tons of maize and 1,000,000 tons of rice were exported from Madagascar. The cattle census is about 10,000,000. Other foods produced there and available in considerable quantities are potatoes, coffee, tapioca and beans. By direct purchase, using sterling, or by the exporting of our South African clothing, tobacco, cigarettes, iron and steel products and tinned foods, we could make available sufficient supplies effectively to supplement the food supplies of this country. Summing up, I want to impress upon the Minister the need to give more attention, and for his Department and the Food Controller to give more attention, to the interests of the lower income groups. He should endeavour to put these high prices into reverse and at the same time explore every possibility of making available at reasonable prices the essential foods required. If that is done I believe the Minister would render a beneficent service to the vast population of this country whose inefficiency and ill-health and general unhappiness arise from the fact that prices are so heavily inflated.

I would first of all like to associate myself with the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) who paid tribute to Dr. Viljoen. I may say that at the outset of the war when it was urgently necessary to develop the food reserves of this country and to send food to our troops overseas, and when I was so closely associated with that work, no one could have rendered better and more loyal and devoted service than Dr. Viljoen. I am glad today to have an opportunity of paying that tribute to one who has so often been maligned during the last few years. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) has directed a plea to the Minister to try to arrange for the importation of food to this country. I want this afternoon to address my plea to the Minister to see what steps he can take to supplement the food of the people of Great Britain, who are today feeding our own troops who have been sent over from Europe, and also Commonwealth troops and other large bodies of troops, and who today have cut their own food rations down so that our boys can have their food supplies. I say that far from today going into the question of how to get extra food into the country it is our duty to see what extra food we can send to Great Britain. I want to mention another matter. I think I am not speaking too strongly when I say that a feeling of disgust went through this country when they saw, at the time when things were so different, when food supplies were so short in Great Britain, that we imported 80,000 carcases into the country. The Minister made a statement explaining that. I can only say that his explanation caused just as much surprise as the original statement. But what are we to say when I see that it is announced on the 23rd May in the newspapers: “Less food in Britain, public shocked by new cuts”, and on the same day we announce the suspension of meatless days.

That just shows maladministration.

I do not say it is that, but I say that these two items alone have caused a shock to the people of this country. I want to submit that in this matter, no matter what we have done in the past— and we have done a good deal—I want to remind the people of this country that any supplies we have sent overseas have only been our surplus and never once did we cut down our own food supplies, and when the Minister tells us that we have reason to be proud of the efforts of our industries, developing canned foods, I know what vast quantities of citrus, jams and other items have been manufactured, and I say that, but let us not take any pride in the fact that we went short to do so, because we never did. I want today to urge on the Minister that the conviction has been growing in the minds of many people of this country that it is time we made a greater gesture not only from a sense of duty, but a sense of what we owe to Great Britain for feeding our troops that were sent over there. This proposal has been made from various quarters, that steps should be taken to make an adequate gift to the people of Great Britain. I know it might be difficult for the Minister now to do that, but I can assure him if the Government will take steps to see that those all too short food rations in Great Britain are augmented, if it will take the responsibility of feeding those troops that are being repatriated from Europe, the great majority of the people of this country will be prepared to go short. I say that if we had followed the advice I gave the House two or three years ago to go in for rationing and building up reserves we would today have had the reserves in hand to send to Great Britain. Part of our trouble is that the House did not face up to the position, and the country did not face up to it. I say that with all the force I can. I am not blaming the Minister; he was not concerned in the past, and has only come into it during the last year or so. The people in this country were equally responsible for not tackling the question of food rationing and for not building up reserves. It would, it is true, have meant an increase in cold storage charges; we know that. These things were recommended three years ago. There were certain difficulties in connection with plant. But I know this, if the measures that small committee recommended had been adopted three years ago this country would have been in a stronger position today. I urge the Minister to go into this matter and to rest assured even if it does mean curtailing some of the foodstuffs of this country in order to help Britain and the devastated countries of Europe, and our friends over there, he is going to get the support of the vast majority of the people of this country. In America they have cut down those food supplies to Britain and it is Great Britain today that is bearing the brunt of the whole of this burden, and while we have suffered in our stomachs least of all the dominions in the world, and while Australia and New Zealand have cut down their own rations to send supplies to Great Britain, the least we can do is to make this gesture to Great Britain. I trust that during the next few months the Government will take these steps and make a handsome offer of a gift of foodstuffs to Great Britain as a token of our gratitude for the part they played and also for what they are doing in feeding our lads.

It surprises one to hear such speeches as that by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). You expected him to deliver a plea in favour of the consumers in our country, but he rises in his seat and asks for stricter rationing of food. It is here not a matter of stricter rationing of food, but we know that the position was that people could not get food. The hon. member says that South Africa is in the happy position that it did not have rationing like other countries, but we had the condition in our country where people suffered from starvation and stood in queues, right through the night, in order to get a little piece of meat. Then the hon. member stands up and pleads for “stricter” rationing, so that the surplus can be exported to England. It is peculiar that the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) in turn pleaded for just the opposite, namely that we should import food. Can those hon. members not understand the mismanagement in our country which is the cause of these conditions in South Africa? They contradict each other. The question I want to put to the Minister is, what is he going to do for the farming community in our country? Recently a deputation of dairy farmers came here to interview the Minister and they directed a very reasonable request to the Minister. They asked for an increase of 3d. in the price of milk, and when the Minister’s reply was unsatisfactory, they asked to interview the Cabinet. They met the Cabinet and they stayed in the Cape for five days, and on the last day they were supposed to receive the Government’s decision. They got the decision and what was it? That without having achieved their object they had to return, and that nothing would be done for the farmers. Now we want to know what the Minister is going to do to assist the dairy industry, one of the most essential industries in South Africa, to hold its own. But all the pleas and arguments of that idnustry fall on deaf ears as far as the Minister is concerned. We want the Minister to tell us what his future policy is in regard to the dairy industry. The Minister thinks that the farmers are getting more for milk today than they did in the past, but he conveniently loses sight of the fact that production costs have risen, that labour has risen by 200 per cent. in the past four years, that the cost of fodder has gone up. Teff which you previously bought for 1s. 6d. and 2s. a bale, today costs 5s., lucerne 8s. a bale and mealies 19s. a bag. Can the dairy farmers make a living if the price of their fodder has gone up so much? They cannot and the people must be helped and the Minister must make a statement so that the country can know what the prospects of the dairy industry are and if it will be maintained. The Minister must announce his policy. The people in the country cannot get sufficient butter and cheese, and he goes ahead and makes plans for the manufacture of an inferior article, like margarine, and this the people must eat. I want to join with the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) in saying that if the Minister manufactures margarine he will be dealing a death-blow to the whole of the dairy industry in South Africa. Notwithstanding this the Minister puts a levy on cheese and butter from the 1st May of 2¼d. per lb. This is again a tax which must be paid by the consumer. But not only does the consumer pay this, because the cheese and milk factories take it out of the farmers. The farmer will again be the sufferer. There was the request from the deputation of dairy farmers. What is the Minister going to do to meet the farmers in order to prevent the dairy industry from going under? We want a clear statement from the Minister in this connection, and since the Dairy Board has already collected an amount of £2,385,700, what is going to be done with the money? Is it only to cover the administrative section of the Dairy Board, or does the Minister intend to take over a large amount? What does the Minister intend to do with that? How must the Dairy Board spend the amount? Is it his intention to use that to give the farmers a bigger subsidy for their milk or cream, or is it his intention to subsidise the consumers by means of that amount? We do not know what is happening. That is why we urge a statement from the Minister in connection with his future policy.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) resents the fact that the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) proposed that we should try to export food to the needy countries in Europe. I hope that the hon. member for Wakkerstroom is not voicing the policy of his side of the House, because if that were the case, then they are stating today that we must take everything, but give nothing.

Look after your own people first.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom is one of those who daily applies for more petrol. Does the hon. member for Wakkerstroom know that he rides round on petrol which he gets because other people are rationed in the countries the petrol comes from and at the expense of and to the detriment of the citizens of those countries?

Nonsense.

Where does the petrol come from? From England perhaps?

Let us accept the policy that we for our part will be prepared to go a little short ourselves. It will not do the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), or me either, any harm to eat half a pound less meat a month.

Can you not export a little margarine?

There are a few points in connection with which I would very much like the Minister to state his policy. I want to ask him what the policy is in the districts ….

Give it to him!

I hope that the hon. member will not keep on interrupting, like advocates who are accustomed to interrupting each other. I am not an advocate, and I very much want to know what the Minister’s policy is with reference to the districts where we have infectious diseases. What is the policy with reference to veterinary surgeons? In the district which I represent, there has for a considerable time been no veterinary surgeon, and east coast fever is prevalent there, and we know that we in Natal have already suffered a great deal as the result of the spreading of east coast fever. It is said that there are no veterinary surgeons. But what is the policy? Is the policy to keep veterinary surgeons away from the districts where there is sickness, or to send them there?. There are roughly 74 district veterinary surgeons, Can a plan not be made to send the veterinary surgeons from healthy districts to districts where they are most needed. A short while ago the Minister announced that it is his intention to erect, cold storages in order to make a success of the meat scheme. I want incidentally to draw attention to the fact that it must not he lost sight of that there are districts which already have accommodation in the shape of factories which Will be empty after the war. Ladysmith in my constituency is one of the places where cold storages can easily be erected in the magazine or factory where ammunition is made. Then I would very much like to know what the policy is in connection with the agricultural faculty for Natal which we asked for long ago. Natal has its own difficulties with regard to the farming industry. The nature of the industry is different from that of the Transvaal and the Cape. With regard to the Cape, there is an agricultural faculty at Stellenbosch, and the Transvaal has its agricultural faculty, and we stress the necessity for an agricultural faculty in Natal. It is not necessary for me to go into details and to argue further about it, because I expect that the Minister is convinced of the necessity thereof. We would nevertheless like to have clarity on the subject. I would just like to bring to the Minister’s notice that he must tell us whether he has changed his policy or that this Department have changed their policy, because we must know where we stand in regard to that. Then I come to something about which the farmers grumble a great deal, and I think it is necessary for the Minister to take into consideration the application of the Stock Diseases Act. As it is applied today, he does not get the support and co-operation from the farmers which he ought to get. The manner in which the Stock Diseases Act is applied does not give offence because regulations are applied if diseases break out, but there are complaints about the general application, the manner of application of the regulations. And the Minister must not play the part of protector of the Department, but as a friend and protector of the farmers in every respect. Let me put it this way: In the parts of Northern Natal which used to belong to the old Transvaal, we have the highveld territory. The Stock Diseases Act is applied there in such a way that the farmers are all up in arms. It is applied in such a way that the stock inspector, as he may do under the Act, requests the farmers to round up their cattle on a certain day, usually at the dip for dipping purposes, but in the sections to which I now refer, there is no compulsory dipping, and there are no dipping-tanks and no dipping is done, but nevertheless the farmers are there asked to round Up their cattle on a certain day. Sometimes a farmer has 700 of 800 cattle and then it is necessary for him to bring his cattle home in order to enable the inspector to count them. How does that help in connection with the eradication of stock diseases? The inspector must have the trust of the farmer, and whether there are one or ten cattle short, it will not help him in the combating Of the disease. The Minister must see to it that another policy is followed with reference to the application of the Stock Diseases Act. It makes it very difficult for the farmers to go on with their work. It is a serious obstruction if the Department insists and the farmers are ordered to round up their cattle on a certain day whilst it is not necessary. In this manner you do not get co-operation of any kind, and I very much want the Minister to bring about a change in this connection. I hope that these few points will have his attention, and that the necessary relief will be brought about as quickly as possible.

Last year when the vote “Agriculture” was under discussion, the Minister had only one excuse to offer in connection with all the complaints in regard to shortcomings and irregularities, namely that whereas he had only recently been appointed as a Minister, we could not expect him to be au fait with all agricultural matters. The result was that we gave the Minister a good opportunity to put his case and we treated him fairly, but we also told him that we desired to condemn him, but that for the time being that would be a suspended sentence. We gave him one year, but he has failed just as much as his predecessor; no, he has made a greater mess of it than we have experienced ever before, and now we come again, and the farming community and we on this side of the House will no longer be satisfied with a suspended sentence. We condemn him again and decidedly, and it is no longer a suspended sentence, but in view of his actions as Minister of Agriculture, we condenm him to a life sentence. He pleaded not guilty last year, and told us that he was a stranger in his Department.

I never said so.

His excuse was that we should give him a chance, because he was a newcomer in the Department of Agriculture, and we could not expect him to be acquainted with all these matters. He came as a newcomer as far as the agricultural industry is concerned, and we watched his actions, and we must come to the conclusion that he is still a stranger, and we are afraid that he will remain a stranger for all time as far as the farmers are concerned. I want to deal with the question which was raised by this side of the House, but I cannot refrain from saying a few words in reply to the questions of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) and the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan). Have we ever had to listen to speeches which were more illogical than that of the front-bencher of the Government? The hon. member for Sunnyside tells us that we should remember what Great Britain and the other allies have done for South Africa, and that we should export our foodstuffs to them. We do not object as long as there are surpluses, but I want to ask the hon. member whether he is a stranger in our country. Is the hon. member not aware that the farming community during the war exported large quantities of foodstuffs by providing convoys which called at our ports? Large quantities of food were supplied to Great Britain, especially to convoys and to troops in the Middle East, and I want to ask him whether he is not aware that that was done at the expense of the farming community which was tied down as far aS the price of their produce was concerned? They could not make use of the opportunity of realising higher prices which they would otherwise have obtained, as happened in other countries. Our farming community did its share.

They were paid for everything.

Surely the hon. member did not expect the farmers to produce food for nothing? I am just telling the hon. member what he ought to know. We have had this silly policy of the Minister’s, to export foodstuffs in a haphazard manner, thereby creating a shortage, and a short while afterwards he was again importing food at higher prices than when these shortages were brought about. He exported and imported and as far as agriculture is concerned he created a stage of confusion. That was the result of the Minister’s action. He adopts an innocent attitude, and has always adopted an innocent attitude, and at one time Mrs. Strauss informed us that her husband did not suffer from sleepless nights. I want to tell the hon. Minister that he should wake up. Otherwise the Minister will experience a rude awakening as far as the farming community is concerned and as far as the consumers in the country are concerned. He should drop this attitude of indifference.

