I move—

No, that is going a bit too fast for us and I object against the Minister moving it unopposed. He should rather give notice of it.

Then I give notice.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, The Welfare Organisations Bill [A.B. 68—’45] submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 9th June.

Mr. Speaker, will you allow me, for the sake of the honour and reputation of this House, as well as for the sake of myself and the high level we like to maintain in our debates, to give an explanation before we begin our proceedings. During my speech on the second reading of the Silicosis Bill I quoted here in the House a certain clause from that Bill and the Minister of Mines was under the impression that I had read from the provisions as they appear in the printed Bill. My quotation, however, I read from a typed copy which I received some time ago from the Minister of Labour before the matter was raised here in the House. After the Minister of Mines had tabled the Bill I asked the Minister of Labour to return my typed copy because I had made certain notes thereon and the provisions I read out here appeared in that typed original copy. During my speech the Minister of Mines interrupted me and said—

Thereafter the debate developed as follows—

A miner who has become entitled to a pension under this chapter shall not be entitled to any payment as an instalment of his pension in respect of any period during which he was in the service of the State ….

The Minister of Mines: That is not correct. The hon. member is not reading the section correctly. It goes on to say—

That is quite different.

I find that my quotation from this typed copy was absolutely correct and that it was also reported absolutely correct in Hansard. But I also find that the printed copy is not the same as the typed copy which I originally received, and that the Minister was under the impression that I read from the printed copy. I read from the typed copy and I did so in all good faith, because I was not aware of the fact that the printed copy had been changed and did not read the same as the typed copy. I ask the House to accept this explanation and that I acted in good faith.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in moving the second reading of this little Bill I wish to say that it is necessary to do so in view of the census to be taken next year. If I may put the matter briefly to the House, Clause 1 provides for the census of the European population to be taken.

When was the last census of the whole population taken?

Ten years ago, in 1936. Clause 2 refers to the deletion of the definition of “adult Union National” from the principal Act. That section has been repealed and hence the necessity for the amendment. In Clause 3, the last census was taken in 1941 for the purposes of delimitation. That was a European census. This will be a full census. The clause also changes the date from “1941” to “1946”. Clause 5 says that in the event of some of our soldiers still being outside the country, they will be included in this census.

We welcome this Bill. I almost feel inclined on behalf of this side of the House to claim some of the qudos for the non-European population also being included in this census. Perhaps we will be forgiven if we point out that this side of the House during the last few years has emphasised the necessity for the country having a proper census, not only of the European population but also of the nonEuropean population, the coloureds and the natives. The Minister will remember that we on this side in regard to the census of 1941 strongly protested against provision being made for a census of Europeans only. At that time we already felt that in consequence of the rapid shifting of the population, especially of the native population to the cities, it was essential to have a census also of the non-European population. The Government however, did not do so. It is a pity that it was not done because all these years we have been continuing without any knowledge in regard to the native population which might have been obtained from a census report. For that reason we wholeheartedly welcome the fact that the following census will include the coloureds and natives and other non-Europeans also. I want to point out that we shall have to be prepared for a shock. The country has no idea of the tremendous movement of natives which has taken place since the last full census in 1936. The country will be surprised when it obtains the figures next year. The indications have been present all the time. Especially the increase in the native population in our cities will be a shock to South Africa, for it will show the movement of natives which has taken place during these years. There are cities, especially Johannesburg and Cape Town, which are overcrowded with natives: Nobody knows the number of natives who have settled here in Cape Town during the last few years, and my information is that Johannesburg also does not know how many natives are living within its boundaries. For that reason we on this side welcome the Bill wholeheartedly.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

House in Committee:

On Clause 4,

I would like the Minister to give me an explanation in regard to Clause 4, as I did not have the time to look up the provision in the original Act. Does this mean that there will be a census only of persons over 21 years of age, or of all persons?

No, it includes everyone.

Then why does it say here, persons of 21 years and over? We are all in favour of the census including all persons irrespective of their age. I did not have an opportunitw to go into this matter. I should like to put the question clearly to the Minister. If the census takes place in May 1946, will it be a census of all persons or only of persons over a certain age?

No, it will be a complete census.

Will we also have a census of the various religions this time. During the last census this was omitted for some reason or the other and I would like to know whether this time we shall also have an indication of the various religions, as the churches are very much interested in it.

The census will be as complete as possible, and in that census there will be a statement as to the person’s religious convictions.

There was not in the last census.

Well, there ought to be.

Clause put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title of the Bill having been agreed to, House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Before the third reading of this Bill is agreed to I should like to make a number of remarks. In the past the Minister was very verbose about the building of houses and about what would be done. We also know that the Minister came here and appeared on public platforms, and made several statements by which he created the general impression in this country that large numbers of houses would be built. Last year the Minister came with a Bill which provided him with the machinery to proceed with the building of houses. It now appears that the Minister had not sufficient information available when he took the House into his confidence at that time about all the housing schemes which they were engaged upon. Now they are looking for a scapegoat. One scapegoat is the Director of Housing who was appointed, namely, Dr. Hamlin, and the other is the Minister himself. I believe, however, that the great difficulty the Minister was confronted with, was the Building Controller, and that he did not have sufficient materials available for building houses. The Minister now comes along and asks for full powers for a period of three years. Well, this House in its wisdom granted the Minister those powers. Now, however, the House also wants to have the assurance that the scheme will be proceeded with and that the Minister next year at this stage will be able to tell the House that thousands of houses have been built. The Minister will remember that in one of the big local newspapers there was a cartoon showing a soldier with his belongings on his back standing near a fenced-in plot of land but there is no house on the plot. That is not only the case with, the soldiers but it also happens to other people who have been without houses for years and years and have had to muddle through. It applies to the whole country, to the rural districts as well as to the large cities. Even the farmers are compelled to crowd their labourers into a, few rooms if they want to get any labourers at all, because they have no suitable housing available. The powers given by this House to the Minister are very extensive indeed, but we will watch carefully what the Minister is going to do and next year he must not come here again and put forward all kinds of difficulties as an excuse. He should not come and tell us again that he has been advised this way or the other and that as a result of all the difficulties nothing could be done. The time has come that we should see results and it will not help the Minister to look for other scapegoats next time. We ask him now to build the houses and we as members of Parliament will want to know next year what is happening. During the Commitee Stage we proposed that the regulations should be approved of by the House but the Minister replied that for the sake of convenience he could not agree to that. I hope, however, that the Minister’s progress with the scheme will be of such a nature that he will be so pleased with it as to come to this House to prove by the results that the confidence put in him was not misplaced. He sshould bring us results. There is a very strong feeling in the country that during the next three or four years there will not be sufficient houses because much of the material which we have to import will have to come from Europe and America. Europe is devastated. There also many houses will have to be built and whole cities will have to be rebuilt. The Minister will have to do everything in his power to obtain the necessary material to provide in the needs of our country. He has been given the necessary powers, but we have known the Minister in the past. Every time he came here and read out statements which sounded very wonderful. Members on this side shouted: “Hear, hear”, and they thought they had a marvellous Minister. Last year he did the same and we know what was the outcome. The Minister came here with the excuse that the machinery was deficient. He has now obtained the machinery which in his own opinion will be more effective and we hope that he will make good use of it. Furthermore we hope that the Minister will not force up the prices of these houses and that a proper control will be exercised over the building costs of these houses. If the schemes are to be given out to private undertakings, a proper watch should be kept over the building costs. We know that State schemes are usually much more expensive than private schemes and we want to strongly urge the Minister to keep an eye on those costs. In the rural areas a private individual can build much cheaper than the State. Furthermorewe want to express the hope that the Minister will not build the houses in such a way as to create potential slums. It is a very important point that the houses be built in such a way that they will not become the slums of our cities after 10 or 15 years. They must be built in a proper and aesthetic manner so that they cannot be turned into slums. We know that after the Anglo-Boer War there was also a shortage of houses in Cape Town and building programmes were undertaken by private firms. Many of those dwelling houses are today the slums of Cape Town. In England the Minister will have noticed that rows upon rows of houses were built, all monotonously the same, and they have become the slums of the English towns. We do hope that the Minister in his building plans will guard against that and that he will prevent these housing schemes one day becoming slums but that he will see that they always stand there as monuments of thoroughness. We do not expect palaces, but we do expect properly built houses. Furthermore I want to say that no Minister has ever obtained such powers from this House as the present Minister has. We hope that he will use those powers in the spirit in which they were granted to him and that he will account for his actions here, so that we may thereafter decide what has to be done further in regard to this matter.

I hope that the Minister will not take too much notice of what was said to him by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). I have yet to know that the members opposite have moved one inch to provide one house in South Africa, either they or the town councils in which they are now in the majority. They have fought this thing. I say to the Minister: Be of good courage and cheer. The country knows they have a young Minister behind them. I believe far more houses will be constructed than we expect. A certain number of houses have been built during last year. Has the Minister seen the “Cape Times” this morning? There are 160 houses standing empty in Johannesburg. Those are the things which I want the Minister to see to, that empty houses should not be allowed, new or old, and secondly that he allows people to build houses up to £2,000 and does not interfere with them too much, and not control them too much. I do not believe for a moment that the platteland is short of houses. The farmer can put up a Kimberley brick house with a thatched roof very quickly. It is in the big cities that there is trouble. What the hon. member for Gordonia said is just hot air. I know the whole of the platteland as well as my friends do. It is all nonsense. The farmers are not such fools. They will not let their natives be without houses. The Voortrekkers did not wait for this or for that. I take it that the majority of material for houses is not controlled although we are short of baths and locks, etc. I hope the Minister will get these things into the country. I think that we should give private enterprise all the rein they want. I have seen Hollanders coming into this country— and that side of the House objected to them coming in—contractors who put up’ four and five houses at a time. Allow these men to go and look after the workers. Do not let them be exploited. The building trade unions will play the game. This talk of laying 200 bricks a day leaves me cold. They are just as patriotic as anyone else and if you ask them to build a job they will do it. The Minister must not let power get out of his hands. He must control everything. He must see that control is in his hands. Civil servants are good men, but do not let them get control. I am afraid of civil service control. Keep it in your hands and let them work for you otherwise the public will get annoyed and if there is one thing which can destroy the Government and will destroy the Government within the next two years it is whether or not the Government fails on the housing question. If the Government can give the people homes those gentlemen over there will sit in the wilderness for 30 years. But they will do their best to harry you on our side and not to help. They are playing politics.

Oh nonsense.

Well, not that hon. member. He is already half-way across the floor of the House. [Laughter.] They are playing politics and the Minister is playing patriotism. They will do all they can to upset him. The slightest mistake made by him will give them the chance to make trouble in the cities. They did it in the war and will do it after the war. They feel frustrated. Many of them have sat on their seats for a long time and they are getting tired of being the Opposition.

I think you are seeing snakes.