Now you are talking nonsense.

If the hon. member would consume some of this nonsense, he might get a little sense. I want to confine myself to the dairy industry. The Minister knows, and if he does not know it, we want to help him, that that industry has never been placed on a sound basis. The industry is in a precarious position. That is not only our opinion, but that is what the dairy farmers say, and what was also stated by the commission which went into the production costs of the dairy farmers. The Dairy Control Board holds the same view, the board which was appointed by the Minister to give him advice. And what is the result? Because the price paid for dairy products is kept so low by the Minister, the dairy farmers are compelled —and I could mention numerous examples— to destroy their herds and to sell their dairy stock, and to go in for another type of farming. The result can only be a disaster for our country as a whole. A lot has been said about rural industries. There are rural industries, such as cheese factories and creameries. They supply a market for the produce of the farmers. What does the Minister do? He keeps down the price of produce supplied to the rural industries, so low that the farmers cannot afford to feed their dairy stock, and they cannot make a living out of the dairy industry. Instead of encouraging dairy production in our country, the Minister makes it impossible. The price of fodder is high, the price the farmer gets is low. Why this injustice to the farmers who have to supply the rural industries? He is coming to the assistance of the producers in the towns, but to the farmers of the platteland an injustice is meted out. The result is that many of these farmers are selling out and the suppliers on the Rand buy up these herds, with the result that soon you will have a surplus in the towns and villages and a shortage on the platteland, and the rural industries will have to go, to the detriment of the farmers and the consumers. We hear a lot about shortages. There was a shortage, and the Minister had to go to the extent of introducing condensed milk. That shortage will be removed as soon as he sees to it that the farmer gets a reasonable price for his dairy produce. Then the shortage will disappear and we will be in a position to increase our production, and the farmers will be able to eke out a reasonable living. The producers only demand that they should get a price which will cover their production costs and give them a small margin of profit. The Minister is not doing that, and the industry is going to the dogs. That position can no longer be tolerated. A lot has been said about production costs. It has been proved, and that is the position right through the country, that there is a differentiation at the expense of the rural consumers. Why? I want to deal with one article which is going to create a serious danger if it is allowed to be manufactured, namely margarine. It is going to be a serious menace to the dairy industry as a, whole. If the Minister would only increase the price of butter fat to an economical price, then it would not be necessary to produce margarine. What is going to be the result? By allowing the manufacture of margarine, competition will be created with butter, and big finance will get the upper hand and establish factories where they can employ cheap labour, and where they can import ingredients from other countries, possibly also produced with cheap labour, and will be sending out money to other countries in order to create competition here for our dairy farmers. It will be very detrimental to our own farmers. You will have a cheaper article on the market, but not of the same quality, and the dairy industry will be destroyed. In other countries it developed to such an extent that they do not know what to do any more. They have coloured their margarine to give it the resemblance of butter, and the dairy farmers are ruined.

I do not want to keep the House long but there is one important matter I want to raise, and that is the possibility of extracting nicotine in large quantities from a wild tobacco, the nicotiana rustica plant. That has not received the consideration from the Department which it deserves. In the first place I would like to express my disappointment that that report for which I asked is not yet ready. The Minister has promised to let me have a copy when it comes down. I refer to the report of the chief of the tobacco division in regard to his researches in connection with nicotine extract from nicotiana rustica. It is a wild plant. It is easily cultivated and it is a good outlet for many of our returned soldiers. I think there has been some misconception here as if we were trying to get the ordinary tobacco farmer to make a special feature of this. It is not necessary, because Mr. Leaver is optimistic enough to think that at least 20,000 returned soldiers can be dealt with in this way. They need not devote all their time to the cultivation of nicotiana rustica but it is an outlet which deserves to be considered. We have been told that research has revealed that the prospects are not as good as Mr. Leaver thinks, but the whole matter was debated in the House in 1922. Sir Thomas Smartt supported by Mr. Merriman spoke very favourably on it. Mr. Madeley has been a supporter of Mr. Leaver’s scheme. The records of Parliament show that this is not a new matter. On the contrary it has been of the greatest possible value to the country. In 1924, 1925 and 1926 the new Transvaal chemical company went in for this extract from nicotiana rustica as well as from tobacco. I am pleading that we should devote ourselves purely to this plant because the big tobacco companies seem to think that by encouraging this you will injure them in some way. You can go in entirely for the development of nicotiana rustica. I have received a report from the expert of the South African Food Extracts (Pty.) Limited. I can refer to Dr. Juritz’s article on this matter published in the “Agricultural Journal” of June, 1922. The files of the Agricultural Department are full of the reports of Dr. Juritz and others and now I have the report of the expert of the South African Food Extracts Company. What has been done in Rustenburg recently? This particular expert says that it has recently erected a pilot plant for recovering nicotine from waste tobacco. It is produced at 2s. 6d. a gallon. The American imported nicotine costs £2 10s. a gallon. I am told by this expert that is the price that is paid in the Transvaal for the American nicotine and he is producing nicotine himself by means of a small pilot plant for 2s. 6d. a gallon. I don’t want to deal with the past now but with the present. I say that the people who are hostile to this effort, are hostile to the interests of the farmers and they are hostile to the interests of the country. You should have an independent enquiry into this matter. I am not here to ask for any consideration for any particular firm or particular individual. I am speaking in the interests of the country. I am convinced that you could have nicotine factories in many parts of the country. You would then have a cheap nicotine dip for the farmers. I was told that there was a little prejudice against the Delmore plant because it produced the clear liquid instead of the thick dark liquid. But the expert to whom I spoke is one of the greatest experts attached to this firm. I can see that there will be the usual hostility, without investigations, and we are going once more to be without some thing that is of real use and value to the country.

I will look into this very carefully.

We want an independent enquiry, not merely an enquiry by the Department of Agriculture, because for some reason or another, although in 1922, the Agricultural Department was quite favourably disposed towards it, apparently today they are making fun of it and the tobacco interests are against it too. They seem to think it is going to harm them in some way. Let it be tried first, do not condemn it before it has been tried.

Is it a payable proposition?

According to expert opinion, I think it is payable. The hon. member thinks I want the tobacco farmers to give up their tobacco farming and to go in for this. That is not what I am suggesting. The soldiers who go on the land can cultivate nicotiana rustica and do mixed farming as well, and I am told they can make a very good living out of it, and at the same time we can get cheap nicotine in South Africa. I know we all want it, but some apparently do not want to see the experiment continued to success. If the people want it badly, why on earth do you not put up one or two experimental places for the soldiers? Do not embark on this at first on a wholesale scale, but start one or two experimental farms, and produce your nicotine. I am perfectly satisfied you will find it will be as successful as it was in Delmore in 1924, 1925 and 1926. It was only when Lever Bros. gave up that particular branch of their work that it ceased, and although Mr. Leaver has painstakingly brought this matter before the House and has been supported by some of the leading statesmen of this country nothing has been done. Mr. Leaver has from time to time brought his plant to agricultural shows, he has shown the farmers how it is done and on the whole he made a success of it and he made a very good impression. But what we want is an independent enquiry into the possibilities of extracting nicotine of a very high content from this plant, because you can get almost more nicotine out of it than from any other plant.

What is the nicotine content?

It goes up from 2.55 per cent. to 8.57 per cent. and in some cases to 11 per cent. and 12 per cent. Naturally it is not the same from every plant, but they have, as I said, gone up to 12 per cent. which is a very high nicotine content indeed from this nicotiana rustica. It is something which I would implore the Minister not to treat in a jocular manner. It is a serious matter. It is brought forward by me in a serious manner and it is brought forward by Mr. Leaver in a serious manner because in my opinion if it Is properly tackled and the possibilities investigated, you will have a new industry in this country which will provide employment for a number of men. You will have a new addition to your farming population and it will be a profitable thing and of great use to the farming population.

I want to Confine myself to a burning question in myconstituency, namely foot-and-mouth disease. I am not going to venture a reply to the representations made here in connection with agriculture. Almost six months ago the outbreak was discovered, and the time has arrived to review the position, because quite a number of families are concerned and their future is at stake, and they are faced with ruin. I would like to have a clearly defined statement of policy not only of the Department, but I would like to know what the Government’s future policy is in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. Let me put it this way: In the past we carried out a policy of shooting animals and burying animals, and unfortunately a recommendation has now been made—I do not want to call it a policy to send the animals to the quarantined area. Now I want the people to know once and for all what they have to expect in regard to the farms which were contaminated. Is the Government going to follow a policy of total slaughter of small and big stock, is the Government going to compel the farmers ultimately to carry out that policy? I want to revert to a prophesy I made in February when the additional estimates were undér discussion. Then I suggested that the experiment of sending animals to the Skukusa area would be a failure, because the game, according to the observation of us as laymen, was already contaminated in that area, and I felt that to send animals to Skukusa in January, 1945, would be an experiment doomed to failure, and that prophecy has been fulfilled. Instead, however, of the Department putting a stop to it, they started with the experiment. Today the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) rises in his seat and complains about the personnel in his area where they also have stock diseases. The whole country was thrown into confusion in November last year: Veterinary surgeons were sent from the Transkei, and one would have imagined that the end of the world had arrived. Why was the country involved in such expenditure? Since 1911 when I came to that district, we have been used to the permit system. You are not allowed to remove any cattle without a permit. If we had had the assistance of at the utmost half a dozen stock inspectors and dip inspectors, and if all these permits had been withdrawn, we would not have had such confusion. It would not have been necéssary to incur all this expenditure and the same results would have been obtained in regard to determining the origin of the disease. But the whole country has been placed in a turmoil and what is the position today? Other members are complaining. But that brings me at once to the position of dip inspectors. What was the position in the past? These poor people have been maltreated in a scandalous Way. They are appointed and then they have to provide their own vehicles. They have to hunt for tyres, but when we were faced with this danger, théfe were at once a sufficient number of Government cars in which to rush around. Why were no proper transport facilities arranged for these people at the time so that they could do their work properly? No, but when the danger Came, all of ‘a sudden there was an abundance of cars. I want to bring it home to the Minister that we do not get sufficient support, because those inspectors we have there are not properly looked after. They get a very meagre salary but no provision is made for their housing, and they have to manage as best as they can. All these farmers’ associations in the lowveld from Nelspruit to Hectorspruit have passed resolutions informing the Department that we protest most emphatically against the policy of out-and-out stock slaughter. In 1937-’38 it was proved to be of no avail, because the Department never tried to ascertain where the disease had originated. At that time it was blamed on Portuguese East Africa, and the matter was left there. No investigation was made as to where the disease originated, and what is the position today? Portuguese East Africa is still clear. Our Department will not even go and see what the position is there. They did not have the courage to go and see. Unfortunately I cannot make use of the evidence which Dr. Du Toit placed before the Dongola Select Committee, but he definitely pointed out that game is the cause of this disease. Dr. Du Toit has now again confirmed my allegation, in his evidence before that Select Committee, that game brought the disease in 1937-’38. That is the position we are now in north of the Olifants River. A handful of farmers were gathered together and asked to agree that their cattle should be slaughtered. It is the old policy of divide and rule. This means that 90 per cent. of the farmers south of the Olifants River will now have to agree, because the farmers north of the Olifants River have already agreed, and on behalf of my constituency I want to record my strongest protest against any policy of slaughter. If the Department is going to slaughter, they must determine the origin of the disease, if not, a definite line must be drawn as to the area in which we will begin to farm and where the game will begin to farm. There must be no free passing backwards and forwards. There are people in the country who have gone game-mad; and hundreds of families have been ruined, and I say that foot-and-mouth disease originates from game. This is shown by numbers of men who can speak with authority. If the Department wants to slaughter, they must protect us, and we demand that they should gradually begin with fencing in order to protect us as farmers. If not, then the best thing for us is to give in and become poor whites. This position is acute. Today more or less 100,000 Cattle have been trapped. This is the position there, and now we come to those sections which are marked off as forbidden territory. A forbidden territory is one which has not been contaminated, to which no cattle, sheep or pigs can be sent. The people have now been practically trapped there for seven months. I very much want to have a statement of policy from the Department, and I would very much like to know what they are going to do to give the people a chance to send their cattle to market. They are, not, all vegetable and fruit farmers. There are people who are completely dependent on their stock and those people are standing on the threshold of ruination.