I can tell the Minister that he has good friends in the country, particularly in Johannesburg, and they are prepared to stand behind this young Minister for all they are worth. We will fight for him on the platform and in any way we possibly can. If the Minister will only keep a strong grip of the position, keep it in his own hands, he will carry through the great task he has addressed himself to and do a lot of good for his country.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said that they are visualising green fields ahead. I think he is seeing pink elephants and green snakes. I am fully convinced that the hon. Minister, although he pretended to be listening to the last speaker, is not going to take much notice of the latter’s selfish nonsense in regard to rural housing. For a moment I want to come back to rural housing, and especially the housing of labourers in rural areas. Complaints are continually made by farmers about the shortage of labour on their farms and one of the reasons which make it difficult to keep the better class labourer on the farms is no doubt due to the fact that housing in rural areas is not what it ought to be. Housing in the towns also was not what it should have been, but then the State came in with its housing schemes in the towns in order to improve the standard of urban housing for the lower paid classes. We feel that in connection with any housing scheme which may be called into being by the State, careful attention should be given to the question of rural housing. I want to draw attention to the unfair treatment of the farming community in regard to housing. Take for instance the town where I am living, Stellenbosch, where some large factories have recently been established. These factories pay attractive wages to the workers who are on the farms. The wages are more attractive, because the money may be more, although in actual fact the wages may not be higher. But now the State comes along and practically subsidises the factories in the towns and in the cities by providing houses for the factory workers. Some city council or town council approaches the Government and says: A number of people have now moved to our town because a factory has been established there and we now have to start a sub-economic housing scheme. Then those people live in the sub-economic houses where they pay a rent which is much lower than the actual value of the buildings, because the body which built those houses obtained the money free of interest. They therefore assist the factory by providing houses for the workers in the factories at a very low rent, and that is done by means of a Government subsidy. In other words, it amounts to the Government subsidising the factories in our towns and cities by the provision of cheap housing for their workers. The farmers now quite rightly ask why, if the factories are given such assistance in the towns, the farmers nearby and who are producers, cannot obtain assistance too, especially in regard to the housing of their farm labourers. They produce potatoes or meat or vegetables or milk but do not receive a subsidy.

Under this Act they will get it.

The hon. member should keep quiet. Sensible and grown-up people are talking now. I am sorry that the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) is not present here, because he knows the circumstances, especially in the coastal belt as far as Port Elizabeth. There the difficulties are particularly serious because you get a more educated class of farm worker there, both European and coloureds, and in those areas the farmers are definitely being unjustly treated because they have to provide houses for their workers out of their own resources, whilst nearby the factory workers are provided with houses by the State. We are of the opinion that the provision in regard to utility companies in connection with sub-economc housing schemes under this Act could also be used as far as the rural population is concerned in order to provide them with houses too. I think it would be a good idea if we could get a number of standardised houses of which the material and the quantities had been determined beforehand, so that the people on the farms could build the houses themselves for their workers, without making use of skilled labour. The farmers will be able to build those houses much more cheaply than they can be built now, and for the same amount of money they will be able to build a much better class of house in the rural areas. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that the housing of farm labourers leaves much to be desired. In the towns and cities where housing left much to be desired in the past, the State interfered and assisted by sub-economic housing schemes. It is the duty of the State also to give assistance in the rual areas. The farmers are doing their very utmost to provide, out of their own resources, a better type of house and better conditions for the workers on their farms. Perhaps I may point to something which happened in Paarl. An advertisement appeared in the newspapers of three Paarl farmers who jointly asked for a social worker for their three farms. They were prepared to provide her with a house and to pay her the same salary she would get if she worked for the State, in order to become a social worker among the working people on their three farms. I mention it as an instance of the fact that our farmers are trying to create better conditions on their farms for their working people. As this tendency exists, the machinery of this Bill should also be used to provide better housing for farm workers. We believe that a man can live decently and properly and happily in the rural areas if the means are provided to adapt the people to their environments, if the conditions are such that they can live happily on the farms. One of the most important things which should be done is to provide for proper housing. For that reason we should like to see that under this Bill farmers will also receive assistance to obtain the necessary dwelling houses for their labourers.

There are two or three points I should like to stress for the information of the Minister. Personally I hope he will keep before him the fact that though we are faced with the duty of providing houses for our returned soldiers he, as the Minister responsible for housing will have to keep before him the fact that according to the Van Eck report there is a tremendous shortage of houses generally. There was a shortage of houses before there was any question of providing housing for returned soldiers, and, therefore, to deal with the matter even from the point of view of the returned soldiers it is essential to have a broad vision on this matter of housing, giving first priority to soldiers, and secondly, regarding our plan as a means of doing away with our slums and catching up on our housing shortage, because the scarcity value of houses when there is a shortage is bound to react against the returned soldier, who will have to pay higher rents. Secondly, I hope the Minister will exercise to the full the powers he is receiving. In the last Act that was passed the Housing Commission had power to build where the local authorities did not carry out their obligations. That power was not exercised. I hope in how taking powers to build houses and to keep down the cost of land and material he will not hesitate to exercise those powers. In that regard may I say these provisions are a complete justification of the provisions of the award made two years ago by Mr. Ivan Walker. It shows the points made there about land and material, and also limiting the profits to 6 per cent. were fully justified. I hope the Minister, now he is getting the powers, will enforce them to the greatest extent. On the subject of cost I hope he will not be satisfied with laying down a preliminary figure in connection with the cost. We had the experience in connection with war contracts, where costs had to be revised after contracts had been completed. Although here and there by such means as an experimental house guidance will be given in regard to cost there will have to be a cost investigation after the job is done in order to keep down the cost. On, the subject of land I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, especially as it affects the Witwatersrand, as far back as 1921 in a report on unemployment one of the recommendations made was that the Government should take steps to deproclaim land which is lying idle all along the Witwatersrand, and to expropriate and utilise that land for the purpose, amongst other things, of housing schemes. There you will have a very big area of land that can be made available, land which is lying idle, that could be deproclaimed and expropriated at a very low figure indeed, because the Government has claims to it. It could be used to provide housing along the Reef at a very much lower rate than is possible in utilising ordinary urban land. The third point I want to make to the Minister is that he is responsible for the whole problem of helping soldiers, and soldiers are not adversely affected only by the lack of houses. Thousands of ex-soldiers who have been in the professions are affected by the lack of office accommodation, and I suggest that the Minister should see the Defence Department and the other Government departments which are occupying whole floors in large buildings and urge them to vacate those buildings as soon as possible, and remove to less commodious premises, thus making way for the returned soldier. Unless they can get that accommodation together with the houses that are being built for them, they will be very seriously handicapped in starting afresh in civil life. The Minister has the powers, and I trust that he will not hesitate to use them. Finally, I wish to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who told us about the speculative builders and the private houses they have erected. I do not object to these builders so long as they are providing housing at a reasonable figure. But the hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that over 160 houses built by speculators are being kept out of use because the builders cannot get the price they want. I hope in connection with these matters it will be made clear to private enterprise that when they do build they will not be allowed to keep these houses lying idle. I trust that the Minister will use his powers, when a person builds speculatively and the houses are not occupied, to compel the letting of such houses in the interests of providing a solution to the country’s housing problem.

The hon. Minister accepted an amendment by the hon. member for Woodstock (Mr. Russell) to the effect that land can also be expropriated for establishing playing grounds and I think that is the proper thing to do. I just want to ask the Minister whether he will take care that when such playing grounds are established, Europeans and coloured and natives will not play together. I think that is very important because in Cape Town we have already had the difficulty that children of different races were playing together on playing fields which originally were intended for European children. We had the case here of a Communist Jew who took coloured children to such a playing field with the result that serious difficulties arose and that this park had to be closed afterwards. The Minister should lay down a definite policy. Will playing fields be provided for coloureds and other fields for Europeans?

But he said that they would not be mixed.

In the Northern Provinces this mixed playing is not allowed and the schools are not mixed and on the sports grounds the coloureds play on the one side and the Europeans on the other side, and we should like that principle also to be applied here. I should like the Minister to put this very clearly, before the Bill is finally approved of.

If the Minister is really in earnest in providing houses where they are most urgently required, I should like to make a suggestion. He has now become our housing dictator, we have given him plenary powers; he should immediately issue instructions to all State departments employing persons on a large scale to build houses for their workers under the supervision of the Housing Committee. I am thinking of the Railway Administration and I am thinking especially of one department which has badly failed in its duty in this respect, namely the Department of Forestry. In my district the Department of Forestry employs thousands of people and there is not another area in South Africa where housing conditions are so bad as they are there under the Department of Forestry. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) is not in his seat but the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is present. They visited the Knysna district as members of the National Health Commission and they will be able to bear out that housing conditions there are worse than in the slums of Cape Town or Johannesburg. The Department of Forestry is responsible for it. Every year they make promises that they will attend to the matter but nothing is done about it. If the Minister wants to do some good with his dictatorial powers he should send an ultimatum to the Department of Forestry to make provision for houses for those people within twelve months. At Knysna, or at least in the district, the conditions are the worst. One can say that Knysna actually belongs to three organisations. Firstly there is the Department of Forestry. Housing conditions in its area are miserable. Secondly there is the English Church to which a large part of the Knysna district belongs and they also do nothing for housing. Thirdly there are the two big timber firms, Thesen and Parks, which own large areas of land. They also do practically nothing about it. Those three groups do nothing for housing.

Houses are now being built at Karatara.

Yes, but they are for people who in the first instance were ruined by the conditions of which I am complaining. The Department of Social Welfare is building houses there for people who have been ruined by the Department of Forestry and Karatara is the most serious accusation that can be levelled against the Department of Forestry. We appreciate the work the Minister is doing there. If the Minister wants to do something really good, he should send an ultimatum to the Department of Forestry to put a stop to the scandalous position near Knysna within a year.

When I interrupted the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) and tried to point out that under this Bill the Housing Commission can build outside the boundaries of local authorities he claimed to be the only man to have a monopoly of intelligence in this House. If his intelligence is reflected in his knowledge of housing I am afraid he has set a very poor standard. One must look for motives in these arguments. When the hon. member pleaded so strongly for the platteland and attacked the Minister for only building for the cities, he appeared on the face of it to have made out a case. But the position is in the cities you are building for the employees. That object cannot be achieved in the same manner as outlined by the hon. member for Humansdorp. If he would turn round and say: Right, I will allocate this piece of land on my farm and give it to my labourers and the Government can build houses for them there, and they will become their property and not be thrown out of them; that would have been a worthy argument to advance. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) also tried to make out that the Minister is always talking big, but is it not the fact that the municipalities in which the Nationalist Party have a majority, municipalities like those of Pretoria and Brakpan, who have all the money and material at their disposal who have been doing the talking. I ask the hon. member for Gordonia to tell us what these municipalities have done. Far from having achieved anything, if there are municipalities who are going to give the Minister trouble under this Act it will be these two municipalities, where the Nationalist Party is in control.

And Bloemfontein.

And Bloemfontein. It is said you cannot fool all the people all the time, and I refuse to be fooled by the Nationalist Party in this House. The position is that a good many of us no doubt have misgivings on account of the powers the Minister has got, but we have to make the best of that. The country wants not Acts but actions, and I hope this Bill will be followed by actions. It is not a matter so much of State enterprise or neglect by the State but of the spirit that animates the whole thing. I think that now just as much as we did during the war we demand a good heart and good intentions. These are necessary in this national emergency to achieve progress and form public opinion. The public can help considerably if they regard this as a national matter. They can help in the first instance by making available for housing all land in their private possession not being utilised by them. In the large urban areas many people own as many as four or five stands in addition to the stand on which their house has been built. They should part with some of those stands, and I am sure if the Minister makes an appeal and if the public realise the urgency of the situation and the responsibility that attaches to them they will extend their co-operation to the Minister. There are many opportunities for the citizen to help his friends. The father may say to his son who has not got a house: All right, old chap, I know you too have been hit in this national emergency and you need a house; here is a couple of hundred pounds to help you. That is the sort of practical assistance that can be given. If we have the public behind us in this national drive for housing this housing problem will be solved in a year. There is the urgent question too, that within four to six months we shall definitely be faced with a very serious shortage of accommodation as our men come back from the war. Let us make an appeal to the people who have anything from two rooms to half their house unused to assist in accommodating these people until such time as houses can be built for them. These men have made sacrifices, let us make a little sacrifice of a temporary nature in return and help them out and help the State out. I am sure that if such an appeal is made Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand will respond. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with the factors that militate against housing. The first is the way in which the Government departments work. Departmental work is always characterised by delay; they seem to delight in pigeon holes and red tape. Let us cut all that out and get on with the job. Let us first do the work and let the Department talk afterwards. I must confess that I came back from the interview I had this morning a little disappointed. I say let us forget about the Department. We are giving the Minister powers here with which he can sweep the whole lot aside. The Minister is young, and vigorous and energetic. Let us hope he will sweep them by the board. There is one thing which will operate against the success of national housing and that is the Pretoria Township Board, unless we take them by the neck and shoot them out. These fellows sit for two or three or four years to pass the building plans of the little township with 100 stands. Why should it take three or four years in South Africa to pass the building plans of a small township when in a country like Australia, for instance, the plans for huge schemes are rushed through in a matter of weeks. The Minister has town planning committees which were originally appointed under the ordinance and those town planning committees function very effectively indeed. I sincerely hope the Minister will make use of them and ignore the Pretoria Townshi Board When we want to make stands available we cannot allow them to stand in our way.

You need not laugh at him. He has more brains than the whole lot of you put together.

If he had a little more brains he would be a half-wit.

I do not take any notice of that type of remark. One can only expect it from those hon. members. I am convinced that unless the Minister can get rid of that control, he will not be able to get on with the job of providing houses. If you control too well you get nothing done. The control has been so effective that nothing has been done. Now we are told that the speculators are holding the people up to ransom. That has been their story for the last nine months, and that is why they are not issuing permits. I have never heard so much rubbish. Let us assume, as has been said, that there are at this moment 150 houses vacant on the Witwatersrand. Does that prove anything in an area as big as the Witwatersrand? I say that many of these houses or practically all of them are houses which are owned not by people who are interested in helping the people of this country to get houses and accommodation but by people who after five years of war still consider £.s.d. of greater value than human happiness. These people are going to be severely tackled and dealt with, but above all let us get rid of control. I asked the Minister of Public Works, the other morning by way of a question what was being controlled, and he said electric globes and fittings, and so on. But these are small items. If we have not got them, let us get a few aeroplanes and go and fetch them. When the Yankees want anything they get into their aeroplanes and go and fetch it. They get on with the job, and that is what we should do. I think we should decide what we want and then get on with the job without further delay. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) spoke of the type of house that was built in the old days. When he tried to speak of a certain type of house that could be built, hon. members over there tried to ridicule him. Let me tell the House that there will be hundreds of people on the Witwatersrand—I cannot speak for the other centres, because I do not know the conditions there—but there are hundreds of people on the Witwatersrand, who will be only too pleased to move into houses even without electricity. They will use candles until such time that they can get electric fittings. They would be prepared to move into these houses even without glass panes. They would be quite prepared to use cardboard in the meantime. They would do anything just to get a roof over their heads. It has been argued that private builders have not done their job. They could not do it because they were prevented from doing so. Let us hope that the Minister will make 100 per cent. use of them. I have personally undertaken to see that a certain organisation in Johannesburg will deliver 3,000 houses by Christmas. I am determined to see it through. But the difficulty in this country is that one is frustrated whenever one wants to tackle anything. It is all wrong. These people will build the houses that are required if they are given an opportunity to do so. In our enthusiasm for the building of houses, we must not lose sight of an important factor and that is that it will be practically useless to supply houses for the returned soldiers to live in if we cannot at the same time provide them with the means of earning their livelihood, if we do not provide them with a means of paying their rent. I just want to sound that note of warning. We must also build up the ordinary economic side — factories, business premises, etc. There is a shortage of factories today. If you have not got factories to provide work for the people they will not be able to pay for their houses. I make that point that we must be very careful in the distribution of the material between the two sections. I notice that the Minister of Railways wants to build a big station in Johannesburg. Let us hope there will be no talk of building big stations while there is still a shortage of houses. In this Bill we are giving the Minister wide powers. Let us hope he will use them fully and let us hope he will provide the solution to one of the major problems with which we are faced in South Africa today.

For the Minister’s information I believe it is necessary to refer to the speech which was made just now. The hon. Minister gave me the impression that he did not fully understand that speech. The hon. Minister actually gave me the impression that he has too little brains to follow such an important speech. It was a speech which climbed up to the heights to come down to the depths again. Sometimes it was like a thunder approaching and breaking loose and then again the silence was so intense that the hon. member could hardly hear himself. If the speech itself was not important, the intonation of the speech at least was very important. If some people should think that the speech was not so important, in any event the intonation was important, but there were a few matters of great importance which the hon. member said. One of those is that this morning he had an interview. Nobody knows with whom he had that but in any case he had an interview and if ever the Minister would like to interview a person, there is the man he should interview when he wants some advice. Furthermore the hon. member made another important statement; he said: “I refuse to be fooled by the Nationalist Party”. The hon. member is quite right. Anybody in this House in his position will refuse to be fooled by the Opposition because he is being fooled by his own Party all the time. Therefore the hon. member was quite correct. I think it is also important that the hon. member should not reply to speeches made on this side but that the Minister should reply to those, and for that reason I just want to emphasise what was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in regard to the position in the rural areas. I just want to supplement what he said. It was put on record here that in many cases you find the position in the urban areas that not only factory workers but also domestic servants and other private servants are living in parts where houses are provided by the State. I am sorry I cannot very well see the Minister at the moment, because I like to see him. He is not an ugly fellow and even the hon. member sitting over there said that he was not a bad looking fellow. Therefore I shall be glad if the hon. member will give me an opportunity of talking with the Minister. Many of those workers in our cities, such as domestic servants and private servants, have the privilege that when they go to work in the morning and when they come back at night they stay in the housing provided by the State. The hon. Minister has now received a blank cheque and as he has received a blank cheque and that money is to be spent we want to advocate strongly that the interests of the population in the rural areas shall be looked after, and that since the State is now going in for a scheme—as it did in the past,—to provide housing for domestic servants and other private workers in the terms, housing should also be provided for the farmers on their farms. I want to give the hon. Minister the assurance that farmers are very anxious to give their workers proper housing on the farms, but there are many difficulties they have to contend with and especially in recent times the great difficulty was that the farmers could not obtain the necessary material. The material is unobtainable. The farmer is always willing to do the work himself or have it done himself by his own labourers but the difficulty was to obtain the material. I trust that the Minister will make prevision for making material available when farmers want to effect improvements in regard to housing conditions on their farms. Often the position was that material was available but that the price thereof was so high that it was practically above their means. Very often it was unobtainable and when it was obtainable the price was exorbitant and I do hope that the Minister will give his particular attention to this aspect of the matter and that he will use the dictatorial powers which he received—we were against it but he has got those powers—and that when he fills in his blank cheque to provide housing in South Africa he will give special attention to conditions in the rural areas so that the farming population in our country will also obtain a share from that housing plan which they have been asked to pay for themselves year after year. I trust that the Minister in his reply to this debate will very clearly state what his point of view is in regard to this matter.

I just want to say a few words in regard to the building of houses in rural areas. During the second reading debate I made a remark in regard to the high railway tariffs for the transport of building material, but the Minister did not reply to it. I also asked him to be good enough to consult his colleague, the Minister of Transport, in regard to this matter. We in the rural areas also like to build decent houses. Why are the rural areas so heavily taxed by means of railway tariffs as far as building materials are concerned? The Minister can go into the particulars. Not long ago I received a certain quantity of timber from Cape Town and I can prove to the Minister that I paid as much for the railway freight as the timber cost itself. Seeing that the Minister intends to assist rural areas in regard to housing, it is important that we should go into this matter and that we should see that the railway tariffs on the transport of building materials are reduced. I feel inclined to suggest not merely by 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. but by 50 per cent. That will greatly assist people in rural areas to build houses and to keep the expenditure down as much as possible. About ten years ago I erected a few buildings in the Namaqualand Division and for that purpose I ordered only one and a half trucks of building material and the railway freight on that building material to the place where the buildings were erected cost me just over £300. That is far too much. It means that one pays about one-third too much for a building as a result of the high railway rates. I am not pleading now for my constituency only but I think this is a fair demand for all rural districts in our four provinces and if the Minister will meet us in this respect it will be greatly appreciated indeed.

The debate this morning has raised some further points of importance in connection with the national housing problem. I shall try to deal with them briefly. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has asked me to give an assurance that the work of building houses will in fact start. Well, I can give him that assurance. The commission has been instructetd itself to make a start with building. It is also in touch with the major local authorities and will place at the disposal of these major local authorities all its powers and give them all the assistance they may need to build. I am not going to attempt to give the House any figures. I am not going to attempt to raise hopes higher than they should be at the present time, or to place myself in the position of not being able to carry out implied undertakings.

One learns by experience.

All I am prepared to say is that it is the intention of the Government to see that houses are built to the limit of available material and to the limit of available labour. That is an undertaking I can give. That is the goal we are seeking. If we build to that standard during the next twelve months, what that will mean in terms of houses I cannot say.

Have you labour and material available?

Of course there is labour and material available at the present time but the amount of material is limited and the amount of labour is limited. I am hoping as a result of the provisions of this Bill to increase the building labour force in this country. The provisions of the Bill relating to control and to guarantees are intended to strengthen the building labour force in this country and to pave the way for a long range building programme over the next 10 or 15 years.

To what extent will you expand it?

The hon. gentleman was not present when I introduced the second reading. I explained then that the immediate intention is to bring in some 5,000 ex-volunteers, dilutees, and that is the start. It may be that further additional dilutees will be required as the programme progresses. The start is to be an additional 5,000 dilutees who will receive an intensive form of training for some 16 weeks and then have the final training on the job. It is anticipated that after approximately three years they will measure up to artisan standards and then receive artisan’s rates of pay. That refers, of course, to Europeans. Our programme is to build to the limit of available material and available labour. Every house which is built, whether it is built by the Housing Commission or local authorities, whether it is built as a national house or whether it is built by private enterprise, will help to relieve the immediate shortage. I would ask hon. members not to get the position out of proportion. We talk glibly about the shortage of 150,000 houses, not 290,000 which was the figure mentioned by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). It has been suggested that over the next 11 years, as a result of increases in population, we should require a further 290,000 houses’ Those figures are not based upon any scientific survey. They are the result of an estimate. They may or may not be accurate, but for the purposes of this debate I accept them as being accurate. It was pointed out that if there was a shortage of 150,000 at the beginning of last year, they represent a shortage of 120,000 for non-Europeans and 20,000 for Europeans. It meant that if 150,000 houses could have been made available at once, then every person in this country, European, native and coloured and Indian, would be adequately housed at that date, i.e. 1944. It represented the ideal. It meant that everyone would be comfortably housed. The real housing problem in this country is a problem of the non-European, but the public conscience has become aroused about housing, because as a consequence of certain tendencies brought about by the war, the housing problem for Europeans has in certain centres become acute.

All I suggest is that you aim at the ideal.

What the Government is attempting to do is to deal first of all with the immediate emergency, that is, the shortage of housing for Europeans in the large towns, at the same time carrying on with provision for non-Europeans and also having regard to the needs of the platteland. I would emphasise again that the need for European housing is merely a temporary need. We can deal with that if we harness all our resources to deal with the matter over the next 12 to 18 months. That is why I want to encourage private building. The National Housing Commission cannot build all the houses itself that are necessary for Europeans. Private enterprise must come in. I want to help the small builder about whom the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) has spoken. If they are prepared to build in accordance with the terms laid down by the Housing Commission and if they are prepared to build at reasonable prices, in other words, if they are prepared to limit their profits, I want to see that they are given facilities to build straight away. There are hundreds of small builders on the Rand and elsewhere who have plots available and who are prepared to build straight away. They have been hampered by not having in their possession the necessary permits. I want these matters checked up and if it is found that they will be reasonable, they must be allowed to build. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has referred to the fact that there are some 170 houses on the Witwatersrand standing empty.

In Johannesburg only.

Those houses are standing empty in Johannesburg only. Hon. members will remember that the provisions of Clause 2 (1) (a) are designed to meet such a position. The commission will now have power to promulgate regulations providing for the compulsory letting of such places, and the commission will exercise those powers unless action is taken by the owners to see that those houses are inhabited ….

At reasonable rentals.