I now want to return to the question of dairy produce. If a matter has ever alarmed farmers it was this announcement in connection with the manufacture of margarine. When farmers heard about the manufacture of margarine there was great alarm. It is no use saying that farmers will not suffer thereby. Once we start with the manufacture of artificial products such as artificial wool and margarine it must injure the primary producer Our objection is a serious one and I want to raise my voice against it, because this branch of agriculture, dairy farming, is one which has provided a living for large numbers of farmers in times of depression, which will again in future give them a living when difficulties arise in the farming industry; Especially small farmers who have small herds of cows providing milk, butter and cream were kept alive and they have lived well on the cash which they received every month. There have been times when farmers in the parts I represent and elsewhere in the Free State practically had no income except those small amounts which they received for their cream and their butter. With that money the farmer was in the position to settle his small accounts and he could make a living, and when we come along and speak so lightly about the manufacture of margarine then we shake that branch of farming to its foundations. On behalf of farmers affected I want to voice my serious objection. It is a dangerous thing which the Minister is tackling and one which will cause grave dissatisfaction and one which will definitely make him one of the most unpopular Ministers of Agriculture the Union has ever had. I now want to raise another matter which I raised last year and in respect of which the Minister gave me a promise that he would make an investigation, I have been informed that no investigation whatever has as yet been made, that the position in unchanged. It applies to a number of farmers in the district of Winterton, in Natal. On instructions from those fanners. I raised the matter last year and I do so again this year. The facts are briefly as follows. In 1940 the Nestlé Company, a milk processing factory was established at. Winterton, for the purpose of manufacturing powdered milk. At that time it did not tail; under the Dairy Control Board, but in August., 1941, a year later a proclamation was issued that this matter was also being placed under the Dairy Control Board. The Dairy Control Board then issued a licence to this powdered milk factory containing certain restrictions — unfair restrictions, restrictions to the effect that only farmers who had at that time been supplying’ milk to the factory would in future be allowed to consign milk to it. If one of the fanners were to leave that area or if he were to die the privilege of supplying milk to the factory lapsed. Farmers, for example, who live one mile from the factory are not permitted to supply milk to the factory, but have to go 16 or 17 miles to Bergville to deliver their milk to another factory. The farmers sent a deputation to the former Minister of Agriculture. He gave a promise that when the licence was issued in the future the restriction would not be inserted. Last year I read out here what the leader of the deputation, Colonel Park-Gray, stated when they met the farmers. He stated— according to the report—

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) last year also spoke on this matter. He strongly supported the point of view adopted by me. He spoke strongly about the matter and said that a very unfair restriction had been placed on those people. Sunbsequently when a new licence was issued in 1944 and the licence was renewed this restriction was inserted that only the small number of farmers who were supplying milk to the factory at the time of its establishment would be permitted in future to supply milk to the factory. The people in the district are very much concerned. They held numerous meetings and they sent a deputation to the former Minister of Agriculture and he promised that the restriction would be withdrawn. The present Minister last year stated that he would go into the matter. He promised to make an investigation. I have a letter from the farmers informing me that as far as they know no investigation has as yet been made. The position is the same as it was last year. The people are discouraged. I repeat, a farmer lives a few miles from the factory but he is not allowed to supply milk to that factory. Why not? Where at present powdered milk is something which is being used extensively and which is very necessary, I cannot see why those farmers should not be permitted to supply their milk to that factory. In some instances the factory is practically on their doorstep. I have now put the facts briefly and said something about the merits and I want to ask the Minister what he has done. Has he carried out the promise made by him last year? So far the farmers have heard nothing. In the meantime this position continues with extremely deleterious results for the farmers. Has the Minister made an enquiry? Has he met the farmers? Has he given them an opportunity of puting the matter? Has he made any endeavour to carry out the promise made by his predecessor? I would like to obtain that information because farmers in that area feel very sore about it, and they feel that an injustice is being done them and that the Minister has not carried out his promise to make an investigation.

It is perhaps advisable that I make a few remarks at this stage in reply to the points which have so far been raised in debate. The first point was the one raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) who used his 30 minutes to chastise me as the so-called incompetent and unsympathetic, and I do not know what sort of a Minister. Naturally if one has to express an opinion on the facts used by the hon. member, it would perhaps be possible to use those words, but I think, if we actually go into the facts and see the actual position, inter alia for example in connection with the dairy industry, one would probably have another opinion of the matter. But I will come to that later. I first want to refer to a point raised by my hon. friend at the beginning and that is that farmers only contribute 13 per cent. to the national income, and that it was the result of the terribly low standard of prices under which farmers suffer. The hon. member was fair enough to say that those price levels existed in 1936. The reply to my hon. friend who said that price levels should be better, comes from his own mouth, because when he later on referred to the difficulties of the dairy industry he informed the House that the price of mealies had risen since the outbreak of war by 100 per cent., teff by 120 per cent. and lucerne by 175 per cent. The reply was given by the hon. member himself to the question of the low price level and the wrong policy followed by the Government not to assure farmers a proper price level. My hon. friend has therefore replied to his own remarks, and he also admitted that dairy farmers were to a large degree mealie farmers or were taking part in other branches of the farming industry. I do not want to take the matter further. I merely again want to say incidentally what the Government’s policy is in connection with farming and the fixation or prices. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) asked why I did not inform the House and the people of our policy. The hon. member for Ladybrand read out the policy for which I stand, and it could be stated in a few words, and it is that farmers should obtain prices which would compensate them for their costs of production and give them a reasonable profit, and over and above the cost of production increased cost of living for the farmer himself is taken into consideration. I do not believe that anybody could object to that.

But does the farmer receive that at present?

I will come to that point later whether the dairy farmer is receiving it. It is our policy at this juncture, when we speak about social security, that farmers, as any other section of the population, are also entitled to a certain measure of social security. The hon. member then went further and spoke about the dairy industry itself. He tried to create the impression that I have done absolutely nothing for dairy farmers since I have come to power. Let me give the facts to the House in connection with the prices. Last year in April the Dairy Control Board approached me and stated that its difficulty in connection with the fixing of prices was that there were no available data relating to costs of production. It did not exactly know what the costs of production of dairy products were and asked me to be good enough to appoint a commission to go into the whole question. That was the first occasion when it did that. It did not on a former occasion insist that costs of production should be investigated. That request appeared to me to be a reasonable one; and I accepted it and appointed a committee which went through the country endeavouring to obtain particulars to enable it to come to conclusions as to the production costs of dairy products. This committee also made certain recommendations. Its difficulty was that it had a very short time at its disposal because it had to submit its report by September, so that the Board could have the particulars available for the fixing of prices for dairy products.

Why was a temporary increase not granted?

Will the hon. member give me a chance; I will then come to all those points and if I do perhaps miss some he may later remind me. The report submitted by the Committee unfortunately was purely a preliminary report because it did not have sufficient time to go into the matter properly; it did not have an opportunity to obtain representative figures from the whole country in connection with the costs of production of dairy products. As a result of that and certain other factors into which I need not enter now the Government felt that it could not agree to all the recommendations made by the Committee, but it did in fact grant an improvement. It is not, as was stated by my hon. friend, that we did absolutely nothing. We increased the price of butter fat by 1d. and the price of cheesemilk and condensed milk by ¾d. per gallon. After that we had a terrible drought and the Dairy Control Board approached me—and let me say here that the Dairy Control Board, in my opinion, has fulfilled its duties very thoroughly and cared for the interests of dairy farmers throughout the country—and made certain representations with a view to obtaining a temporary improvement to enable the investigation, which I allowed to be continued by the National Marketing Board, to be completed. As a result of the representations made by the Dairy Control Board in January I took steps to ante-date the winter premium of 3d. on butter fat to 1st February as well as the price for creamery milk by 1d. as from 1st February. Instead of those premiums being paid as from 1st May dairy farmers received them as from 1st February. It is therefore another step which the Government has taken which my hon. friend did not consider worth mentioning. A conference was then called to which he has referred, viz. on 24th April, and a depuation of farmers came to see me. I listened to their representations attentively and subsequently the Food Committee of the Cabinet went into the matter. We felt that it was not possible to effect a further improvement in prices, until such time as we had proper costs of production figures at our disposal which we could only obtain after the final report made by the Marketing Board after an enquiry.

And what happened to the industry in the meantime?

I will deal with the whole matter. But I then informed the Cabinet, in any case to give me an opportunity of consulting the Dairy Control Board. Up to that time that Board had taken all steps to effect an improvement of prices and I was permitted to consult it again on the whole matter. I did so and consulted the Executive Committee of the Dairy Board here in Cape Town. It felt that the basic price was too low and that the only proper solution of the difficulties of dairy farmers would be the introduction of a proper basic price; that it should not be effected in bits and pieces, and that until such time as the Marketing Board reported we should devote attention to the matter. It did not desire the matter to be dealt with in bits and pieces by way of temporary improvements and winter premiums. It felt that the best method would be the introduction of a proper and reasonable basic price. That was a reasonable point of view adopted by the Dairy Control Board.

But what was to happen in the meantime?

We have granted a temporary increase.

But it was not adequate.

The Dairy Control Board agreed that we should, in the circumstances, await the final report of the Marketing Board on which they were engaged, and I have asked them to expedite the work as far as possible.

But the Dairy Control Board itself stated that the basic price was not adequate.

But it agrees that we can do nothing else than await the final report. They asked for an increase of a temporary nature which was higher than that which the Government was able to grant.

Why was their price not granted?

My hon. friend should appreciate the difficulties of the whole question. The Government had to see to it that a reasonable price was fixed and it did not have at its disposal particulars in regard to costs of production.

What happened in the case of mealies and wheat?

My hon. friend is wrong. At the very beginning of the war a commission investigated the costs of production of wheat. The costs of production were fixed. We were not in the dark as was the case in connection with a considerable number of other articles. As far as mealies were concerned, and also dairy products, we did not have the proper costs of production figures. I think that the Government adopted a reasonable point of view, and the Dairy Control Board apparently agreed that we should expedite the enquiry as far as possible in order to obtain a report, if possible, before the end of this month to enable us to decide what basic price could be fixed. We could then go into the matter of fixing correct basic prices.

Will any increase then be made retrospective?

I will go into the matter but I may immediately say to my hon. friend that there will be big difficulties in the way of making any increase retrospective. We want to do justice to the dairy farmers. We do not want them to be in a position feeling that an injustice is being done them. Therefore as soon as they applied I immediately agreed to have an investigation made. That investigation is still taking place. Another point in connection with dairy products in respect of which much fear has been expressed, in my opinion a groundless fear, was the manufacture of margarine. They said that the manufacture of margarine was the best way of altogether ruining dairy farmers. It is nothing of the sort. The manufacture of margarine is permitted only because we do not have sufficient edible fats in the country for our population. Therefore we have to supplement it by the production of edible fats at fair prices, so that the lower income groups could in that way be supplied with that highly needed ingredient of their diet.

Give us a payingprice for dairy products and that difficulty will fall away.

But we cannot sell butter to the lower income groups at the price which they are able to afford.

What about the surplus; during the last war we had the same position, and shortly after that a surplus.

The circumstances are not similar. The country has progressed much since the last war. Let me try to put my hon. friends at rest, as far as it is possible to do so in connection with the manufacture of margarine. We have had a conference with the different interests connected with the manufacture of margarine and we have discussed the matter fully. The policy has been laid down, and that policy Will also be carried out, that not everyone will be allowed to manufacture margarihe and that those who do manufacture it will not be allowed to manufacture as much as they want to. We permit only a definite number of factories and also a definite quantity. The restrictions in that regard are completely in my own hands. It is for me to decide how many factories will be permitted to register and what quantity will be manufactured. As I have said it rests with me to decide what quantity is to be manufactured.

It is in very unsafe hands.

If my hon. friend is so full of fear and if he sees so many things which frighten him, it is difficult for me to put him fully at rest. Let me inform the House, because I know that there are other persons who are much interested in this matter, of the facts of the matter. The first is the question of quantity and the number of factories which there may be in the country. Farmers need not fear that. As regards the technical control to be exercised over the manufacture, it will be in the hands of the dairy section of my Department. The distribution will be carried out under the control of the Department of Social Welfare and wil be performed by the Dairy Control Board. I have taken steps to permit the manufacture of margarine at three places, viz. Durban, Johannesburg and Cape Town. Preliminary production will be 7,000,000 lbs. and at a later stage it will be increased by a further 5,000,000 lbs., making a total quantity of approximately 12,000,000 lbs. That is for the first two years of manufacture. As far as I am able to see there need be no fear that during that period there will be a surplus of butter. The policy proposed in the report of the Reconstruction of Agriculture is that the dairy industry should be expanded more and more. The Government stands by that policy. The dairy industry will not suffer as a result of this manufacture of margarine and consumers in the country who need this protective food will also be seen to. The Government realises that the dairy farmers are a very important section of the farming industry in this country, and my hon. friends need have no fear that we will prejudice that industry. There is no ground for such a fear. On the contrary we shall do our best for the extension of that industry.

That does not appear to be the case.

Then my hon. friend will in the course of time become convinced. Perhaps he will then lose his fear. The hon. member for Ladybrand said that we were now producing much less than five years ago and he said that the reason was that we were not paying farmers enough. But that is not quite correct. I think the actual reason must mainly be sought in climatic conditions. The production for March and April of this year is considerably better than for the corresponding months of last year. As from March the production has been slightly better than it was over the same period last year. The position in connection with cheese is at present better than it has ever been during these months of the year. At present we have 4,000 000 lbs. of cheese in supply against 2,000,000 lbs. the same time last year. Let me also refer to the position of butter. In 1944 we produced more creamery butter than in 1941, and also more cheese than in 1941. The figures prove a totally different case to the one put by my hon. friend. He should not forget that climatic conditions are a very large factor in the production of dairy products.

I shall prove the contrary to what you have proved;

My hon. friend surely knows the saying: “By means of statistics you can prove any lie to be true.”

Is that what you are trying to do now?

I merely want to prove that climatic conditions more than any other factor have affected the position during the past years. My hon. friend has raised another matter, viz. the levy on farm cheese. He of course knows for what purpose that levy was intended. That levy was mainly intended to help compensate in respect of cheese exported in the past because the producer of farm cheese, as a result of the export, received a better home price than he would otherwise have received. Therefore it is reasonable and fair that it should be maintained. However I want to promise the hon. member that I will go very carefully in that question and see whether a change could be introduced. I will again consider the matter and examine it very closely.

†Then I come to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) who has paid a tribute to the Secretary for Agriculture, Dr. Viljoen, who is due to leave us shortly after the conclusion of this Session or Parliament to take up an eminent post overseas and I should like to join very cordially in the tribute that has been paid to him by that hon. member and others. He has carried, particularly during the war years, an almost intolerable burden. I have only had an opportunity of working with him for the past 15 months, during a period when his burdens were somewhat lightened by the fact that a Food Controller had been appointed who was able to deal with the very difficult and troublesome problems arising out of the distribution of food, but for quite a long time Dr. Viljoen had to bear these burdens also, and I can give the committee the assurance that from what I have seen of him he has never spared his energies.

Why must we lose by his experience?

His experience is not being lost but retained. He will occupy an eminent post where his experience will be of value to the country.

Who will be his successor?

The hon. member will know in due course, when it has been decided. The hon. member for Drakensberg also referred to the Reconstruction Report and asked what our policy is. As I indicated last year the Reconstruction Report had to be referred to the Economic and Planning Council for their comments on this report. That was duly done and the Planning Council after going into the Reconstruction Report very carefully, has produced its own report on the Reconstruction Report of the committee of my Department. It has been decided to publish that report and it has been translated and is now being printed, and it should see the light of day within a week or 10 days. Then hon. members will have an opportunity of seeing what the Planning Council’s views are on the Reconstruction Report of the committee. It is understandable that on a question such as agriculture covering such a very wide field as it does, there shall be plenty of scope for differences of opinion, and in certain respects the Planning Council has expressed different views, but with regard to fundamental questions, namely the conservation of our soil and veld and water resources, which is fundamental to the whole of agriculture in this country, there is a very large measure of agreement between the Reconstruction Committee and the Planning Council. On other questions where there has been divergence of views or misunderstandings a committee has been constituted consisting of members of the Reconstruction Committee and members of the Planning Council to go into the whole question and to see how far these misunderstandings can be removed and the differences either completely resolved or considerably narrowed. That committee has already met and has been busy with this question for some time, and I believe it has got to a stage where they have very nearly reached finality. The next step is that the whole question of the reconstruction of agriculture as dealt with in the Reconstruction Report and in the report of the Planning Council will be referred to the Cabinet Committee on Reconstruction. They will then investigate the whole matter and finally it will be decided what the policy will be which is adopted by the Cabinet. That Cabinet Committee consists of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Economic Development and I. All these really basic questions of the proper conservation of our soil, our veld and our water resources and the other important questions, namely the system of stabilised marketing and proper price stability and all allied questions will be fully gone into and then the policy of the Government will be finally decided upon. The hon. member has also raised the question of the Marketing Act and says that the Act has not been working as was expected. Of course we have had the difficulty that very soon after the Marketing Act was passed war broke out and we were faced by these abnormal times, so that may be the reason why it has not quite worked in the way the hon. member expected it to work, but the whole question is being very carefully examined and wherever it is possible to bring about improvements in the Act that will be borne in mind. An Amending Bill will be introduced at the next Session of Parliament to amend the Act. I had intended introducing amendments to the Marketing Act during the present Session, but for various reasons it was found impossible to do so and the amendments will now only be brought forward at the next Session; and whilst I deal with this question perhaps I might also deal with the whole question of the meat scheme. During the recess I indicated that it was the intention of the Government to bring in amendments to the Marketing Act during the present Session in order to bring in a long-term meat scheme which I promised under the reconstituted Meat Board. I also indicated at that stage that for some time we would have to work the meat scheme under the more flexible system made possible by the emergency regulations. The emergency regulations permit the necessary changes being effected from time to time without any undue delay, I and furthermore the scheme had to be introduced at that stage because it could not be introduced under the Marketing Act and the Livestock and Meat Industries Act until some proposed amendments had been made to those two Acts. Now any amendment to the scheme, if it had been introduced under the Marketing Act, could only be brought about after very considerable delay, because we would have to follow the cumbersome machinery laid down under the Marketing Act. For instance, if an amendment is suggested to the scheme, that amendment will have to be submitted to the National Marketing Council first, and that body must examine it and report upon it to me, and if the Marketing Council after this investigation feels that the proposals made by the Board which submitted these proposals should not be recommended in any particular respect, the whole question has to be referred back to that Board which made this recommendation for its consideration. It is quite obvious that in that way you could not at that stage have had the flexibility you required for the working of a scheme like the meat scheme, and it was therefore felt that it was much better to introduce it first under the emergency regulations where an amendment to any matter only takes a week, until the next issue of the Government Gazette. It was my intention that the meat scheme launched under the emergency regulations should be properly adapted and brought into smooth working order before it was translated into a long-term scheme under the Marketing Act. Everyone will appreciate that the introduction of a scheme of such proportions, embracing the nine principal urban areas in the Union, and handling from 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. of the total meat turnover of the country, was an enormous undertaking, and as we had no experience to guide us, numerous problems were bound to arise for solution before the scheme could run smoothly. I had expected that we would gain sufficient experience in connection with the operation of the scheme to permit of its translation into a long-term scheme immediately after the present Session of Parliament, and it is with regret that I have to state that owing to the opposition which was encountered from many quarters, the scheme has not yet reached the stage where immediate adaptations may no longer be called for.

You had the whole year.

Yes, we all know that the scheme came in on the 15th May. Perhaps my hon. friend does not realise the work involved in a scheme like this, in which the turnover is something like £1,000,000 a month. It is a colossal undertaking. It is therefore with regret that I find myself unable to bring in the amendments to the Marketing Act as I feel certain adaptations to the marketing scheme may still be necessary from time to time. As already indicated the scheme had to be introduced under the emergency regulations in the first place because, as I have explained on many occasions, the introduction of the long-term scheme would necessitate amendment of the Livestock and Meat Indutries Act and the Marketing Act. Amendments to both Acts were drafted with a view to the launching of the long-term scheme. This also included the drafting of a scheme under the Marketing Act in order to make the longterm scheme dove-tail with the amended provisions of the Marketing Act and the emergency scheme. It was pointed out to me, however, that the Draft Marketing Amendment Bill required modification from time to time as new practical problems were discovered which called for further and fuller provisions to meet them. Those modifications are vitally linked with the fight against the black market, and have up to now made it impossible to finanlise the Bill. In the circumstances the Cabinet decided that it was inadvisable to proceed with the Bill during this Session. The Government has decided, however, that the Marketing Amendment Bill and the Livestock and Meat Industries Amendment Bill will be accorded first priority at the Session of Parliament next year. Whilst deferring the introduction of the Bill, I have gone into the matter of transferring further functions to the Livestock and Meat Industries Control Board. Initially the Board was responsible only for the issuing of permits to producers to introduce stock into controlled areas and for the rationing of slaughter stock to butchers in outside areas. The Board has now appointed a number of inspectors to inaugaurate an inspection service within the controlled areas and it has been agreed to give them direct power under the War Measures Act to keep a check on the meat trade, i.e. to ensure that the butchers comply with the requirements of the Food Controller and the Price Controller. The board has the power within its own right to enforce the regulations relating to the introduction of slaughter stock into controlled areas. The board will therefore be responsible for control over the introduction of livestock and the disposal of meat by butchers while the Food Controller will be responsible for the receipt of liverstock from producers, the slaughtering of the animals, the registration of butchers and the distribution of meat to the butchers. I have done this in order to expedite the introduction of the long-term meat scheme and the delay in achieving that end is due to factors inherent in the nature of the control which has been undertaken. I shall continue, as Minister, to fix prices to the producer under the Food Control Regulations until the Marketing Act has been amended, as it will not be possible for the board to fix those prices until that has been done. The Price Controller will likewise continue to fix the trade prices until then. It is quite possible fears may be expressed in certain quarters that this delay may have the effect of the meat scheme going by the board because it is argued that the meat scheme was brought in under the emergency regulations, and when the war is over the emergency regulations will cease to be valid and the meat scheme will lapse. Let me for the information of those who may feel nervous about the continued validity of the meat scheme tell them that these regulations will remain valid until the Marketing Act can be passed. The validity of these regulations will continue until the conclusion of the war, and six months thereafter. By the war is course meant the global war, which has by no means come to an end yet, and legally the end of the war only takes place when there is a properly concluded peace, and the regulations will remain valid for six months after that. There is thus no reason to fear that these regulations will not be in force when Parliament meets next year to pass these amendments to the Marketing Act and the Livestock and Meat Industries Act. However, while circumstances beyond my control have so far prevented me from transferring the whole scheme to the control system under the Marketing Act, I have given consideration to a reconstitution of the Meart Board under a scheme falling under the Marketing Act as a first step towards the complete change-over. I have accordingly instructed my legal officers to assist the Meat Board in preparing a Meat Control scheme which will fall within the purview of the present Marketing Act and under which a reconstituted board will be brought into being. This scheme will be brought in at the earliest possible date as soon as finality is reached and will then be amended to function as the long-term scheme after Parliament has passed the essential Bills to which I have referred. I am convinced that the gradual transfer of the administration of the scheme to the new board to be reconstituted under the Marketing Act will give the board an opportunity of perfecting its administration and will contribute greatly to the successful application of the long-term scheme. It will also prevent any dislocation which might be caused by the sudden transfer of the entire administration from the food control organisation to the Meat Board. I have pledged myself to establish the long-term scheme under the Marketing Act because I have great faith in the scheme and the country may rest assured that I will leave no Stone unturned to ensure the success of that scheme which will be the greatest factor in establishing stability in the livestock and meat industries and the safeguarding of the interests of the producers and consumers. I have taken the Agricultural Advisory Board into my confidence and have placed the whole position before them, and they agree that the steps I have outlined will ensure the successful introduction of the long-term meat scheme. I particularly want to stress this fact because the statement has been published in one of the Transvaal newspapers that I had decided to drop the introduction of the amendment to the Marketing Act because on consulting the Agricultural Advisory Board I found they were completely against the introduction of these amendments. The fact is I have also consulted the Agricultural Advisory Board on the amendments I have proposed to introduce into the House, and on that there was complete unanimity by the Agricultural Advisory Board, and in this matter also they agreed that the steps I have outlined to the Committee will lead to the successful introduction of the long-term meat scheme. I wish finally to thank the producers and consumers who have shared my faith and have supported the scheme and to express the hope that the whole community will show a solid front in support of the scheme which has successfully weathered the storm of severe initial opposition and grave misunderstanding. Let me come back after this diversion into the meat scheme that I thought opportune to make, as my hon. friend mentioned the working of the Marketing Act and let me turn to another matter he has referred to namely, the rather substantial margin between fluid milk and factory milk, something like 8d. a gallon.

It is more like 10d.

I took that figure because it was the one mentioned. I think it is about 9d. The hon. member will realise that this was at a time when there was a large demand for fluid milk in the urban centres. The army, for instance, is a tremendous consumer of fluid milk and the whole position is full of difficulties. If the milk is to be produced further afield in purely agricultural areas it will mean that the people outside the big cities will have to switch over to something else. We require all the milk we can get. Far from there being surpluses as suggested by the other side we have had shortages at times, and it, was necessary to take this step and to put up the price of fresh milk 1d. per gallon purely as a drought relief measure; in the same way as we paid out the premiums for factory milk so we had to take this step to compensate these producers who had suffered from the drought. Then the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has paid a tribute to the Food Controller for the work he is doing. I am very glad to see that the very hard work that is done by controllers—who are not often kindly spoken of in these days—is being appreciated by some sections of the community to such an extent that my hon. friend is not afraid to get up in the House and pay a tribute. Then, he raised the question of lowering the price of foodstuffs to the lower income groups, and he says that the Food Controller cannot function properly unless he himself has the right to fix prices. I would like to reassure my hon. friend on that point and to tell him whenever prices are fixed in respect of foodstuffs the Price Controller always acts in consultation with the Food Controller. He will not act without such consultation. As far as his plea is concerned that we ought to do more, I should like to tell him that the Food Controller, through the mobile depots, has gone a long way indeed to give the lower income groups foods at a price lower than is charged the ordinary consumer. In that regard I should like to mention that recently the Food Controller has imported a consignment of dried beans, and he has been able to get them landed at a cost very much below the cost of dried beans produced in South Africa. Those beans are going to be sold to the lower income groups at these mobile depots, and some of that—and this the native representatives will be interested to know—will go to the Ciskei to relieve the food shortage, which I believe is existing there today. I mentioned beans specifically because they will be sold at a lower price than the ordinary consumer has to pay. Steps will be taken to see also that sufficient supplies of maize will be available. That will be sold at a fixed price. I am all for the policy of developing the steps that have already been taken by the Food Control Organisation to make available as much food as possible to the lower income groups at prices which will effectively make the food available to them. The Government’s policy generally as far as that is concerned, as my hon. friend knows, is to subsidise certain foods, and not only to the ordinary consumer but also to some extent to the consumer falling in the lower income groups. There again I do not want to go into greater detail, because I think my hon. friend well knows the policy. This commission suggested we should go in for an extensive policy of food importation from Madagascar. This policy we will have to examine very carefully indeed. My hon. friend must not overlook the fact that in the past the main problems my predecessors were faced with were surplus problems, how to dispose of surplus foods, but if it is necessary to import food to supplement a shortage locally I shall not hesitate to do so, provided I do not deprive other areas in even greater need than we are today. Perhaps I may deal with that question at once.

Have you investigated Madagascar?

Before my hon. friend spoke we had been considering the importation of foods from Madagascar, and actually these dried beans came from Madagascar. Some Madagascar food has already landed in the country. Then, Mr. Chairman, let me mention the question raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). He referred to the 88,000 carcases of mutton and lamb imported from Australia and he said that he and others read in the Press, with disgust, of this step that was taken, and he said that the explanation given by me and on my behalf was read with the same measure of feeling as the original announcement. It is obvious to me there is a good deal of misunderstanding about this question. The consignment of mutton from Australia, which amounts to 1,250 tons, was ordered last year. I think the step was taken in August and November last year at a time when We were going through a bitter fight in this country as far as the meat scheme was concerned, and when we were having very severe meat shortages. We then took the step of getting in touch with the British Ministry of Food and finding out whether they would agree to our importing a certain amount of meat from overseas. They were quite willing that we take that step. Unfortunately this consignment chose to arrive at a time when we had plentiful supplies of meat. But the matter does not rest there. I should like to take it a step further, and I can tell the House I have agreed to supply the Admiralty with 2,320 tons of fresh meat, thereby relieving the Admiralty of importing supplies from elsewhere. It will therefore be noted that the amount of meat we are making available is nearly double the small consignment we imported from Australia. As a matter of fact I did consider whether the consignment that arrived at a late date should go on to Great Britain. But actually my friend will see that we are making available practically double what we received from Australia. I may give the House this further assurance as far as I personally am concerned, and I should like to know whether the House is prepared to support me in this, that as soon as we see our way in the coming months and as it becomes clear that the flow of livestock to the controlled markets is going to.be sufficient for our own requirements, that we should undertake the step of sending a consignment of frozen beef to England to relieve her in her very severe shortage. If this country, as a whole, is’ prepared to tighten its belt to do that, I am prepared to take such a step. But quite often I find this sort of thing. I noticed the other day in the Press a report of a women’s meeting where it was stated people were prepared to criticise a small meat importation like this, but at the same time they were quite prepared to criticise—at this same meeting— when sugar was being discussed, the fact that there was a sugar shortage, such as it was; they made quite a strong complaint about that. But that shortage was due to the fact that we are doing all we can to help Great Britain to get sugar; we want to spare all we can for Great Britain. The same people in this case who complained of our importing meat complained about our exporting sugar. Perhaps they did not understand the position. If they realised the sugar was going to Great Britain they might have been prepared to bear the shortage, such as it is. May I also say in regard tö sugar that the shortage has to a large extent been felt because it has taken place at the end of the sugar year. But now the new sugar season has started and the mills are operating sugar will be more freely available. Let me just mention again the foods that we are making available to Great Britain for civilian consumption during 1945: 7,000 tons of grape fruit marmalade and 25,000 if she is prepared to take it; at present she is prepared to take only 7,000 tons; 184,000 tons of jam; 15,000 cases of canned grape fruit; 2,500 tons of apricot pulp; 1,200,000 lbs. of fish products; and 4,480,000 lbs. of crawfish; whilst the War Office is taking 500 tons of grape fruit marmalade, 6,600 tons of jam, 467,700 cases of canned vegetables and 150,000 tons of canned deciduous fruit. In addition I offered to Great Britain through the Food Control organisation 43,000 cases of meat and vegetable rations we had over. I have now received a cable to the effect that they would gratefully accept this amount of meat and vegetable rations that has been made available.