…. at a reasonable rent. The hon. member will recollect that an amendment was moved by me to enable the commission to deal with rents when ordering the compulsory lease of empty houses. The hon. member for Gordonia has urged that there should be control over building costs. I entirely agree with him. The commission will have to satisfy itself, whether the building is done by private enterprise or departmentally, that proper control is exercised. He has also expressed the hope that the houses will be built in such a fashion that they will not turn into slums. In order to give effect to what he is contemplating the commission has rejected the idea of building temporary houses. We want to build proper structures that will last and my technical advisers inform me that there is no need for the construction of temporary houses in South Africa. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has asked me about playing fields. I am not at all sure whether it was necessary to take these powers in the Bill to enable the commission to purchase land for the setting aside of playing fields, because I think that on a proper construction of the Housing Act it was competent for the commission to do so, but as there was a doubt and as obviously this is an admirable ideal, the amendment was accepted. But if playing fields are set aside for children in any housing scheme, those playing fields will be limited to the scheme. We have never had mixed schemes and it is not the policy of the Government to embark on mixed schemes. There will be schemes for Europeans, for coloureds and natives, and we want adequate amenities for the particular racial group for whose benefit the scheme is introduced. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) supported by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen), has again urged the necessity for building on the platteland. I think there is a good deal of force in the contention of the hon. member for Humansdorp that where sub-economic schemes are provided in the cities and towns, in effect a subsidy is being given to the employers in that particular town. I think there is a good deal in that, and the hon. member argued that if that is so, the Government should be equally prepared to subsidise and assist the farmers in the housing of their employees.

Even where a factory is put up in completely rural areas, they can be subsidised in building cottages, but the farmer cannot.

I believe there is force in that contention, and I would like to pay a tribute this morning to the Agricultural Union of South Africa which has been dealing with the social aspects of agriculture. I think it is a sign of the times that they have been applying themselves to these matters. The appointment of a social worker to which the hon. member for Humansdorp referred, is the result of their deliberations. I have had interviews with the association and they are prepared to do all they can from their side to assist in building decent houses for their labourers, Europeans or non-Europeans, in order to provide proper amenities for them. Certain suggestions have been put forward and the hon. member will see from a scrutiny of Section 2 (1) (k) of the Bill that it is now competent for regulations to be issued enabling the payment by the commission of subsidies to prescribed persons or the making of an advance to individuals. There is provision for that.

They will want to be prescribed, of course.

Yes.

You have assisted the cities so long that you should now give the platteland an opportunity.

I think I should say that if the housing problem is to be adequately and fully tackled, not necessarily this year, or in eighteen months, but if it is to be adequately tackled, then of course one must have regard to the needs of the platteland and the towns as well. That is the policy of the Government. The hon. member for Namaqualand has once again raised the question of the tariff on building materials. It is certainly true that railway rates represent a considerable item in building costs in South Africa, and he has suggested that I should talk to my colleague, the Minister of Transport, who I am sure, with his usual courtesy, will allow me to have a word with him about this matter. What he will do is another matter. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has made the suggestion that the Housing Commission should urge Government departments to build. I may tell the hon. member that yesterday I gave instructions to the Department of Social Welfare to make a survey as far as that department is concerned and to ask other departments to do the same. In other words, I do agree with him, that the time has come when the Government should have, regard to the housing needs of its own servants. There are many towns such as Pretoria and Bloemfontein and others where large numbers of public servants live and where they have great difficulty in being provided with adequate housing accommodation.

The Department of Forestry is the worst sinner.

I have no knowledge of that, but if houses are necessary for departmental employees, the Department of Forestry will be asked to look into the matter and see if it can make suggestions to the Housing Commission. I thank hon. members for their useful suggestions, but I would again ask hon. members not to imagine that we in South Africa are unique in having this housing difficulty or to imagine that this is something which cannot be dealt with on reasonable lines. Other countries in the world are suffering from lack of housing, not only the bomb-blasted cities of England but also New York itself, which has never had a bomb, is suffering from this shortage of houses. These unique conditions were brought about by the war. Young girls got married and did not wish to live with their families, but sought houses. There are all sorts of artificial circumstances which have brought about this condition. What we need is a proper sense of proportion and plans to build houses in order to solve the problem.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I just want to say that in general we do not want to take up too much of the time of the House in regard to this Bill. Nevertheless I should like to put a question to the Minister. Lately he has been very concerned about the loan account and why is he not putting his words into practice. Clause 1 deals with the surplus he had on the revenue account. It amounted to £2,332,000. The Minister now proposes that £1,500,000 thereof shall be used to pay the premium on the repatriation of foreign debt. An amount of £922,000 is to be used to redeem the amount of the Governor-General’s War Fund which appears on the loan account. That leaves a balance of £832,000. That is the surplus on the revenue account according to his revised estimates. We know that his revised estimates are always a few million pounds out. It is quite possible that the Minister, when the final accounts are made out, will carry over a surplus not of £832,000, but of between £2 million and £3 million. Why is he not following the sound system of his predecessor, Mr. Havenga, to credit the whole amount to loan account? I know that the Minister always becomes annoyed when I speak of his predecessor, Mr. Havenga. Although he may be somewhat jealous when we draw that comparison, he should not show his jealousy so openly for all to see. There are many respects in which we differed from Mr. Havenga, but this is a leaf which the Minister can take from his book, namely that when he had a surplus in his revenue account he usually transferred it to loan account. The danger is, and I want to emphasise it once more, that the Government has too much money to play with. That leads to extravagance and wastage of money. The public are beginning to feel uneasy about this spirit of extravagance and the wastage of money which is taking place now. I think that the Minister would do well to stipulate in para. (b) that, instead of determining that £922,000 shall be credited to loan account, the whole surplus in the revenue account will be credited to loan account. I cannot move that but I think that the Minister would be well advised to do so.

The position is that, at least for quite a number of years, there was no fixed policy in regard to the appropriation of surpluses. The Act used to lay down that the surplus had to be paid into loan account, but that Act was repealed by Mr. Havenga in 1926.

Yes, because it was better to do it voluntarily.

Since 1926 every year was considered on its merits and sometimes the full surplus was so credited and sometimes not. During my time it was sometimes paid into loan account and sometimes not. If in this case we would transfer the whole surplus, the result would be that we would in consequence increase the deficit for the year. We would only avoid that if we would place a larger part of the amount needed for Defence expenditure to loan account and a smaller part to the ordinary account. That would have given the same result. The other possibility would have been to increase the deficit and afterwards to levy taxation to make up for it. I do not think my hon. friend would have been satisfied with that. If we were to do now what he wants, it would either mean the levying of additional taxation or an increase in the amount which we have to find on loan account for the covering of expenditure, which would result in exactly the same position.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

This matter was discussed in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. We were anxious that an arrangement should be come to with the Railways, and it seems to me that this is a fair arrangement which has now been agreed upon.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

This clause has a few implications which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in order to ask him for an explanation. The first one is a matter which has already been raised during the second reading debate, namely, the possible distribution of the supplies which will be made available by the Union Parliament to Unrra. I think the Minister can be assured that everybody who has a sense of responsibility towards his fellow beings will on principle not object to a proposal to give assistance. But as a partial appropriation is made of what probably will be limited to a maximum, the House, and in any case the members on this side who feel that our humane feelings demand it, will want to have the assurance that there will not be selected sections of humanity which will receive preference. We should like the Minister, if possible, to assure himself in regard to the application of these funds and through him to assure this House, that in this case there will be no particular discrimination in connection with the application of the funds. We do not object to Unrra applying the funds for relief work, but the emergency is not limited to one people or to one race. Since we accept that the application will take place in the first instance for the relief of distress, I suppose for relief of the distress of the Allied Nations, we feel that this should not be a question of a certain group but of all people whose requirements are clearly visible. The public Press gives us sufficient indications of the distress in various countries, and also in Germany. I want to give the Minister the assurance that we and others feel that discrimination at this stage will not be in the interests of humanity. On the contrary it will emphasise the estrangement and increase the loss of human lives. Seeing that we as representatives of this Party of the House of Assembly do not object against a contribution by the Union, which is particularly privileged, we feel that we can expect that certain groups of people in Western Europe such as Holland, Belgium, France, of course England too, and also Germany, should receive consideration. There are very few of us who do not have German blood in their veins. I have and many of us have and we are not ashamed of it. We do not want to go into the merits of the case now. It is no longer a question of war but of relief of distress. From the Minister’s remark a short while ago I assumed that there will be no discrimination in the use of these funds but I should like to have an assurance in this regard. The total amount is limited to £4,500,000. In the past amounts have been made available by the House of Assembly. We are now dealing with an instalment of which we do not know how much it will amount to. We can assume that the full amount will not be given this year and the question is what the maximum amount for the Union as a whole will be.

This is the maximum.

It is the maximum according to the agreement. If Parliament should feel differently about the matter afterwards, it will be another thing. The third point is the economic implications. There is a general shortage of goods in the Union and there is a great demand for supplies. I understand that the Minister has given the assurance to this House that in selecting possible supplies account will be taken of existing requirements. This is however, a very delicate matter. The position may be satisfactory today but within the near future a shortage may occur. I do not know in how far the military stores include clothing, implements and similar things. But in every respect there are requirements to be met and therefore I shall be glad if the Minister can give us the assurance that in estimating the exportable quantities, careful consideration will be given to existing needs or to needs which may arise in the Union in the immediate future. The Minister will pardon us if we specially emphasise this point in view of the advisers around him. We are slightly worried about the people who are giving him advice. Today there are so many interests which do not represent the interests of South Africa only. The Minister will no doubt think I am referring to a certain organisation which three months ago already advised the Minister to export all possible supplies. Those are the people who have an interest in the importation of goods and I do not want goods, which we need, to be exported so as to create a shortage to be made up by the importers again. We do not want to assist in creating an artificial shortage which might make our own position more difficult.

In the previous debate we on this side put our point of view very clearly in respect of Unrra. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and I gave a number of reasons why we have doubts about this organisation. Today we are faced with the position that in Committee approval should be given to this clause and I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and to go somewhat further than he did and say that the Minister in his replies, given a few days ago on this matter, showed that he knew precious little about the whole position. In the second place, we are faced with the position that serious doubts have been expressed not only by us but also in other parts of the world, in countries such as Australia. The reply given by the Minister does not satisfy me. We are not certain about the manner in which the goods will be distributed. We have no assurance that it will be general relief of distress. I specially refer to the remarks made by the Minister when I raised the matter the day before yesterday. The Minister spoke about Italy and tried to create the impression that relief of distress would also be given to a country such as Germany because it was being given in Italy. Since the time of Badoglio Italy has practically been considered as one of the Allied Nations. That reply given by the Minister therefore does not take us very much further. We would like to have an assurance with a view to the general reconstruction of Europe, that relief of distress would be generally applied. On all these points we are very uncertain. However, there is the possibility that part of the goods will in fact reach the right destination, and that relief of distress will actually take place in spite of all the uncertain elements. For that reason we do not want to vote against the clause and by that to give out that we on this side are opposed to relief of distress. But if the Minister is still in power next year, he will again have to come for funds, and I trust that when he comes for funds, he will be in a postion to give us more information as well as more satisfaction in connection with these, matters, than he was in a position to do the day before yesterday. Then I want to raise another matter in this regard The hon. member for Castle (Mr. Alexander) tried to create the impression that I had misled the House. I allow nobody to say to me and least of all the hon. member for Castle that I misled the House.

I said nothing about misleading.

That was the tenor of the speech of the hon. member, but furthermore he himself in his speech made an attempt to mislead the House.

The hon. member may not say that another hon. member is attempting to mislead the House.