On what basis is this being made available?

It is not being made available as a gift. The hon. member will realise if it was a gift there would be an item on the estimates. Let us defer the question of a gift; I do not want to go into that question at this stage. But the policy is to make available whatever food the Government can reasonably spare for those who have borne the burden and heat of the day. In addition, I should like to tell the Committee we are making available a quantity of 100 tons of dehydrated soup mixture which will be exported through the South African Red Cross, and more than that still will be exported in the future. As it is dehydrated this represents a considerable quantity.

Is Britain the only country?

Will the hon. member suggest another country?

Holland.

Great Britain is tightening its belt to help Europe, and what we send to Great Britain will help in that way too. An enormous fund has been collected in this country for Holland. Money has been freely and voluntarily subscribed for the benefit of the country, and instead of sending the money over I have agreed with the sponsors of the fund to make food available and it will go over to Holland.

†*I now return to the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. van Niekerk) who spoke about the dairy industry. I have already explained the position. The hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) asked what the policy was in connection with the application of the Stock Diseases Act. Well, as far as the application of the Stock Diseases Act is concerned, it naturally is an administrative matter and we apply the Act as sympathetically as possible under the circumstances, taking into consideration the interests of the whole country. We must of course never lose sight of the fact that we should, where disease occurs, try to limit it to the area concerned. However, if the hon. member feels that in any individual case the application has been unsympathetic, I would be only too glad to go into the mätter if he brings it to my notice With reference to veterinary surgeons we of course know that there is a great shortage. Unfortunately we have had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the Northern Transvaal which put a great claim upon our available staff of veterinary surgeons. Then with reference to an agricultural faculty for Natal, that was a matter which was raised here also last year, and I then said that the representations which were made had impressed me and that I would go into the whole matter. That has been done. I have investigated the matter and the Acting Secretary of my Department, on account of the absence at that time of the Secretary, went to Natal to investigate the whole matter together with Professor Davel, Director of the Agricultural Institute of Pretoria, and he reported to me. Now it is a matter for discussion with the Treasury, because as the hon. member will appreciate, the Minister of Finance is closely connected with the matter. One of the difficulties in connection with an agricultural faculty in Natal is that the Department recommended against it in the past, and before I can now succeed in convincing the Minister of Finance that Natal should have an agricultural faculty, there should be strong proof why the first recommendation should be upset and why Natal should get a faculty. Another point in this connection is that the Natal University College recently received a new Rector, and of course he also plays a part in the matter. He is going into the matter. The whole matter will be thoroughly investigated with a view to finding out what is to be done. As the hon. member knows the hon. member for Griqualand East (Mr. Fawcett) and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Col. O. L. Shearer) strongly pressed the matter last year and recently a deputation of which the two hon. members were members, also visited me to discuss the matter. I then informed them, as I now inform the Committee, that I would go into the whole matter during the recess, and they will lead a more representative deputation consisting not only of a few members of Parliament, and then we will go into the matter very thoroughly.

†Then I come to the nicotiana rustica which my hon. friend the member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) so eloquently referred to. He became quite angry with me because he thought I was treating the matter lightly, but that was far from being the case. The position was that we are only too keen to get nicotine, of which we have great need. We have a shortage of nicotine sulphate, and it is impossible to import it. Unfortunately the tests which have been made since 1940 on this question of nicotine production show that strains which we were told would produce something like 12 per cent. of nicotine content—I asked my hon. friend what the figure was and he mentioned a figure in that neighbourhood— were found to produce only about 2.5 per cent., taking the whole plant and not only the leaf. It was found to be quite uncommercial and uneconomical to produce it, but I am prepared to have the matter thoroughly examined further because of the great need we have for the product in the country.

†*The hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) spoke about a matter which of course is near to my heart and that was our policy in connection with foot-and-mouth disease in the Eastern Transvaal. As I have already said the position is that for two section of farmers, in the Letaba area and the Komati area, we intend following this policy. We intend permitting cattle to be sent to the quarantine market and those cattle will be paid for on the basis of grade and weight according to the meat scheme. Furthermore the Government will pay railage on all cattle which are thus slaughtered, so that the farmers will receive compensation in that measure for cattle so slaughtered. That will result in those farmers not only receiving the fixed prices under the meat scheme but railage will also be paid on those cattle. With regard to well bred cattle the Department will go into the matter and ascertain the number of such animals, and the Government will pay the difference to owners on the basis of the difference between the valuation of those animals and the prices obtained when the cattle are slaughtered. I regret that we are not able to follow a similar policy in respect of the Bosbokrand bloc of farms which have also been infected. My hon. friend will appreciate that there is a great difference between the two smaller areas and the large area where there are approximately 42,500 head of cattle exposed to infection. One of the differences is that the large bloc is situated in Pilgrim’s Rest where on two sides it has a common boundary with the Kruger National Park in which game are plentiful, not only in the Kruger National Park but in the whole area. As recently as March and last month there were new outbreaks in this particular area. Furthermore, it is possible to isolate those areas on three sides by a natural dividing line. So that we are still busy enquiring into the position before laying down a final policy in respect of that area. With reference to the two smaller areas the policy to be adopted is the one I have explained to the hon. member.

Does that include everything?

Yes, it includes everything. I think I have now dealt with all the points which have been raised.

We are very pleased with the explanations given by the Minister in connection with the meat position. We are convinced that he will still hear a lot about it during this debate. Nevertheless it is better that he give his explanation now so that we may react to it. I make no apology for taking the dairy position somewhat further than the present stage, after the Minister’s explanation. As the Minister has rightly said the dairy industry is one of the most important in the country and dairy farmers certainly represent a very large section in the country. The Minister devoted considerable time to an explanation of the dairy position, but when we sum it all up he has exactly said nothing. There was a long explanation but it all came to practically nothing. What is the present position? Farmers are becoming restless throughout the country. They feel that the industry as such is going to receive a setback. Recently a conference of dairy farmers spontaneously took place at Ladybrand. There was a large meeting, practically without any organisation, and they certainly sent one of the largest deputations here which has at any time been sent to Parliament. We did our best; we met them and we took them to the Minister. To the great disappointment ofthe deputation and dairy farmers throughout the country they had to return without achieving anything. They received absoluately nothing. Today we face the same position as the one which was faced by those people. The Minister has given us an explanation but he has given us absolutely nothing definite. He waits and he waits for a certain report which has to be submitted to him. If he was somebody having a practical knowledge of the dairy position in the country he would have realised that something active should be done to meet those people. We cannot wait until a setback has taken place because the milk will then have been spilt. What we cannot understand is this. The Minister is awaiting a certain report in connection with costs of production. But a committee of enquiry was appointed to investigate costs of production and it submitted a preliminary report, and then it was discharged and the matter was again referred to another body. Now the Minister tells us that we must await that report. At the same time the Minister says to us that he has had a discussion with the Dairy Control Board and that the Dairy Control Board is convinced that the basic price has been fixed at too low a figure. That is something we ourselves know. We know that they cannot continue producing at that price. We notice from the memorandum drafted by the conference at Ladybrand that dairy farmers have gone backwards during the past few years. In 1939 the number of gallons of cheese milk produced was 15,000,000 gallons and in respect of butter fat 160,000,000 gallons. In 1943 11,000,000 gallons were produced for condensed milk; 16,000,000 gallons for cheese and 171,000,000 gallons for butter. That was the highest point reached. In 1944 it fell from 11,000,000 gallons to 9,000,000 gallons for condensed milk; from 16,000,000 gallons to 14,000,000 gallons for cheese and from 171,000,000 gallons to 154,000,000 gallons for production of butter. If figures mean anything then this is a very clear indication of the direction in which we are guiding the country. The Minister and his Department should realise that once dairy farmers change over to something else it would not be so easy for them to revert to dairy production. That deputation also tried to explain to the Minister that large quantities of milk, formerly used for condensed milk and the production of butter, were now being sent to the cities as fresh milk. With the appliances at their disposal at the present time, it is possible to send fresh milk from afar to places such as Cape Town and Port Elizabeth where farmers obtain much higher prices than those obtained for condensed milk or milk for the production of cheese and butter. If we in any way look to the future and if we see where these things are leading, we should immediately take steps to prevent, people changing over from one line of farming to another. If our dairy farmers once receive a setback it would be difficult for them to recover. As in the case of dairy farming we also have the policy adopted by the Government in connection with meat—if farmers are unable to produce at the fixed prices meat is imported. In the report of the Food Controller published three dr four days ago we find him stating the following—

Then he continues that this milk was at present already available in Cape Town and in Natal. Five million tins is an enormous quantity. The other day a Bill was submitted to us giving indemnity in respect of the omission to collect certain import duties on imported goods. The Minister should fully realise this point and when he again replies he should tell us what import duties will be remitted on this condensed milk.

Then a subsidy of £73,000 is being paid to equalise prices.

Reference is here made to the first consignment. Apparently it is a much larger order. If there is one thing which none of the Ministers is able to explain to us it is the fact why, instead of paying a subsidy on imported milk, they do not encourage our own people to produce more condensed milk in the, country. That can be done. I have a letter in my possession which I received from the secretary of a condensed milk factory in fay constituency—I have already referred to it—in, which she states very clearly that farmers are changing over to other lines which are more profitable the Minister should be able to appreciate one thing and that is rather to encourage our own condensed milk factories so that it will not be necessary to import 5,000,000 tins of milk. And that is only just the first consignment which has arrived.

No, it is the whole consignment.

But that surely is suffixcient. It is an enormous quantity.

The Minister will surely again export some of it; he imports and exports.

My point is that if the Minister will encourage our own people, that milk could be produced here.

As a practical farmer and as one representing one of the most important agricultural constituencies of the country in this. House, it is obvious from the nature of the matter that I am particularly interested in this vote. But I am even more interested because my constituency is largely dependent upon wheat farming for its existence. Without fear of contradiction I want to make the statement that wheat farming has always received indifferent treatment Not only from the present Government but from all the Governments of which I know, wheat farming has always been given indifferent treatment and has never come into its full right.

By what Government was the policy of protection introduced?

In the short time I have at my disposal I cannot reply to all the interjections made by my hon. friend, and I trust that he will give me an opportunity to deliver my speech. During the current year we received an increase of 1s. 6d. on the price of wheat. I immediately want to say here that I have not the slightest reason to feel grateful towards whoever may be responsible for this increase of 1s. 6d. Whether it was the Minister of Agriculture, the Wheat Control Board, the. Marketing Board or the Department of Agriculture, I say that I have no reason to give expression to, any feeling of gratitude in respect of this increase. On the contrary, I am disappointed with this increase of 1s. 6d. per bag and I feel concerned about the position thus created. The increase of 1s. 6d. per bag means £75 for every 1,000 bags produced and of that amount of £75 £50, or 1s. of the 1s. 6d. is taken up by increases in respect of only two items, fertiliser and bags since the last fixing of prices of wheat two years ago. Those two items only take up 1s. of the 1s. 6d. If fertiliser and bags alone require £50 of the £75 increase per 1,000 bags, I want to ask whomsoever was responsible for this increase from what sources producers have to meet other requirements, for example, binding twine, labour, larger capital expenditure, machinery, implements, dearer transport, grain dips, general requirements, higher cost of living for the producer and his family, to refer to just a few of the requirements needed for the production of wheat. The price of wheat, category A, Grade 1, was 36s. 6d. per bag. This price was not taken out of the blue. This price was fixed, as was rightly admitted by the Minister of Agriculture himself, after thorough investigation had been instituted into the costs of production of wheat some years ago, and on that basis this price was fixed. And the price was based upon that enquiry before rationing of fertiliser was introduced, and at that time we still received 100 per cent. of our fertiliser requirements for the production of wheat. When the quantities of fertiliser decreased and were reduced by 40 per cent. the production of wheat fell accordingly in consequence and ‘the costs of production rose as a result of that. That is the position in which we find ourselves with regard to the rationing of fertiliser. In March we held a conference of the Affiliated Co-operatives. All the Affiliated Co-operatives of the central body Sasco met. We met the chairman and the manager of the Board of Control. We worked out the increased cost of production during the past two years in co-operation with them on a pure basis. I say that we did it on a pure basis. It was done on a conservative basis and on that conservative basis—I want to repeat—in consultation with the chairman and the manager of the Wheat Control Board the increased costs of production of wheat were calculated as being a price of 39s. 3d. per bag—that it was possible to produce it at that price.

You are fortunate.

I will later point out how unfortunate it was. I now want to know whether that price was worked out in consultation with the Wheat Control Board, then I want to know from the Minister whether it was recommended by the Wheat Control Board or not? Did the chairman and manager of the Wheat Control Board support that price? I want the Minister of Agriculture to give a clear reply to this question. Did they advocate it with the Marketing Board and whose policy was it to fix the price at 38s. instead of 39s. 3d.? Was that the recommendation of the Wheat Control Board; was it done under pressure exerted by the Marketing Board, and did the Department of Agriculture have anything to do with it, or was it the Minister himself who was responsible for it?