Then I will put it in this way that his remarks were of such a nature that the effect thereof would be to create the impression that I was engaged in misleading the House in connection with what took place in a previous debate, while he was in fact engaged in misleading the House. What happened? I raised this matter last year and put a question to the Prime Minister why it was that a sectional organisation such as the Jewish Board of Deputies was asked to select workers for Unrra? I said here that the Prime Minister denied that that was the case. The hon. member for Castle the day before yesterday rose and said that there was no difference between the position as put by the Prime Minister and the letter written by the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies in the “New Era”. On the 19th March of this year the Prime Minister replied as follows to a question of mine—

That proves that the Government was actually concerned in the matter. I then put this question by way of interjection—

The Prime Minister then replied as follows—

Mr. Louw: Did the Red Cross not leave it to them?

The Prime Minister: No, they would not do that, but it is very likely that there are Jewish friends amongst the workers who have been chosen.

Mr. Louw: Why are five out of the six Jewesses?

The Prime Minister: No, I do not know how many are Jewesses. I know that the choice was left to the two organisations, both semi-Government organisations, the S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross.

It is exactly as I said yesterday. Those are semi-Government organisations. I then made the following interjection—

To that the Prime Minister replied—

I said that here the day before yesterday and then the hon. member for Castle denied it. He said that there was no difference. I woud now like to read what the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies wrote in a letter about this matter—

The Prime Minister denied it when I said that five of the six were Jewesses, and that they had been chosen by the Jewish Board of Deputies. He said that the Red Cross and the S.A.W.A.S. had chosen them. This letter by the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies shows that it did in fact take place, and that that organisation had indeed been asked by the semi-Government Board to act in the matter. It appears clearly from this letter—

Now the hon. member for Castle says that there was nothing like that. He yesterday intimated to the House, and he may read it up in the Hansard report of his speech, that certain names of persons who had already been chosen by S.A.W.A.S. were submitted to the Jewish Board merely for the purpose of asking it whether they were suitable persons or not. The persons would then already have been chosen by S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross, and because three were Jewesses the Jewish Board had merely to say whether they were suitable persons. Now it appears from the letter of the secretary to the Jewish Board that they were requested by the S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross to select lady workers! The position is mow so clear that the hon. member cannot get away from it, and we say that it is wrong that a sectional body such as the Jewish Board of Deputies should be asked by a semi-Government organisation to select persons. I say further in view of the fact that the head of Unrra is a Jew, further in view of the fact that the head of Unrra in Europe, Colonel Katzen, is a Jew, and that so many Jews have been appointed as the chief officials of this organisation, that we have reason for concern. I ask the Minister to give us an assurance that anything like that will not happen in the future, and that a certain section will not have control of an organisation for which we vote £ 4½ million.

I want to reply to the general aspects of the matter raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) and also by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I want to explain the position in connection with enemy countries. On the second reading I spoke in general terms about it. The position is that the Board of Unrra at its first meeting decided that the administration could act in those countries but that it could only do that after it had first referred the matter to the board which should then approve of the programme for those countries. At the second meeting the Board of Unrra further decided that in the case of combating of epidemics or in the case of the transfer of populations the administration of Unrra could also act in enemy countries without reference to the board, but in other cases it should first refer the matter to the Board of Unrra. That is the position. In connection with the second point raised by the hon. member, I want to say that our contribution is based upon 1 per cent. of our national income for the year 1942-’43. That is as far as our obligation goes, and no further. The third point was in connection with the effect of these proposals on the position in our own country. All that we do here is to say that subject to the approval of the Treasury the Disposals Board may hand over some of the goods under its control to Unrra as part of our contribution. That means that the Disposals Board should in the first place decide whether it was desirable to use a part of the goods under its control in that way. The Disposals Board should naturally bear two aspects of the question in mind. The first is whether the goods are indeed required in South Africa for our own people. Where the goods are capable of being used here and where our own people require them they should be used here.

Will the Advisory Committees examine it?

Yes, we shall follow the ordinary procedure. They will deal with those goods as with the other goods. But something else should be borne in mind and that is the fact that if an excessive quantity of a certain article which they have at their disposal is put into circulation in our country it would be in conflict with the interests of our industries. Therefore they should keep the balance between the two considerations, and thereafter if there should be a surplus of any goods it would probably be a good idea to use it in the manner suggested here, and I think the House will be satisfied with the proposal. But even after that the decisions of the Disposals Board will still be subject to the approval of the Treasury. I trust that I have explained the point to the satisfaction of the House.

I am sorry the hon. member should have thought I accused him of misleading the House. I said nothing of the sort. I have the Hansard report before me, and it is clear I made no attack on him. What I did deplore was that he was continually raising this question and the question of the Board of Deputies. He has proved that by raising the question again this morning. Nor do I think there is any material conflict between us as to the facts of the case, but it is on the interpretation of those facts that we differ. When I stated the Prime Minister’s statement did not seem to be in material conflict with the Board of Deputies’ statement it was to point out that the whole emphasis was placed by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) on his assertion that the appointments were made by the Board of Deputies. They were not so made.

You recommended them.

I am dealing with that. I want this fact to be clearly stated, that when the Prime Minister told the House the appointments were not made by the board he was quite correct.

No, no.

I think there is an entire misunderstanding.

There is no misunderstanding whatsoever.

I said there was no material difference, and I still maintain there was no material difference between the statement made by the Prime Minister and the statement made by the board. What are the facts? These Unrra appointments have nothing to do with South Africa. South Africa does not spend a penny in regard to their salaries. None of the money that was voted now is going to these people. They are all volunteers. The question does not really arise under this vote, except that Unrra is there and they are going to serve in Unrra work. They are not appointments made and paid for out of this vote. The Board of Deputies is naturally anxious on all matters affecting the relief of suffering in Europe; where a very large number of Jewish people are concerned, and they are anxious to assist in the relief of these people. This appeared in the “New Era” on the 22nd March and the board offered their co-operation. Is there anything wrong in that? I think it was a very public-spirited action. They had nothing to gain by it. They asked whether they could co-operate. The chairman of the council is Mr. Justice Rams-bottom, a judicial chairman. The secretary of the board received an answer to their offer of co-operation saying there was an urgent need for six workers in camps in Egypt and Palestine. Surely the board would be expected to be interested, for instance, in the fact that something would be done in Palestine. And they said the S.A.W.A.S. would be asked to undertake responsibility for three and the board for the other three. The board called for volunteers. I do not know how many there were. Probably there were more volunteers than the number appointed, and out of these they selected the number for this work. The board did not make the appointments. The council could have turned down their recommendations and said: We are not satisfied with those you recommended. It was entirely a question of recommendation and not of appointment. The board had nothing to do with the appointment. They were asked to call for volunteers and to recommend the most suitable. These voluntary workers are not members of the Unrra staff. That is another thing my hon. friend overlooks; he makes out that these are Unrra appointments. They are not members of the Unrra staff, and they are under contract to the organisations which sent them, and those organisations are responsible for their salaries. Unrra is not responsible for their salaries. They are not Unrra officials. It was good-neighbourliness and goodwill that the board assisted the council in finding suitable persons. There is nothing sinister about it. The Union Government is not giving any contribution on this subject, and none of this money being voted today has anything to do with the expenses or the salaries. They are working entirely on their own and in some cases there is probably no salary, but those with the salary do not get them from Unrra or from the amount voted here. There is no question, as was hinted in this statement in the “New Era” in that particular part written by the hon. member, that there was any suggestion about immigration and so on. There is nothing whatever in that. Unrra has nothing to do with emigration or immigration. Its function solely is to return displaced persons to the countries of the world from which they were taken away. There is no question of immigration or of trying to bring immigrants to South Africa. All that is absolute moonshine. The hon. member in the “New Era”, on the 5th April, made a very characteristic reference to this reply. As I said the other day, one must remember an attack was made on the board in the “New Era” of the 15th March. That was where the attack was made. These are some of the questions that were put: Are the Jewish inhabitants of Greece, etc. to be rehabilitated? Will the rehabilitation include emigration to South Africa and so forth; and, is the Jewish Board of Deputies to be accorded executive functions on matters for which the Union tax-payer is footing the bill? All moonshine! The Union taxpayer is not footing the bill. There is not any question of immigration. There is an answer to that, and the board wrote a letter to the “New Era” to which the hon. member replied on the 5th April. It appears to be a storm in a teacup as far as the hon. member is concerned. What we do resent is his attack on Col. Katzin. This officer was at one time president of the Cape Chamber of Industries. He ran a most important industrial concern here. He is a young unmarried man, and only about 39 now. He was educated at Bishops, one of our colleges, and he is a man who has conferred tremendous distinction on South Africa by getting this appointment, not from South Africa, not through the Jewish Board of Deputies but by a world organisation. They thought he was the man best fitted for this most important job; and the only reason the hon. member attacks him is because he is a Jew. This poison is eating him up. It is attacking him. One does not want to see him pass from the scene, so I urge him to get rid of this poison and not let it kill him. Col. Katzin is a man of whom we will hear a great deal in the future. Not only has he risen to this position of Deputy-Director of Unrra, but it has been done without any influence from this side. It is a great distinction with which we in South Africa have had nothing to do. There was no pushing from South Africa. The first news anyone in South Africa got of this appointment was the announcement in the newspaper which gave an eulogistic account of his career, with his photograph. I would beg the hon. member, let us end this Session, if we can, on something apart from personal animus, let us end this Session on a note of mutual regard and goodwill if we can; let us get rid of these racial problems. I have nothing to say against the hon. member, except I am very sorry he is being eaten up by this poison. It destroyed the Germans who had this poison in their system, and I should be sorry if a similar fate overtook the hon. member. I have stated the facts of the case. I think the whole thing is a storm in a teacup, and when the Prime Minister stated the Jewish Board of Deputies had nothing to do with it, it was perfectly clear what he meant, and what we understood was that the Jewish Board of Deputies in no way controlled any of the appointments. He did not mean they were not consulted, put as far as the appointments were concerned the Jewish Board of Deputies had no more to do with them than the Prime Minister.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) says I am eaten up, as he puts it by anti-semitism. I should like to refer him to a speech recently made by one of his colleagues, and one of his co-religionists, the member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg). He addressed a meeting on the 25th April in the Cape Town City Hall, a meeting of Jews and Christians, and the Press report of that meeting credits him with the statement that anti-semitism was today much stronger amongst English-speaking people than Afrikaans-speaking people. So, Mr. Chairman, it is not only myself and members of this side of this House to whom the hon. gentleman should direct his remarks. He must direct his remarks to the English-speaking people of South Africa, who are now accused by his fellow member and his co-religionist, the hon. member for Umlazi, of being even more strongly anti-semitic than we are. We are not anti-semitic, we deal with the Jewish question as an economic question. Listening to the hon. member today one felt that butter would not melt in his mouth. He puts the whole matter in a very innocent light. In the first place the hon. member splits hairs, by saying that it is a question of appointments, and that the Jewish Board of Deputies cannot make appointments to Unrra. Of course not; only a fool would think that. What I said last time and again two or three days ago was that the Prime Minister himself had admitted that a semi-Government body had dealt with the matter. It now appears that this semiGovernment body invited the Jewish Board of Deputies to make the nominations, which is practically equivalent to an appointment. Having been asked by a semi-Government body to make the nominations it stands to reason that the nominations, having been made, the semi-Government body, is bound to appoint those particular people. It is my recollection, and if he will look up his Hansard report he will see that the attitude he took up was as I have stated today.

That, was only on the subject of accusing me of being misleading.

I am talking of something else. What the hon. member said three days ago was that these semi-Government bodies had selected the workers for Unrra, and that the Jewish Board of Deputies had merely been consulted as to whether they were fit and proper persons. That is what he said three days ago. But we have the statement from his own organisation admitting that they were in fact asked by the S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross—which are semi-Government organisations according to the Hon. the Prime Minister—to make these nominations. That is the basis of my charge. My charge was not against the Jewish Board of Deputies. My charge in the “New Era” article was against the Government for using a sectarian body for making appointments of a semi-Government nature. That was my charge. My charge still stands, and it is fully substantiated by the letter written by the Secretary of the Jewish Board of Deputies. Let me take the hon. member back to what occurred in this House on the 19th March. The hon. member said that there was in fact no material difference. When I put the matter to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister he absolutely denied that the Jewish Board of Deputies had ever been approached in regard to this matter. Yesterday I read from Hansard where he made that denial, where he said that he knew nothing about it. I put the question to him: “Was the request to the Jewish Board of Deputies not made by S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross?” And the Prime Minister said in reply—I am translating from the Afrikaans Hansard— “No, it was not done, there may have been Jewish friends among those who were selected.” He aboslutely denied that these semi-Government bodies had approached the Jewish Board of Deputies. I asked whether he was aware that five of the six were Jewesses, and the Prime Minister replied: “I cannot say how many were Jewesses. The choice was left to two semi-Government organisations, S.A.W.A.S. and the Red Cross.” I do not blame the Jewish Board of Deputies for taking advantage of the offer made to them; naturally they would. My charge was against the Government for approaching a sectarian body to make nominations which at that time were equivalent to appointments. The hon. member says Unrra has got nothing to do with the workers which were sent. It is extraordinary that I and everybody else got that impression, and the sub-editor of the “Cape Times”, who provided the caption for the Sapa dispatch, did as well. The caption reads: “Six South African Women for Unrra.” It is extraordinary that he and everybody else received that impression. They may be voluntary workers, but the position is this, that these workers are working under the aegis of Unrra. I see the hon. member admits it. He cannot deny, according to his own statement, that they were requested by a semi-Government body to make these selections. He nods again, and now we are in perfect agreement. It is not often that there is agreement between the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) and myself. He also admits that is so, and my charge is therefore substantiated, viz. that the Government had no right to approach a sectarian body in regard to appointments of this kind.

I am quite certain that the House and the country is not interested in whether the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) is in favour of certain Jewish women going to Unrra or not. I do not understand why the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) takes it so seriously. Does the hon. member recognise this fact; if the chairman had the right tomorrow to parade 100 men of the Ossewa-Brandwag and 100 Jews and to give the hon. member for Beaufort West the right to kill 100, the hon. member would kill the 100 members of the Ossewa-Brandwag. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) must remember that the hon. member for Beaufort West is afflicted in the same way as Mr. Dick in David Copper field. Mr. Dick could not write his memorial without bringing in King Charles’ head. I have never known a man resemble him more than does the hon. member for Beaufort West. One realises, the whole world realises, that Mr. Dick was a paranoiac. Just as Mr. Dick could not keep King Charles’ head out of the memorial, so the hon. member for Beaufort West cannot keep the Jews out of his speeches. Two years ago his own adherents cheered him; a year ago some still followed him; now they all sneer at him. All the members of his Party on the Rand sneer at him. They know the hon. member is suffering from delusions. Now the only support he gets is from the hon. member who sits behind him, the hon. member from the wilds of Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). That hon. member is the only one who cheers him, and one day when I have finished with his history he will not want to stay in the House. The hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg will find they will not get much further with their fight against the Jews, because the Jews have always stood at the graves of their oppressors.

Do you agree with the statement by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) that I read out?

That does not matter. Supposing 100 members of the Dutch Church or the Wesleyans or any other Church are affected in the same way. The Nationalists represent just a relatively small number of people with very poor brains. The country does not need them and does not care much what they think. What the people do recognise is that this great country that won the war and the people who won the war are representative of all races, and have been animated by intelligence and goodwill. The hon. member for Ceres is suggesting that food should go to Germany. I could not hear the Minister’s reply, because the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) was in front of me having a long talk with the hon. member for Vasco (Mr. Mushet) about, I take it, Shakespeare and the musical glasses. The people of this country do not forget the attitude of the Nationalists when they thought Germany was winning the war. They do not forget their indifference when the Germans bombed innocent babies in Holland, they do not forget their callousness when we were hearing about the Germans branding children with acids, they were not ashamed of the Germans then and we can quite understand that they are not ashamed of sending food to the Germans now. I want to speak to the Minister seriously and to tell him that as far as I am concerned and as far as the large number of the people in this country are concerned, and probably as far as his own newspapers are concerned, this country will be very dissatisfied if we send food to Germany through Unrra. We do not want the Germans to starve, but that is a matter that can be looked after by the High Command and Gen. Eisenhower, and Field Marshal Montgomery, not by South Africa. We want to send food to Holland and to Belgium and England, but not to Germany.

What about Palestine?

Has the hon. member also got that question on the brain? I am not interested about the Jews in Unrra, but I am interested in this money being spent on food for our allies and for our friends. The Americans are not sending any food for Unrra to use in Germany. We look upon the Germans as untouchables and unspeakables. I hope the Minister will not be influenced by the fact that his ancestors were German. This is a different type of German, and the new German has got to be trained, otherwise we shall have to have this whole war business over again in 25 years. I cannot speak for anybody but myself, but I know the feelings of a large number of people in this House, and we do not want to send any food to Germany from South Africa. We want to assist to feed our own people, the English people and our allies. I am not interested in the Germans; I had my offices blown up twice during the war; and the deputy-leader of the Labour Party (Mr. Van den Berg) will tell you the police found under the platform where the Minister of Justice was going to hold a meeting, a box of dynamite with fuse attached, and enough dynamite to have blown up the 400 people at the meeting. We have been through the mill in this war, and we have never heard a word of sympathy from the other side. Ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) whose brother, an officer in the police, found the dynamite. We have never mentioned this before, but, it is time these things came out. We have been through a lot. I am certain, and most of us are certain, they tried to get at prominent members of the Cabinet. I am going to kick against the whole idea, I am going to fight against it, and if there is any question of sending food to Germany I shall move an amendment and test the feeling of the House. We do not want any food to go to Germany. That is our feeling, and that is the feeling of the people who have lost their friends and their loved ones in the war, and whose people were murdered by the Germans in this war. We do not want to have anything to do with the Germans. The hon. member on the other side can have the Germans now, and until the cows come home. We do not want to have anything to do with them. They annoy us and make us angry. The hon. Minister does not know how deep the feeling is.

[Inaudible.]

We ate not quarrelling with the hon. member, he has my sympathy. He is a decent fellow.

I am sorry for him if he has your sympathy.

I did not say the hon. member for Beaufort West was a decent fellow. I was referring to the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). Speaking on behalf of English-speaking South Africans I say we are all agreed we do not want any food to go via Unrra to Germany. We do not want the Germans to come to this country, we do not want to see them, we do not want to hear them, we want to see Germany in the dust and a new Germany arising out of that dust. [Time limit.]

I would like to say to the hon. member who has just sat down that there is no member in this House who has displayed more bitterness towards our Afrikaner blood than he. He said that the Germans were unapproachable to them.

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

I regret that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) is not present at the moment. He stated that we should be considered as a type of psychological paranoiacs, always just anti-Jewish and anti-everything but if there is one paranoic in this House, as regards anything connected with the Nationalist Party, then it is the hon. member. He is unable to open his mouth without damning everything on this side. We are definitely unlike him, we are not psychological paranoiacs as he is. I would like to say to the Acting Prime Minister that I am somewhat disappointed with his reply viz. that should the question arise of who will benefit it will in the last resort again be referred to Unrra itself. As has appeared from the speech made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) this morning the most important persons in connection with Unrra are Jews. The last war could to a large degree be ascribed to the influence of the Jews. As soon as there is a nation having a certain number of Jews in its midst, so that it is saturated as far as Jews are concerned, an anti-Jewish spirit arises, and that was the case in Germany and the war largely arose from that. We now come to rehabilitation. It is true that the Jews have suffered very much and we may expect where the administration is mainly in the hands of Jews they will use their influence to rehabilitate Jews. I merely want to point out what recently took place in the House of Commons in England. A question was put by one of the Conservative members whether Jews would get preference in respect of repatriation. The Prime Minister replied that if it should be a case of necessity it would happen. A further reply followed that if it should happen that the Jews were going to receive preference the strongest anti-Semitic spirit of all times in the world would be aroused. Thus also in England they are beginning to feel that the Jewish influence is becoming too powerful and that if matters continue like that we can expect the following pogrom to break out there. It is therefore definitely not in the interests of the Jews that the matter should be guided in their direction, and it is an institution to which we contribute funds. I would like to direct the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to a report which appeared in the “Cape Times” yesterday. In an article in the “Cape Times” from the headquarters of the forces in the West, the 15th Army, something is said about the conditions in the Rhineland. 7,000,000 inhabitants of the Rhineland are faced with starvation. This is the ration which will be allowed them there; one-quarter of the number of calories given to American soldiers. In other words, American soldiers receive four times as much as the inhabi tants of the Rhineland. They receive one-third of the supply given the American citizen. Therefore the ordinary people receive three times as much food as Rhinelanders will receive. There it is really a question of need and assistance should be rendered. I also want to say that where the hon. member for Hospital described the Germans as “unspeakables” and “untouchables” he gave us the impression that the Germans should be considered in the same light as Hindus and Mohammedans in India regard each other. But I further want to point out—the hon. member for Beaufort West has already drawn attention to it—that there is much German blood in our veins. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has also pointed that out. He said that there was German blood in his veins. According to Dr. Kolenbrander 30 per cent. of the blood of Afrikaners is German and 50 per cent. Dutch. I further want to point out that even the grandfather of the present King of England, the husband of Queen Victoria, was a full-blooded German who was unable even to speak English. We therefore notice the close relationship between the English King and German blood.

We are all descended from Adam and Eve.

Christianity knows no limits. Charity also has no limits. The Red Cross also knows no limits. On the battlefield it makes no difference whether it is a Chinaman, a Russian or a German who is wounded. The Red Cross goes to his assistance irrespective of his colour or his race. If the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) were lying on the battlefield he would also be assisted by the Red Cross. We therefore set out from the point of view that if assistance is to be afforded it should be given in all directions. We are not satisfied with the exclusion of the Germans. For the following six or ten months assistance will be given by allied forces. What will happen after that? The funds have not been voted only for six months. We feel very strongly that the assistance should be given to anyone who has need of it irrespective of race or colour. It should be given on an international basis. Whether it is a German or an Englishman or an Afrikaner, and whether it is the hon. member for Hospital, we want all to be equally treated, and I object strongly to the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Hospital and also to the idea of the Acting Prime Minister that we are not definitely going to give assistance to all irrespective of what nation or race he belongs to.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I would like some information from the Minister on this matter. Apparently poll tax is levied on coloured persons in the Free State, in other words, coloured persons in the Free State who do not in the normal course of events pay income tax now receive better treatment than natives. It has apparently always been the position for them to pay. I would like to know the reason for the change. The money does not go to the Provincial Council; it goes to the Exchequer. I would like to know the reason for the change.

The position is that the Free State is the only province in which coloured persons are liable for the same poll tax as natives. It is an anomaly that it should be paid there. The number of coloured persons in the Free State is naturally relatively small. The amount of revenue sacrificed is also small and I think that in that case there should be uniformity between the four provinces, and for that reason we now propose to abolish the poll tax levied on coloured persons in the Free State.

Is the hon. Minister in a position to inform me how it would be possible to draw the line? In the Free State it would be very difficult to draw the line. In Bloemfontein the municipality has segregation in the form of separate residential areas for coloured persons, but according to what rule will the line be drawn between a coloured person and a native.

There is a definition of “native” in the Native Taxation Act of 1925. That will be applied. At the outset there may perhaps be difficulties.

Where will the onus be?