Which price?

39s. 3d. was worked out in consultation with the Wheat Control Board and 38s. was the price fixed.

The Wheat Control Board recommended the fixed price.

I previously put this question to the hon. Minister, whetherit was the price recommended by the Wheat Control Board and his reply was yes. If that is so then before this debate closes I want to make certain remarks in that connection ….

Permit me to be clear about it. The Wheat Control Board recommended an increase of 1s. 7d. and as a matter of ease we fixed it at 1s. 6d.

I am very glad that the Minister tells me that. The difference is therefore 1d. and practically it makes no difference. I hope in the course of this debate on this vote to prove in what a destructive manner wheat producers are treated. If the Wheat Control Board asked for 39s. 3d. as it was worked out by us, some measure of sympathy would have been shown to the wheat farmer, although it is not by any means a justifiable price because the basis was originally fixed too low. I would now like to know from the Minister; or know through him, from the Wheat Control Board, in whose interests and for whose protection was the price fixed at that amount; was it fixed at that amount in the interests of producers who are supposed to be represented by the Wheat Control Board or were the interests of other elements protected at the expense of wheat farmers?

The Government only remains faithful to its policy.

I do not know the policy intended by my hon. friend I would like to know from the Minister what is his policy in connection with this matter, whether he adopts the policy of the Wheat Control Board, which appears perfectly natural under these conditions; and which I accept will be right under the circumstances if it was recommended by a Board appointed under the Marketinug Board in the interests of producers. [Time limit.]

I am going to return to the request I put to the Minister last year and again early this year for a full scale enquiry into the cost of production in the maize trade. When I made that plea last year and in the beginning of this year I said that there was urgent necessity behind it. I feel now that it has much greater urgency behind it, since this year the Government decided to raise the price of maize from 17s. to 19s. a bag, and also decided to impose an increased burden upon the consumer of 6d. a bag. But before I go on to develop my request in this regard there are two other matters directly affecting the native population which have been raised in the course of this debate and about which I want to say a word. One is the question of margarine raised by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) to which the Minister replied. The member for Ladybrand again declared that the manufacture of margarine is a danger to the dairy industry, and the Minister in his reply was concerned to assure the dairy industry that there was no danger in the proposed scale of production of margarine. My request to the Minister is to go further and to explore the possibilities and develop a policy under which he can give specific guarantees to the dairy industry so that we can develop margarine production to the extent to which this country requires it. It is not enough to say that 12,000,000 lbs. of margarine is not going to be a menace to the dairy industry. The 12,000,000 lbs. we propose to manufacture will not touch the merest fringe of our problem of supplying edible fat to the bulk of the population. Our dairy industry, as far as I can understand, can never itself produce more than a fraction of the needs of this community for some form of edible fat. In no circumstances can they ever meet the demand of the whole of the population of ten millions for some form of fat.

Not even the demands of three and a half million.

Even on half the small ration which the army estimates as a suitable ration for soldiers they cannot supply it. I think therefore that we have the right to demand that we should have a policy under which we shall be enabled to pursue the production of margarine for this large section of our population which is so hopelessly undernourished. I heard one authority state that doctors come from all over the world to this country to study the rarer forms of disease induced by malnutrition. If that is so, then I think this is a perfectly legitimate demand on our part; and when I link it up with my preparedness and I am sure the preparedness of everyone else in the House to guarantee the dairy industry reasonable prices, I cannot see why we should not have the policy that we ask for. I hope the Minister will give us some answer on this matter which will give some satisfaction to all parties. The second point I wish to raise is the question of mobile depots. It is very gratifying to hear that the whole principle of subsidised food is being developed in a country where malnutrition is as rife as it is here, but I do not want to urge that these mobile depots shall not be confined simply to the larger urban centres, and to certain sections in the larger urban centres. It is of the greatest importance that subsidised food should be made available to the people who need it most and those are, in my experience, the people whom we represent in this House. I would like to know what provision has been made to provide subsidised foods by mobile depot or any other means (a) to the native population in the towns, and (b) to the native population in the rural areas. In that connection I wish to express my gratification at the speed with which the Government has responded to the needs of the Ciskei in this period of its distress. I would just like to say that we wish that the maize that is being put in there could also be put in at a subsidised rate and that some of these beans that are being sold on a subsidised basis might also be made available in those reas. Now to return to the question of the maize trade and my request for an enquiry into the whole cost of maize production, I may say that I was completely staggered when the Government decided this year to raise the price of maize to 19s., and I was not only staggered but harassed when I heard that it had decided to make 6d. of that increase in the price to the farmers a burden on the consumer. The argument was advanced that 6d. on the price of maize was a ridiculous amount to make a fuss about. That is not my approach to this particular 6d. This is only the last 6d. of an enormous rise in the price of maize since the war began. I want to remind the House that the figures are the following: In 1939-’40 the farmer’s price of maize was 7s. 2d. a bag. In this year it is 19s. The consumer’s price last year was pegged at 16s. But that price was pegged after the Social and Economic Planning Council had urged the Government to subsidise the price of maize when it was 15s. a bag to the farmer. Last year the Government increased the price of maize to the producer but it pegged the consumer’s price at the 16s. which it had already reached. We are now having an extra 6d. on top of that price which, in effect, is 7d. when one takes into account all the incidental costs. I feel that I am perfectly justified in protesting against this rise in any case. We have had plenty of evidence to show that maize at 15s. a bag was beyond the capacity of the people to buy in any quantity that was requisite for maintaining life itself, and puts out of court any possibility of their buying any of the other protective foods. As T said last year, the price of maize to the farmer may be a justifiable price, but I say again that I stand here without proof that that is the case. I think we are entitled to urge that we should have some proof that it is a justifiable price. I know that in the last war, the price of primary products rose very much more than they have done in this war. But I want to remind the House and the Minister that now we have adopted a policy of price fixation to which we were not committed in the last war, and at the end of this war, we have got to face the establishment of levels of prices which will guarantee the interests of all sections of the community. That is going to be very difficult if we inherit from this war artificial price levels. It is quite true that before the war South Africa was suffering from a lamentably low standard of values for our primary products. I think we are all agreed about that; and I think the whole country is committed to an improvement on those levels which will guarantee the farming community that standard of living which we all desire for ourselves and which we should be prepared to give to others, that is a standard of return for their work that will enable them to maintain that decency which we claim is the right of everyone in this country. [Time limit.]

In the reply which the hon. Minister has given to the questions put by the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) and the proof advanced here that the dairy industry is being ruined, the Minister tried to prove by figures that it was not the case. I want to read to the Minister a few quotations from a letter received from one our most prominent dairy farmers in that district. He complained that some time ago a special commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Professor Fourie which met dairy farmers, and at that discussion it was proved that farmers were unable to produce milk at the present time under 1s. 3d. per gallon, and I am convinced that that commission accepted that fact. I take it that they made a recommendation in that respect. Dairy farmers have at present to supply milk to dried milk factories at 10¾d. from which l¼d. is deducted for transport. That means that the farmer at present only receives 9½d. per gallon for his milk. Where dairy farmers receive as much as 2s. 6d. per gallon for their milk in Johannesburg the platteland dairy industry may look after itself. This farmer writes—

This man is one of our farmers who has been engaged for the past 20 years in the building up of very good milk herds, and he is very definite about it that they are going to leave the whole undertaking. It is the duty of the Minister and the Department of Agriculture to see to it that an industry such as this should not be ruined. We went to the Minister with a deputation. We submitted the matter to the Minister and we really did expect him to do something. Another matter of great importance which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and which should be thoroughly investigated, is the treatment of cows by speculators who buy cows and re-sell them at auction sales. I have been told, as a matter of truth, that many of those cows are not milked for two days and when they are then put up for auction their udders are so swollen that it is hardly possible for the animals to move, with the result that a person buying those cows buys cows with defective udders. The seller says that it is such a wonderful cow giving a large quantity of milk and then eventually the buyer finds that the udder has been injured. It should be provided by regulation that no cow which is taken to an auction sale should go for a longer period than the ordinary 12 hours without being milked. If we do not do that we ourselves will be the cause of this industry being handicapped to a large degree. There are many of our young farmers at present taking up dairy farming because of the high prices obtaining in the vicinity of cities and those people will subsequently have to pay for this. They have invested large sums of money in the industry and that is why I am asking the Minister to put a stop to it by way of regulation. Under the emergency regulations the Government may issue any regulation and we must obey it. I think that I was the only one last year who at the beginning pleaded for the fixing of kaffir com prices. The Minister knows that I went to him with a deputation. We are not now going to repeat old quarrels but I just want somewhat to criticise the unfairness of the policy of the Minister. Last year when we pleaded for £1 per bag in respect of kaffir corn the Minister did not see his way clear to meet us. He did not have the machinery at his disposal. Subsequently we were prepared to have the price of kaffir corn fixed at the price fixed for mealies last year. Kaffir corn farmers had to sell their product at 12s. 6d. and at any price they were able to obtain and the middleman made a big profit on it. When the Department of the Minister discovered that kaffir corn was being sold at 25s. it went along and fixed the price at 22s. and I, as a representative of a constituency producing large quantities of kaffir corn, feel deeply hurt about the treatment given poor farmers by the Minister. The kaffir corn crop will be very small during the current year, but a large quantity has been carried forward. Now the Minister comes along and fixes the price at 20s. 6d. It is unfair towards those people. It has been fixed more or less on the same basis as the price for mealies.

It is 1s. 6d. higher than the price for mealies.

Why did the Minister not maintain the price at 22s.? I would like to know the reason which compelled the Minister to still further reduce the price.

There are four or five rather important points that I would like to raise. The first one is in connection with the Virginia Cheese and Food Company (Pty.) Ltd. at Fourteen Streams. This company is known for the excellence of its products right throughout the Union, and it has made an application to put up a cheese factory in the district of Barkly West. The application has been refused. They have been to the Minister and they have been to the Dairy Industry Control Board. I have read the correspondence and I know more or less why the Minister has refused this particular application, but the conditions have changed and now that there is peace in the world, I hope the Minister will reconsider this application.

When was the last refusal?

In this year, about the beginning of the year. This company wants to put up a big factory in the district of Barkly West at Koopmansfontein. It is a district which needs development; it is a district that can stand development. A meeting was called the other day and there were no less than 80 farmers present. They would like to establish a cheese factory, and I wish the Minister would reconsider the matter. Now that the war is over, the materials are not so difficult to get, and they tell me that in regard to the building of the factory, they are not going to use large quantities of wood and iron; it will be mostly cement, concrete and asbestos roofing. I hope the Minister will give this matter his attention. The second point I want to raise is a matter of national importance. In that area between Vryburg and Prieska, the farmers are hampered by a poisonous herb. This herb was not known 35 years ago. Today the whole country is spread over with this herb. It is called the “Vermeerbos”. It is an impolite word and rather a crude word, but it is a very appropriate word. It is a very serious matter. It stretches from Vryburg and Prieska right across to the middle Free State. When Mr. Havenga was a member of this House, he told me that it was found on his farms. Thirty-five years ago it was unknown and in the course of thirty-five years it has spread over that whole area. In the next five years this country will have to produce all the meat it can, and this herb is hampering us. I may say that an experimental station has been set up at Koopmansfontein. The Minister has not got the staff, but the war has come to an end and I hope he will staff this place and get on with the research work.

What is the mortality of the sheep?

Some years it is worse than others. You may find that a man with a flock of 2,000 or 3,000 sheep will lose 500 to 600. The losses are very heavy at times, and at other times they are not. When it is dry this herb flourishes and the stock feed on it. It causes prussic acid poisoning. It mostly affects the small stock. The stock can feed on it for a month, but then you have to put them on new grazing. If they continue to graze on this herb, prussic acid poisoning results and consequent death. The existence of this herb is affecting meat production, and it is seriously going to affect our production of meat throughout the country. The next point I want to put to the Minister is this. I raised the point last year and I am rather perturbed about it. It is in regard to fertiliser—kraal manure. On account of the shortage of fertiliser, this kraal manure is brought from up country and is sold to the fruit farmers in the Cape. If they did not have this kraal manure, they would not get the crops they get today. What I am preturbed about is this. I know that this kraal manure is being sold to two or three particular companies at 4d. a ton, 1s. for a three ton lorry. I also know that the Railways are treating these people very well. They give them a rebate of 90 per cent. which means that a truck of kraal manure comes down here at very little cost—a matter of shillings—but these people sell the manure in bags at high prices. They call it crushed manure. It requires a very small operation to crush manure, and they sell this crushed manure at 42s. to 45s. a ton. By truck load it is 13s. 9d. a ton, and by single bags it is sold at £10 a ton to private gardeners in Cape Town. I really think there is a ramp going on here. The farmer is prepared to give the kraal manure away for nothing; the Railways are prepared to bring it down here for practically nothing, and someone seems to be getting a very big rake off from this thing. I hope the Minister will look into this. It is a serious matter. The next point I want to raise is in regard to maize. Yesterday I found a parcel of maize in my letter box. I thought it came from my district, but I found it was addressed to the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn). The parcel was open and I naturally looked into it. It was a pretty bad sample of maize. I discovered that if the hon. member for Tembuland got that quality of maize and I got that quality also it must be spread over the whole country. Now that is the type of maize we have been getting. When you take the dirt and the fine stuff and the broken stuff into account, it probably amounts to 15 lbs. or 20 lbs., so that you are actually paying for more than 20s. a bag. Today the farmer with 10 boys gets five bags of maize a month.

Why does he not get it from the elevator?

It is not worth while sending up to the elevator every month for five bags, so you simply buy from your dealer. I have been buying their bad maize for a couple of months now, and I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that a decently bred pig will not face up to it. Some of it is wet and some mouldy and green. We have to give that to our native boys. I thought this maize was being sent to our district alone, but now that I have discussed this with the hon. member for Tembuland, I find that it is being sent all over the country it seems. It is going to cause a lot of dissatifaction and I hope the hon. Minister will look into it. There is just one other point that I would like to raise, and that is in regard to the cutting of indigenous wood. We cannot allow this indiscriminate cutting of indigenous wood. A few yars ago, an amendment was made to the Forestry Act, and Clause 6 prevents the cutting of indigenous woods. The cutting of indigenous wood has practically come to a stop, but as the Minister knows every law can be circumvented and this one is being circumvented. People are cutting indigenous trees in our part of the country and allowing them to dry and then they put them onto wagons and take them to market. Hundreds of wagon loads have come down from this area to the Vaal-Hartz settlement and to the neighbouring camps during the war. The country cannot afford to lose its indigenous wood, and I would like the Minister to look into this too. The matter can easily be remedied if the Minister will ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice to instruct the police that no wagon carrying wood should pass the police posts without inspection.

I merely want to reply briefly to a few points mentioned by the Minister in connection with the price level for mealies and fodder and such like, referred to here as proof that the prices of the products of farmers are very high ….

Not to prove that they are very high but in reply to a statement that the price level is low.

I compared the prices for dairy products with prices for other products. But the price given by the Minister is a price which is justified by the higher costs of production and the conditions under which we live. I merely made the statement that the price of dairy produce in contrast to the price for other produce had only gone up 40 per cent. while the prices for other products have gone up more than 70 per cent. and in some cases even 100 per cent. That does not imply that I am not in favour of that increase of prices for farmers; I fully agree with it; but that very same expensivé article must be fed to the cows, and that is the point I want to make. As regards increased prices for butter fat and cheese to which I also referred I explicitly stated that they were absolutely inadequate; it is not that I kept them back. With regard to the commission to which the Minister again referred and which according to the Minister did not have sufficient time to bring out a report, I merely want to point out that it already had been engaged in its enquiry for 15 months, and if it were to continue in that way the dairy industry will be completely ruined. I now want to ask the Minister when he expects to receive the report of the committee.

I said that I hoped it would be next month.

If it is next month and the report is favourable to farmers and in the interests of farmers, will the Minister then immediately grant an increase of price? Farmers are awaiting it anxiously. I just want to read out a telegram received from the Secretary of the Eastern Free State Dairy Union. A congress for the whole Free State was held at Ladybrand. The telegram reads—

That was a decision taken by a congress of the whole Free State a week ago, a decision sent to the Acting Prime Minister, and that is why I put the question to the Minister whether he was able to grant immediate relief to dairy farmers should this report be favourable to farmers. In connection with production the Minister alleged that production had not decreased. I merely want to quote his own figures. I do not want to go back five years; I merely want to refer to the figures for the past four months. For example, we take January, February, March and April, 1944. The total dairy production was 43,954,847 lbs. For the same period in 1945 we had 38,345,168 lbs. In round figures, you can see for yourself, that it is 43,000,000 against 38,000,000. Therefore, for the four months of this year production has been approximately 5,000,000 lbs. less, and the same applies for cheese in supply. Dairy products on hand during the same period in 1944 amounted to 60,157,625 lbs. and for the same period in respect of the current year there were only 52,487,836 lbs. on hand. Therefore the figures given here prove that, notwithstanding the fact that we had better rains during the present year and the previous year, dairy production dropped by some millions. Now there is another matter which I want to bring to the attention of the Minister; viz. this quantity of 4,000,000 lbs. of cheese referred to by the Minister as being in supply above the quantity in respect of the previous year. If we take these figures we have proof that this quantity of cheese represents an unsound accumulation. There were factories which complained that they were not permitted to export their cheese notwithstanding the fact that it had been graded. They had to accumulate supplies at the expense of farmers. Losses resulting from drying, etc., the farmer has to bear himself, which is very unfair. Therefore, I say that this increase in respect of cheese which has been given does not in fact represent the position; it is an unnatural accumulation. If we take these figures we have proof that these quantities have been unnecessarily accumulated in supply. There were factories which complained that they were not permitted to export cheese although it had been graded. They had to accumulate a supply and as the cheese dries out farmers have to bear that resultant loss. The accumulation of cheese was an unnatural accumulation. I want to conclude with this and I hope that the Minister will give us a reply on this point whether farmers will again during this winter have to struggle through and suffer losses as during the previous winter.

We have heard much this afternoon about the importation of food though we can produce sufficient for ourselves, and we have urged the export of food to assist in feeding the people overseas. It is not long since we had demonstrations up and down the streets of Cape Town with the people crying for meat, and it just indicated they could not take it. We had complaints that we could not export one item of food to these prostrated countries. Do not let us give the impression that the South African public cannot take it. We have sufficient food for our own use and we have sufficient food to help those invaded countries, France and Belgium, and Great Britain as well. There are just a few items I want to deal with, and the first is the question of our food production. The most important feature is the taxation of food production. I shall give examples, from personal experience or otherwise, and they will demonstrate the position that has been brought tbout by this taxation. A certain farmer produced 200 head of cattle for sale per annum and his return was approximately £2,000; there were other items which helped to pay his costs of production. That was his pre-war standard. Today he is selling 100 head of cattle and his return is approximately £2,000, which is equivalent to his pre-war standard. I want to assure the House and the Minister that as a result of the nature of the taxation that is imposed, production is being decreased. I sympathise with the Minister in his necessity to raise income in the form of excess profits duty. He may tell me these instances are few and far between. May I tell him they are not so few and far between as he suggests. We as a community think it essential he should go into this question before it has a serious effect on reducing the production of food in this country. I want to come to a question that has already been answered by the Minister, and to add one other point to it. He promised last year that he would, under the Marketing Act, apply a long-term policy to meat. He has not done so, and that has created an unfavourable impression, and a certain amount of recrimination on the part of the section of the community that wished to see that meat scheme established. The point I find fault with under the Marketing Act is there are certain contingencies we have to deal with there affecting co-operation. I do not want to pursue that any further for fear of bringing up something that will be extremely antagonistic to a certain section of the community. I would like to suggest that the Minister should not perfect his scheme until such time as he adopts the system of zoning for production, and until such time as he gives an adequate and reasonable seasonal premium for the production of that stock which when all is said and done is more valuable in the form of fresh meat in August, September and October than in June. It is not equal to what was a normal premium in pre-war years in the open market. There are one or two other items. One is the item brought forward by the Minister last year in which he promised the House he would investigate the costs of production of various items falling under his Department. Up to the present he has not done so As far as meat is concerned, I would urge upon him the urgent necessity for instituting an investigation into this problem at the earliest possible date; this will do much to satisfy the public who are dissatisfied with the price they are receiving. There is one matter I brought up last year in regard to the State saw mills at Stutterheim. The Minister is running a number of lorries over the mountain roads to bring the timber to the mills at Stutterheim. It has cost the divisional council nearly £900 for the maintenance of these roads, which are used for carting the Minister’s timber from the forests to the State saw mills. The value is somewhere round £500,000. I think it is only fair the Minister should contribute something to the maintenance of these roads. Then I should like to sound a warning oh a matter that I have observed, and I have covered many thousands of miles. I have seen hundreds and hundreds of sheep which testify to the dangerous practice of crossing the blackhead and other types with the best merino stocks in the Union. Men in the North-Eastern area are producing 1,000 to 2,000 fat lambs from the highest quality merinos in the Union. I think it is time we sounded a warning because every lamb produced from those merinos means a drop in the number of the mother stock of merinos. One notes this danger of reducing the future flocks of the country, and on the other hand the new progeny might be employed towards the building up of a better type than the first cross, and you would ultimately have that infusion into future flocks. I consider this as a grave danger and I have no qualms about asking the Minister to issue a warning to the people who are carrying out this method of farming.

I merely want to make a few remarks on the meat scheme, especially relating to beef. The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry last year caught the farmers of South Africa unawares with this meat scheme. We did not know what was going to happen and when the scheme would be carried out and how it would work out. The scheme has caused dissatisfaction amongst farmers in all parts of the country. They thought that the Minister could be persuaded to fix the prices for meat at higher levels than those fixed under the scheme, but the Minister did not give in. There was a meat shortage. The position was not that the people suffered need, but there were many difficulties, especially in the large cities. There people had to queue up for a bit of meat, and women stood in rows for whole days and were unable to obtain meat. Farmers kept stock back and refused to sell. They held back for a time but later on they saw that they were not going to receive higher prices and they started marketing their stock and at present there is a surplus of meat. Oxen which grow old must be sold and every year a farmer has to sell a number of his oxen. Drought came along and fodder was exhausted. For the sake of argument I now for example want to say that I buy lucerne which formerly cost £3 per ton at present at £6 per ton. When it was £3 per ton it was conveyed almost free of charge by the railways. At present you have to pay the full tariff on lucerne. In my part much wheat and oats are produced, mainly as fodder for stock. Last year the oat crop failed because it was destroyed by lice. We did sow a considerable quantity of teff but it did not come up. We did not have fodder. With the approach of winter our farmers decided to sell some of their stock. They went to the markets and sold at auctions or sent the stock away. I am now referring to my part, and what we cannot understand is why oxen which we, for example, sent to the Rand market fetched very much less than what We expected to obtain under the scheme. Somebody in my neighbourhood, in the district of Bethlehem, a supporter of the Government, dispatched a number of oxen and he wrote to the Minister. I do not know whether it was investigated but the oxen were in very fine condition and we all thought that they were prime, but when settlement was effected some were graded as Grade I. I sent cattle. A small number I sold locally at a good price and I sent away 17 and we thought they were prime but they went as Grade I. I would like to say that we do not understand the Minister well in connection with the matter. I will just now quote the prices which we received for meat prior to 13th May, 1944, and the prices subsequent to 13 th May, 1944, after the scheme had been introduced. But before I give the prices I want to say that several branches of the farming industry have received consideration. Wheat farmers have been met, mealie farmers have been met, but not cattle farmers. We feared bad times ahead and the Minister went along and depressed prices for cattle farmers. Now it is asked why there is so much meat suddenly. The people were unable to hold cattle back any longer. Winter was approaching and they had no fodder and were compelled to sell. First there was too little meat, now there is too much. Farmers have now bowed to the meat scheme and they are selling their stock until the approach of summer and then they will keep stock back again. It was said here that there were too few stock and that stock had been slaughtered out but today it was proved that there is sufficient stock. But we ask why cattle farmers have received the worst treatment, On 13th May, 1944, we received good prices for our cattle in the open market, viz., 74s. 6d. for super-prime, 69s. 6d. for prime, 64s. 6d. for Grade I, 56s. 6d. for Grade II, 50s. 6d. for Grade III and 45s. 6d. for Grade IV. On the 13th May the Minister introduced his scheme and we did not know where we stood. Then we discovered that we were losing heavily, that prices had fallen considerably. Super-prime dropped by 7s. per 100 lbs. I dispatched oxen of an average weight of 800 lbs. and it meant that I lost £2 8s. per ox.

What did you receive in 1938 for oxen?

In 1938 I paid £8 10s. for a suit of clothes and at present I have to pay £18. Grade I was reduced from 64s. 6d. to 53s. 6d., which meant that one lost £2 4s. on an ox in fair condition, viz., 11s. per 100 lbs. Grade II was reduced by 10s. per 100 lbs. and one lost £2 on the oxen. The majority of cattle sold today are Grade II and Grade III. The Grade III price was 50s. 6d. and that was reduced to 38s., representing a loss of 12s. per 100 lbs. or £2 8s. per ox. The position is worse in respect of Grade IV, where the price was reduced from 45s. 6d. to 25s., representing a loss of £8 per ox.

Do not sell Grade IV.

Farmers were dissatisfied with the prices and the Minister knows it. We fought a by-election at Wakkerstroom and the dissatisfaction was so great that the Government received a motion of no confidence and lost the seat because the farmers in Wakkerstroom and those parts were stock farmers.

What about Germiston where a butcher was the candidate?

Those were city dwellers, consumers, not producers. Now I notice in the Government Gazette that the Minister is going to treat the poor farmers even worse. The prices fixed on 13th May, 1944, are again being reduced and prime is down by 1s. and other grades 1s. or 2s.

I increased the prices.

The Minister has reduced the prices by 6d. to 2s. But in the Government Gazette we notice that the Minister feels that he had done farmers an injustice because he went along and gave farmers a subsidy of a few shillings per 100 lbs. That shows that the Minister was convinced that the prices were not suitable and that farmers were not receiving their justifiable share. If you sell oxen in October and November prices are higher on account of the premium. As farmers we feel today that we are treated badly. Cattle which we now sell are cattle bred in 1937 and 1938 and we had much expense. I leased land for £60 and the same land was subsequently leased for over £100.

Then you got it at a cheap rental.

Yes, it was in the cheap time, but everything has gone up. Not sufficient attention is devoted to the fact that the prices of everything the farmer requires have gone up, especially those for fodder.

At the commencement of the Session the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry thought that we on this side of the House specially were after his blood and that we had terrible personal grievances against him. There is no such thing as a personal grievance, but attempts were made at the commencement of the Session to adjust certain grievances. I think that the Minister will agree that if farmer members had reason for complaint, city dwellers and consumers had even more reason for complaint about the conditions which prevailed. The point I want to make is that reports from all parts of the country, whether it be Cape Town or Johannesburg, indicate that matters are fairly satisfactory. Meat supplies are fairly satisfactory but I now this afternoon want to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to give an assurance that conditions as they have been arranged at present will remain. Or will we have the position again that as soon as Parliament is prorogued the screw will be put on and that one of these days we will receive one of those peculiar publications in the Government Gazette making things unpleasant and handicapping the normal course of events? When Parliament is in session and matters are very bad they are improved here and there during the Session because matters are raised here and the Minister and his staff are here and they make some attempt to improve matters, but as soon as we return the screw is put on and matters become less satisfactory. What may we expect now?

It is a blind.