The hon. member now puts me a question to which I am unable to reply. But just as the difficulty was solved in the other provinces it will also be possible of solution in the Free State.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 15,

Under this clause I would like to raise a matter of principle. This Bill contains 35 regulatory provisions. In 20 of them provision is made for making provisions retrospective for a definite period, in some cases the commencement of the year. I take Clause 15 because it provides for retrospective effect for at least six years. In principle I want to object to the incorporation in the Bill of provisions giving retrospective effect to provisions. I do not object to this particular provision, but it seems to me to be a dangerous principle which should in any case be opposed. Where there are such a large number of separate provisions in a Bill, it is difficult for members to study the implications in every case. There is therefore more need for a warning in view of the authority of Parliament. We cannot enter into every particular case. There are implications to which reference is not made in the explanatory memorandum. I now therefore only want to object to the principle of giving retrospective effect to such provisions, which is in conflict with the rights of Parliament. In many cases it may be to the benefit of the people but in some cases it may also be to the disadvantage of the people and the representatives of the people are not afforded an opportunity to put the matter properly. Here a case is involved where retrospective effect is being given to 1939. I do not know the merits of the case and the person may perhaps be a very good friend. I do not want to object to the increase of salary but it should have been done at that time and not six years after. I think that it is being done on the recommendation of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It nevertheless is a shortcoming in our legislation and a curtailment of the rights of Parliament.

I am in full agreement with the hon. member that we should as far as possible avoid giving retrospective effect to law provisions. But this is an example which proves that it is sometimes necessary to give retrospective effect to legislation. What has happened here? There was a change in the chairmanship of the Central Land Board. Because somebody was appointed who was not an official it was decided to pay a higher salary than that which was payable previously. The Department concerned obtained Treasury approval for the increased salary. Only a year after that the Auditor-General discovered that it was in conflict with the provisions of the Act; he drew attention to it so that the matter came before the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It was decided that legislation should be introduced to put the matter right. It was intended to introduce such legislation as part of another Bill which was to be submitted by the Department concerned. But there was some delay with that Bill and eventually I undertook to make provision in this Bill. It was what one could call “a chapter of accidents”, but it would have been wrong to let the official concerned suffer on account of this fact. I merely refer to it as proof that circumstances sometimes arise under which one is not able to do otherwise than to give retrospective effect to the provisions, although I agree with the hon. member that it should as far as possible be avoided.

Clauses put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

Reference was made to this clause by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) at the second reading. I have made enquiries since and found that Section (a) of this Clause has really been put in on representations made by the Chambers of Commerce to deal with the position which has got steadily worse during the last two years, but I am very much concerned whether this is the right way to solve the problem. Personally I do not think we will. I do not think that the solution lies in this. To cancel the licence for an offence of this nature will not stop that particular individual from carrying on his business. What has happened in the past is that where a man was found guilty of an offence under the Insolvency Act or malpractices and he was imprisoned, the business was transferred and a new business opened up by his wife, son or daughter. What is really wanted is proper control of the issue of trading licences by a competent body which would be in a position to prohibit that person or any persons working on behalf of that person from being able to carry on in his name. Commerce has asked the Minister to deal with that question, but commerce was definitely opposed to sub-section (b) which imposes the additional penalty of the cancellation of the licence. I personally think it is a very grave mistake to bring in a measure like this under the Finance Bill instead of under the Income Tax Act, but I have another stronger objection, namely that it seems to me that we have already two or three penalties imposed on the person who commits the offence and we have this additional penalty imposed on him which cannot only affect that particular person who is guilty of the contravention but will affect others too. I want to ask the Minister to delete (b). Personally I would like to see (a) deleted, but I am in this difficult position that commerce has asked for (a). I am convinced that (a) is not worth the paper it is written on and I want to ask the Minister whether he will not have the matter referred to the Provincial Consultative Committee during the recess with definite instructions that the whole question of the issue and control of licences should be gone into by the provinces and that they should see whether it is not possible to tighten up licences and to deal with the problem that where people commit offences against the laws of this country there should be some machinery imposed which will not only prevent that person from repeating the offence, but will prevent their getting round the Trading Act by getting a member of their family to carry on the business. I have to deal with one Indian who went insolvent and that business within three or four years passed through three or four different hands, all of whom went insolvent, and they all belonged to the same family. There was no possible means of preventing the issue of trading licences. I hope that the clause will be withdrawn.

I do not think the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) should move anything now. As I have already explained this clause has its origin in representations by the commercial community. They are agreed as regards (a), making the point that it will be good to have a clause of this kind in order to discourage people from resorting to these practices. I agreed with those representations and subsequently decided that if we were doing that we might as well go a little further in discouraging people from resorting to practices in the matter of tax evasion which are to be condemned. The hon. member has indicated some views as to the effectiveness of the machinery proposed to be set up in regard to (a). He speaks with a great deal of authority about commercial matters and I must needs give consideration to what he has said. From the point of view of (b) it would be valuable to have this additional deterrent for would-be tax evaders, but if there are doubts about (a) it seems to me that the whole clause may go, and I will go into the matter further. I am prepared to agree to the deletion of the clause at this stage and I hope thereby to make my small contribution towards curtailing the proceedings of the House.

I regret that after the remarks I made on this clause on the second reading the Chairman did not give me an opportunity to move an amendment. But the matter is of so much importance that I feel that I must make my remarks in connection with it. The Minister has undertaken to withdraw this clause. I am not satisfied with it. I want to go further and ask the Minister to alter the Income Tax Act on this point. I am able to give an example of a case which came to my notice during the past week, and I want to ask the House how it is possible for the Minister to go as far as wanting to impose a further penalty on a person found guilty under the Income Tax Act. A company was assessed for the past ten years. The company completed its income tax return and sent in the full auditor’s report on the business. Nothing was suppressed and all the particulars in connection with the business were sent along with the income tax return to the Commissioner. The Commissioner examined the auditor’s report together with the return as completed by the company, and on that basis he assessed the company for taxation. It went on for ten years. Now there was a sudden change of Commissioners. The auditor’s report as ordinarily sent in was again sent to the new Commissioner. Not a single new fact was disclosed—I want to emphasise that. Only, the one Commissioner differed from the other Commissioner. He modified the decision of the previous Commissioner, and on that basis he assessed the company for £300,000. Not a single new fact was disclosed. If any facts had been suppressed and new facts had been disclosed, then good and well. Then there would have been an opportunity for a new decision by the Commissioner. But if not one single new fact was disclosed and on those facts the assessment was made over a period of 10 years, then I ask the Minister whether he considers it right and fair that the new Commissioner should suddenly on the ground of the same facts give a new decision and assess the company for £300,000? The Minister now intends not only to assess such a person for the additional amount but he also wants to give the right to the court to cancel the licence of such a person. Where are we going? The Minister has withdrawn this clause. I intended disclosing the particulars in connection with the case, but that matter goes against one’s feelings. Apparently there is no finality in connection with assessments. If new facts are disclosed, then good and well. If it can be proved that facts had been suppressed, good, then a Commissioner would be able to make a new additional assessment. But no single new fact was disclosed and still a totally new assessment was made and the company was assessed for £300,000. Now it is possible under this proposal to withdraw his licence. I feel that I should voice my strongest protest in that regard.

Do I understand from the hon. member that he wants to propose an amendment?

No, because the Minister intends withdrawing the clause.

I understood the hon. member to say that I did not give him an opportunity of moving his amendment.

On the second reading I said that I would move an amendment in the Committee stage on this clause. Immediately the clause came up I rose to do so and I regret that you did not see me on that occasion.

May I just say in respect of such a case if the facts are as put by my hon. friend they would not have come under this provision of the law. This provision is only concerned with cases where the person or company has been found guilty by the court for wilfully suppressing facts or something similar. My hon. friend said that no facts were suppressed, and therefore there can be no conviction under this provision and this clause therefore would not have been applicable. My hon. friend referred to a case where the assessment had been altered by the Commissionr. I do not know the circumstances. As far as I know it was a case which is at present on appeal because an appeal has been lodged with the Income Tax Appeal Court. I think that it is not accepted that the company did in fact disclose all the items in all the instances. That point is in doubt. I do not intend entering upon the particulars because I have no knowledge. I shall be pleased to discuss the matter with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and perhaps I will also be prepared to go into it with my Department. That type of case does not fall within the scope of this clause. But as I have said I am quite prepared to withdraw the clause.

I agree with the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that this particular clause is ineffective and I am at a loss to understand why the Chambers of Commerce recommended it. It may be right to withdraw it but I rather favour the retention of the clause, knowing how difficult it is to get amendments through next Session. There may not be time to deal with that particular Bill. Let us have something in the meantime which will provide what it does, rather than have nothing at all. I have a particular case in mind of a trader who was convicted for receiving stolen property. He had been under suspicion for a long time and a conviction was recorded but they did not have the power to take away his licence until the end of the year, when it lapsed. When it came up for renewal he simply applied in his wife’s name and although the Licensing Officer refused to grant the licence it was taken to appeal and the City Council granted it saying that the wife should not be penalised for the wrong-doing of her husband. It is very necessary that this matter should be tightened up and if the Minister will be prepared to accept an amendment to the effect that once a person has been convicted of being a receiver of stolen property his business must close down there can be no relative applying for the licence.

I will go into that suggestion in the recess.

Perhaps the Minister will accept an amendment in the report stage. I am rather doubtful whether we shall see that Bill next Session, Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 30,

I would like some information from the Minister on this matter. It affects the question of prescription running against the State in connection with State advances. The Minister was unable the other day to inform me of the amount involved —namely under the proviso where people enjoy the benefit of prescription up to a certain date and after that it is not recognised. It is a pity that we do not know to what extent the State is affected thereby, I am unable to appreciate how these cases have arisen. Surely there is payment of interest or partial payment of interest, and written acknowledgment by which prescription is interrupted. How has it come about that there is a number of cases in respect of which for a long period there was no partial payment of interest or no acknowledgment of debt? I would first like to hear what the Minister has to say in that connection before I discuss it any further.

Naturally at the beginning there was acknowledgment of debt. But the State Advances Recoveries Office is not a Department which presses debtors unnecessarily. It very easily happens that one finds cases where for eight years or more no payment of interest has been made and there has been no further acknowledgment.

Not even a letter?

No. The difficulty in replying to my hon. friend’s question in connection with the amount is that it is not possible without an examination of the files to say in how many cases prescription has perhaps been interrupted. Those are perhaps cases in which there was correspondence and in which prescription was interrupted. But we are not yet in a position to say in how many cases it will be the position. We are unable to do so without an examination of the files and as my hon. friend knows there is a very large number of cases which will have to be examined. It is impossible at present to say what amount is involved. It would require a considerable amount of work to determine. We know that there are cases and I think it would be unfair now to go back upon the Act of 1943 and to take away the benefit from the people which they have enjoyed. It could only be put right in the future.

They came out of it in a very fortunate way?

Yes.

The Auditor-General reports that an amount of £134,000 is involved.

If no cases of interruption of prescription would have taken place the amount would perhaps be £134,000, but in many cases there was in fact interruption of prescription.

And every case has to be dealt with?