What is? Control measures are always applied a little more unpleasantly when Parliament is not in session. Farmers are complaining much at present but consumers are satisfied to a degree. Consumers do not exactly expect everything to be plentiful because the whole world is demanding food. We are satisfied that there are reasonable supplies but we want an assurance that present supplies will more or less be maintained during the recess, and that where there is opportunity for improvement matters will be put right, so that we will not find next year that matters have become worse. At the commencement of the Session there were many complaints in connection with irregularities with regard to control. Conditions were unendurable at the beginning of the year. At present they are endurable if the existing position is maintained. Recently we heard complaints that farmers were unable to obtain £1 for a wether. If that is correct then I want to know why it is the case because consumers always pay the same prices. But if farmers are dissatisfied, and as the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels) has said, and sometimes hold back their stock, we will perhaps again experience an artificial shortage and then the whole position would be endangered. Then one finds the unfortunate position that an artificial overproduction occurs and a shortage in the cities, and a little later a surplus in the cities again. It goes from one extreme to another. All that the country wants is a normal flow as is more or less the position at present. We do not again want to see long queue’s of women waiting from morn till night to obtain a bit of meat while a few months later there is a so-called surplus. We desire a normal flow because if artificial surpluses occur—because they are artifical the Minister will again say: We have ascertained that we are able to export so much food out of the country and then an artificial shortage may again arise if large quantities of meat are exported, and the Minister will then again suddenly import from the Argentine or Australia to supplement the artificial shortage. I want unnecessary fluctuations eliminated. Recently a fair amount of meat was imported from Australia and continual fluctuations caused unstable conditions leading to dissatisfaction amongst consumers and producers. If we have surplus supplies let us then as far as possible supply countries which are in need, but let us not again find the position that you export to England at one time and the next time you import from the Argentine and Australia. It causes a rise in costs, not only in respect of the product, but also in connection with handling, and I shall be pleased if the Minister before the House adjourns next week, gives an assurance to the country that present conditions will be maintained and that no new regulations will be issued or new tricks tried as soon as Parliament has adjourned.

I was wondering whether the Opposition would mention the question of the meat scheme or the Meat Board before, but the huge storm they created last year seems to have abated and we seem to be much calmer.

It is coming.

I do not know whether the big guns will still come on but the atmosphere seems to be calmer. I hope the Minister will appreciate the good reception given to the scheme in the country after he stuck to his guns and battled through and showed the country that he has a sound case, in spite of opposition, even from his own Party. We have heard a lot about the dairy position from the members of the Opposition and I also am not very pleased with the position of the dairy industry. But I want to adopt the same tactics I have done on other occasions, namely to make constructive criticisms. Some serious mistakes were made and I have taken an active part in trying to bring to the notice of the Minister and the Government just where they have gone wrong and have tried to assist them to bring about a better state of affairs in the dairy industry. I think a short survey of the dairy position in this country may be helpful. In the past we had considerable over-production of all kinds of dairy products. On many occasions we thought we had a huge surplus, more than we could consume, and we exported that surplus at less than the cost of production. Also, in order to assist in getting rid of the surplus we contributed a large amount of butter to the lower income groups at prices below the cost of production. That market we have largely lost. During the war, when the consumption of fresh milk increased enormously, the country was very hard put to it to produce sufficient fresh milk to provide what is after all the most important form in which milk can be consumed. In order to encourage sufficient fresh milk to meet this demand the Government paid a very high price, and that price helped to relieve the position. But unfortunately it disturbed the relationship between one kind of milk and another as regards price, and when fresh milk was under the Dairy Control Board the board had tried to maintain proper relationship. But the fresh milk interests contested the right of the Dairy Control Board to control fresh milk and eventually that control was taken away. It was found to be ultra vires and the fresh milk interests were free to go their own way. They put up a very strong case and the Price Controller decided to pay them a higher price. That, I think, was the start of the dissatisfaction. Today we require large quantities of fresh milk but I think it is absolutely essential that the Government should tackle the question of bringing all forms of milk production, manufacture and distribution under one control. If you have divided control in what is after all a single industry, there will be overlapping and many difficulties which may be avoided. I think it is absolutely essential that the Government should tackle this question. I want to suggest to the Minister that he should appoint a commission to go into the whole question, to put up recommendations with regard to the best method of organising the production of dairy products, and there I would like to draw attention to one factor that has been very prominent quite recently, namely the question of fresh milk production and distribution in the big towns. Today we find that the doctors recommend that all milk for consumption in the large towns should be pasteurised. I entirely agree with that. I think it has been proved conclusively that pasteurised milk loses practically none of its good qualities and that it is essential, under our conditions, to have the milk pasteurised. We find that in some of the towns the municipality is anxious to take over the pasteurisation and distribution of this milk. I do not think that is a very healthy development and I would much rather see co-operation between the producer and the consumer in order to have milk depots established in the large towns where the milk can be collected, pasteurised and distributed on a co-operative basis, and there the Minister may find that the people who are at present acting as producers of milk for the big towns could well take over the distribution of the milk. I think it is essential to have a system of zoning, and in that way a considerable reduction in cost may be brought about. The approach to all these problems is this: It is only by increasing prices that producers can be assisted, but a considerable improvement may be brought about by a reduction in distribution costs. I think it is essential if people are going to get fresh milk in the towns at a reasonable price, that the cost of distribution should come down. I think that will be found to be a useful field of investigation. I noticed yesterday that the Cape Town City Council said that if they could pasteurise the milk and distribute it they can save 5d. a gallon on the present figures. I would like to examine their figures before I agree, but they propose to take 4d. and only pass on 1d. to the producer. That is typical of the mentality of the Cape Town City Council. I had a fight with them some years ago on more or less the same lines, and quite recently when the Cape Town City Council wanted to distribute food they were willing to do it on a non-profit basis. Today they want to pasteurise milk and to make 4d. a gallon out of it. That is a principle on which I think the Labour Party should consider co-operating with the producers in order to see that the essential matter of the distribution of food should not be undertaken by the municipalities as a trading concern. We would have great improvement if there were co-operation between the producer and the consumer in the distribution of fresh milk. In the past we have had criticism from certain commercial interests on our production methods. Farmers were accused of being inefficient in production, and this has been the smokescreen put up very effectively in order to keep producers and consumers at each other’s throats while the middleman successfully exploited both. In defence of the South African farmer, I would like to mention one point. The Government of Eire recently appointed a committee to enquire into post-war agricultural policy, and one point of importance which emerged is this. The average milk yield taken over the whole country is about 400 gallons per cow per annum, which is insufficient to render production profitable. In Eire they have some of the finest pastures in the world but only produce 400 gallons of milk per cow, whereas in South Africa the only figures I could get hold of in a hurry indicate that officially recorded cows, pedigree animals, produce over 800 gallons and non-pedigrée animals 610 gallons per annum, so that the South African farmers, in this country of drought, are not so inefficient as they are made out to be.

[Time limit.]

I have listened to the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) and followed his remarks. I trust that he will now be able to follow me and if not I hope that he will get an interpreter. He is one who at one time resigned from the Meat Board because the Board refused to introduce a permanent meat scheme. But at that time he was not sitting in the Caucus of the Party opposite which has silenced him. Now he has left meat farmers in the lurch. He is the last person who should get up here and talk about meat farmers. When he was not in Parliament he stood by meat farmers. At present he does not do so, and I will leave it to those farmers to call him to account. Never has any person been more unfaithful towards the section of producers represented by him than that hon. member.

You are now talking nonsense.

That hon. member should rather remain quiet about the price scheme. He said here that members on this side of the House this time remained quiet about the meat scheme. Let me tell him that we are dealing with this vote systematically. In the first place, we took the dairy industry and now we shall deal with meat. Let us hope that the hon. member will now hold his own. Before I reply to the statement made by the Minister I want to put clearly the policy of the Nationalist Party in connection with products produced by farmers, including meat. Our policy is one of control. I trust that the Press will put it clearly because newspapers often give a misrepresentation of the attitude adopted by the Nationalist Party in connection with the control of produce. We support control of produce but then it should be control in respect of which the producers of the products concerned should have most say. In the “Economic Plan for South Africa” containing the policy of this side of the House we find the following—

We advocate that control board system for every separate industry in which producers will have most say. We go further where we describe how it should be effected—

Thus there can be no doubt that the Nationalist Party believes in the control system for the marketing of farming products, but that control should be in the hands of the producers of those products, and not as it is now. Matters should not occur as has happened in the case of the member opposite who praised the Minister for his scheme but then came along in a roundabout way and gave slight blame to middlemen. Why does he not state the position fully? He dare not because his Caucus has silenced him. He dare not say that those schemes of the Minister were introduced in the interests of the middlemen. The farmers of South Africa will be shocked by the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture. On the 19th May of last year the Minister stated that this scheme would be a permanent scheme. He published the scheme in the Government Gazette on the 18th November, more than seven months ago. What has happened? When the scheme was published the Minister was requested to introduce an amendment to the Marketing Act. At the commencement of this Session the Minister replied to a question put by me that he would introduce an alteration to the Marketing Act during the current Session. What has happened to prevent him keeping his word to producers? The Minister now comes along and he tries to hide behind the Advisory Agricultural Board. He said that the Advisory Agricultural Board agreed with him. Yes, it agrees with him that the Marketing Act should be amended but it does not agree with him that the amendment should be postponed. I challenge the Minister to say to me that this scheme is being postponed for another year with the approval of the Advisory Agricultural Board; I say again that it agrees to the alteration of the Marketing Act in order to place this scheme under the control of the Marketing Board.

You did not pay attend tion to my remarks.

The Minister referred to a statement in the Press, in the Transvaal, in which it was stated that the Advisory Agricultural Board went against him. The Minister said that he denied it because it agreed with him that alterations should be made to the Marketing Act.

But also in connection with the other point to which you did not pay attention.

I know what they told me, that they regretted the fact that the Minister was again postponing this matter. The Minister must not think that we are ignorant of events affecting these matters. We take part in agricultural organisations. I say that the Minister has shamefully left meat farmers in the lurch. I do not now again want to discuss prices but the prices which we now receive are uneconomical. The Minister has in his possession a resolution adopted by the National Woolgrowers’ Association informing him that prices should be increased by 25 per cent.—and that the grades should be brought closer together. I am now referring to April of the current year. The S.A. Woolgrowers’ Association expressed its strong disapproval to the Minister of the low prices fixed. Now the Minister comes along after farmers had placed their hope on the possibility of this product being placed under their control, and he says the farmers must wait another year. What value are meat farmers to attach to the promises made by the Minister when they see how the Minister has put aside his promise of last year, and not only the promise made last year but also the promise which he made to us at the beginning of the current Session? Meat farmers rightly say that the Minister of Agriculture is engaged in driving meat producers to a position of bankruptcy. I want to ask the Minister to read to us the resolution adopted, not by Afrikaans-speaking farmers but by English-speaking farmers, reading—

That was a resolution adopted in the Eastern Province. The Minister cannot deny it. If those organised farmers are convinced that the Minister is acting to the detriment of meat farmers, and that his emergency regulations are to the detriment of farmers the Minister should not be head-strong; then he should give in and he should not continue being indifferent to the wishes of these people. What is the present position? The war has come to an end and the scheme is still controlled under a war regulation, therefore in a way affording farmers no representation and no say. The position of these meat farmers is that they have no say over their product. They must be satisfied with prices which the Minister may be pleased to fix from time to time. Instead of having a Meat Control Board consisting of representatives of producers everything rests with the Minister. That is why the Minister has postponed this measure this year and then we find the hon. member opposite coaxing the Minister while he knows that meat farmers no longer have any confidence in him. I cannot express myself strongly enough on this position that farmers feel that they were during the war prevented from obtaining prices which they could have obtained, and now that the war has come to an end they still have no say over their own products. That is why our farmers are so bitterly disappointed with the statements made by the Minister today.

The remarks of the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) seem to indicate that the Minister’s statement on the meat policy came as a knock-out blow for the Opposition. I want to inform the Minister, and I speak for a large section of the farming community, when I say that the farmers were nervous about meat coming under the Marketing Act. Control under the Marketing Act during the war years has not been a success, and the farmers generally would much rather have the Minister take the responsibility of the control of meat for a longer period and bringing it to a more successful prospect, before handing it over to control under the Marketing Act. The Minister’s declaration of prices until next April has been received by farmers in general with jubilation and satisfaction. I would like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and his officials on the efficient way in which they have administered the responsibilities of his Department during these most difficult and most trying years. We appreciate the great contributions his Department has made to our war effort, and we hope to hear the Minister state that his Department are ready to make as great a contribution to thé cause of peace, because we cannot have" peace if we have starvation in the world. There is no doubt that now the war is over the Minister will be able to take the population more into his confidence, producers will endeavour to increase production, and the consumer will be only too ready to draw in his belt in the cause of peace. We must realise that our agricultural production, our soil, everything which grows on it or roams on it, is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, and it is a gigantic task, in this country of uncertain and inadequate rainfall. Speaking for the farmers I would like to say we regret that long years of service and responsibility and the strain on his health have made it necessary for our Secretary for Agriculture to accept much merited promotion. We will always remember him for his outstanding work in stabilising agriculture. His contribution was great. We will miss him and the Minister will miss him. I would appreciate it if the Minister could indicate to the House what his policy will be as regards the eradication of jointed cactus and prickly pear. The jointed cactus has never been eradicated where once introduced. It is more difficult to control than any known infectious disease. Some member says it is like the Opposition, but I think the Opposition is more amenable. I hope the Department will control these pests before handing responsibility back to the farmer. The prickly pear has overrun one million morgen of ground in this country. The Government tried to control it by means of cactoblastis and then cochineal but these failed. I understand that chopping down will now be tried. I hope the Minister will help the farmers in this respect, but it can only be done by means of large gangs of natives. Farmers cannot recruit such gangs themselves and I hope the Minister will make gangs available. The farmers will contribute. I shall be very glad if the Minister would indicate what prospect we have of nicotine being imported. Last Session the Minister was hopeful of importing supplies to combat the arensic resisting tick, and I hope the Minister can give encouraging information now. The merino sheep farmers in this country are dying to hear what prospects they have of the continuation of the British Wool Purchasing Scheme. Farmers will be satisfied if this scheme is continued indefinitely and it will be disastrous if they were, at an early stage, left to the vagaries of the post-war market. I hope the Minister will give us satisfaction in his assurances in this regard. I now want to move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 8th June.