That is the position.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 35,

I would very much like to raise a few points in connection with this matter. The first is that we here have striking proof of the honesty of railway officials. A small amount is deducted monthly from the staff for a guarantee fund against dishonesty and the guarantee fund has on account of the small contributions become so big that it has grown to an amount of £50,000 and the interest thereon along with the incoming contributions is much more than is needed every year to cover any dishonesty on the part of railway staff, with the result that the administration is in a position of having a surplus every year in the fund and the surplus in the fund is now so large that it has become a nuisance to the Administration, and they do not know what to do with the’ money. We therefore have proof here of the honesty of the railway staff. The heads of the Railway Administration may say that it is due to good administration. I do not want to deny that but if I tell the House that audits of the railways are carried out at periods of from eight to ten to twelve months hon. members will appreciate that the railway staff do have an opportunity of being dishonest. But in spite of the long intervening periods between audits we still find that there is very little dishonesty on the railways, with the result that the revenue of the guarantee fund is not required for its liabilities. I now want the Minister to consider either reducing the amount which has to be collected or shortening the period of collection over which the amounts are collected monthly, because he is actually receivling more than he requires. I know that the amount is small but it will nevertheless be appreciated. It is quite true that the Minister has carried forward the surplus after he had stabilised a fund of £50,000, to a charitable fund, but the original intention of the Minister was that it should be a guarantee fund and not a charitable fund and if with the authority we have and with the power we have utilise it for a charitable fund then we will be utilising the funds for a fund for which it was not intended. I therefore want to suggest that the monthly payments should be reduced because even though the amount is small it is a matter of principle and tomorrow or in the near future it may perhaps be used as a precedent to utilise such funds otherwise. Now, in view of the years of experience, and while we know how the fund has increased, and the degree of honesty of railway staff, we ask that the matter be reconsidered. If the amounts are to be collected over a period of twelve months then put it on a lower standard, but it is perhaps possible just to collect it over six or nine months or ten months to supplement the required amount every year and then to stop the collection. Then the Minister would be acting rightly towards the staff. I feel that there should be some compensation for the honesty of the staff, an acknowledgment for their honesty and that will then be afforded by way of a reduction of the amount to be collected, although the amount may be so small that it merely amounts to a gesture.

After hearing the particular point that the hon. member has made, I am perfectly prepared to go into this question. I do not want to give the answer immediately, but I should like to thank him for the tribute he has paid to the honesty of my staff. I feel it is possible we could reduce the charge we are making against employees taking up positions which require a payment to be made to the Guarantee Fund. Whether we shall do it by reducing the amount or the period, I am not prepared to say. I shall be able to say what is practicable when we have looked into it. I may say for the information of the hon. member that the bulk of the amount credited annually to the fund, which amounts to £50,000, is due to interest on the money; and because we do not want this money we have taken from the staff for these purposes to be regarded as ordinary railway revenue, we are using their contributions to help the staff themselves through the Benevolent Fund. I am sure the hon. member and the House in general will support that action. I shall look into the matter of possible relief being given to the staff in regard to these payments. I may say we could really run the fund without any contributions at all. It is felt, however, and I think rightly, that when an employee takes up a position in the service it is a good thing to ask him to contribute, at any rate for the first few months, if only for the good moral effect, and to make him realise somebody is guaranteeing him against dishonest practices. I am quite prepared, however, to go into the question of whether we are taking too much.

Clause put and agreed to.

On the Title,

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment and specially an amendment to the Title.

Amendments considered.

Omission of Clause 18 and amendment in the Title put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

I second.

On a former occasion I emphasised a few aspects of this important preliminary international agreement, and more especially referred to the fact that the motivation was above reproach, but that there were several aspects of the matter deserving the serious consideration of every parliament, of every parliament of the different states, to make sure that the intentions inducing us to give out support to the proposals, are receiving due consideration from the parliaments and national representatives concerned. If we proceed to give effect to these proposals the nations should constantly be aware of what is going on in our minds during these discussions and what our intentions are. As regards the motivation I do not think that there is a single member of this House who would not by means of his vote make a contribution to the improvement of world conditions. I think that most of us are convinced that the future world peace can be considerably promoted by peaceful trade relations, trade relations by means of which the friction of the past between nations can be eliminated, a trade relation by which the different countries can be assured of an income to raise their standard of living, and on which they as nations can live happily. There is, therefore, no doubt that the motivation for support is based on the best intentions, the highest ideals. I do not believe also that there can be any doubt about our intention to contribute something to it if we can. But at the same time I would not do justice to myself and would neglect my duty if I do not point out certain aspects of the agreement, the background, the development, the provisions and their possible application, that anything but satisfy me that the high aim that we have in connection with the matter and that we are striving to realise, will be realised. I should like to express my conviction that we must be assured of certain fundamental propositions before we can hope that the new structure will be built up that must come from the decisions. There must be an assurance that certain basic principles will be applied in the establishment, construction and promotion of the aims of the structure. In the first place there can be no doubt that a reasonable assurance, or rather let me say, an assurance of a reasonable stability of the currencies in trade transactions, will contribute to an improvement in the relations among the nations, and a step in that direction is to eliminate the attempts that have recently been made from time to time, namely, to gain an advantage in international trade by intentional depreciation of the currency. I think it is one of the outstanding motives which the agreement has in view, to eliminate the wilful depreciation of the currency. And in other cases where it is not wilful, but a result of the law of supply and demand, to meet the states. In the first place the intention is to eliminate the motive, and secondly where it cannot be avoided, to meet the state concerned. This will also contribute to the elimination of potential manipulation of currencies. I would not say that it happens frequently, but it is possible, and that is why I use the word “potential” on purpose because I hope that it will be a strong warning to those powerful financial groups in future not to attempt to influence the rates of exchange to the disadvantage of the country concerned. It must contribute, it is one of the main principles in connection with such a structure, such a body, to contribute to the creation of mutual confidence in the trade between the nations. If there is no mutual confidence any structure will be of short duration and the aftermath will be worse than the period before its commencement. I think it is a laudable fact that attempts have been made to give direction to funds for international investment, but I wish to say at this stage already that the proposal appearing in the agreement will in any case not have my support. I think that in principle it is sound that states or groups of states should try to regulate savings properly, to direct them through certain channels and so assist less wealthy countries to increase their production for the population. I think the motive is noble and I wish to support the idea in principle, but I am not going to support the proposal in the agreement as regards the bank, for other reasons. The advantages expected must consequently depend on the application of sound principles. If a set of fine sounding principles are merely held up to the world by the intellectual part of the population while the executive powers ignore those principles, then it will not be a second mistake by the world but the worst deceit the world has ever seen if one considers world conditions today. There should be an application of sound economic principles, there should be a practical application, a voluntary application of the principles by the parties concerned in the agreements, but in any case compulsion must be eliminated. It must be voluntary. But above all, in connection with the second thought, we must be assured of the goodwill of the parties concerned to contribute at least in accordance with their ability to a better world for which all the nations of the world are all longing, whether they took part on the world war or not. They crave a new state of affairs, to be assured at least of the elimination of war perhaps during the next generation. This we would very much like to have, but in this connection there is a difficulty that I see because in my opinion the agreements fall short of the mark in that respect. I am convinced in my mind, and I shall quote reasons, that goodwill for the promotion of world peace through the medium of international trade exists today, and if I note the wording of the recommendation of the Select Committee—I shall be glad if the Minister or one of the members of the Select Committee would explain it more fully—if I look at the language used there I come to the conclusion that they themselves are not sure that the aim will be realised, that it will carry sufficient weight in the proposed executives of the institutions concerned. I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain fundamental facts. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that the initial steps in this matter were taken some years ago in the memoranda of two leading economists, namely, Lord Keynes in England and Mr. White in America. I think the world will trust that the two economists gave their attention to the matter purely from the conviction that an opportunity was offered to bring about greater stability in world trade. But although I have full confidence in their motives, and although I trust that these two important economists had no other intentions, we must nevertheless bear in mind that they were actually the representatives of two countries where depreciation of currencies had already taken place in the past and where confidence had especially since 1931 received a serious shock as a result of depreciation of the currencies, and again also in 1934. Without doubt the intentions of these two leading economists are above reproach, but we cannot but note the developments that followed. Because after the two economists had opened up the matter, the development took another course. Then it no longer remained at the work of two economists, but in the ensuing consultations parties, groups came to the foreground, and the next development was no longer based on the sound economic basic principle, but it developed to a point where party government came to the fore, and we got the “joint statement of principles of international monetary funds”. This was prepared by experts of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Russia and China and a few other countries. Here already the wrong principle begins to develop by which party interests, local interests come to the fore. The further development then was the conference at Bretton Woods and there the subjects were referred to different commissions, and the different commissions all adopted all the resolutions by majority of votes, according to the data in my possession; they were not unanimous resolutions. The findings of the commissions are incorporated in the agreements as majority resolutions. Now at this stage we are placed in an impossible position in this House, and not only we in this House, but practically all the legislative bodies’ concerned, namely that it is not here a matter of the submission of a document, of an international document, for amendment or improvement, but it is submitted for acceptance or rejection. If there is one fundamental weakness in the document it is precisely this point. We are faced with an accomplished fact, we must reject or accept the document. I feel that the background which I have outlined and the development that took place have reduced the value of a great thought more and more, and therefore raised doubts about the great question of the motivation, namely the urge of the world to world peace. To my regret I must express my conviction that the’ Bretton Woods agreements, in spite of the noble motives, as they appear before us, are a hybrid product. If we had to do with an economic document, then our own people could judge the matter and make improvements, but here we have a document in which the great governments, after the economic foundations had been laid, appeared on the scene, and a final product was produced that certainly cannot—and I speak as a person interested in economics— gain the approval of economists. That is why I call the agreement a hybrid product between Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks, and what final result it will produce for the world still remains to be seen. I am sceptical at the outset. What is especially disappointing about the agreements is that we here have a document intended as a bona fide contribution to world peace, but the first step taken by the nations concerned is to eliminate all neutral countries. All neutral countries are completely excluded from any participation in this international fund. There is, therefore, no question of a world agreement. Some of the leading nations are excluded. I mention e.g., Sweden, Switzerland, and I also wish to mention Ireland, then there also remains Portugal, Spain and until she entered the war Turkey was excluded, and one of the fundamental blunders that cannot but complete the disillusionment of the questing thinker, is that neutral countries of the world, some of them industrial states, are excluded from any participation in this international fund, and also the international bank, that also certain other states are excluded from the agreement that were previously incorporated by one of the great powers today playing an important part on the executive. Consequently the incorporated states are really not taken into consideration. Thirdly, it is of course not remarkable that the enemy countries were not invited. They could as a result of the war not be invited and I can also not object that they were not present; it is a matter of fate. But the admission of the central states, the admission of the Axis states to this agreement is so vague and the provisions so difficult and the spirit obtaining at the Bretton Woods Conference such, that it does not give promise of any progress if only this atmosphere dominates the world. It is not difficult for anyone who wishes to make a serious study of this matter—I do not speak of the report of the Select Committee, but of the document as we have it before us—it is not difficult for anybody to put the 45 states that were represented into three power groups. They fall naturally into three power groups. It is the creation of three power groups, and the international agreement can only fill us all with disquiet. If I consider the number of states that were represented I regret to say that I come to the conclusion that there was a certain amount of manipulation. When I see the number of very small states that were incorporated and I see that Iceland and Denmark, both representative states were at the conference, then I do not feel justified in expressing my opinion further on this matter. But three power groups appear very clearly, and without thinking 25 states of the 45 fall under the first power group. I need not say more about this. These are the disquieting features of this new structure. Now there is a further disquieting aspect in the executive. This great international organisation that commences in a period of high tension, that undoubtedly raises high expectations among the nations of the world, expectations equivalent to the expectations that the nations had in 1918 in connection with the 14 points of President Wilson, naturally falls into three power groups. Apart from the grouping of the powers, if we come to the executive of this organisation we are again disappointed. Out of the 12 council members that will be constituted, one representative is assured for each great nation. Every great nation, apart from its industrial development, apart from its economic participation in the world, has a share in the executive of the world conference provided it can maintain a great military force. Then provision is made for two representatives of America despite the less important industrially developed countries. The executive is constituted not on the grounds of economic achievement, but on grounds of certain political foundations. We are entitled to have doubts about this type of structure, and then I say that if these are outstanding characteristics from the very outset in connection with these matters, then the doubts arising in my mind must also exist in those of millions, and the world must not take it amiss if we perhaps give it an untimely warning not to expect too much from this organisation. The atmosphere of Bretton Woods cannot be drawn more clearly than what one finds in resolution 4 of the conference. It deals with monetary and financial matters. The heading is “Resolutions of Conference on other monetary and financial matters.” Resolution 4 is indicative of the atmosphere, of the brotherliness of fellowmen as revealed at the conference. I have not the time to read the whole of resolution 4, I just wish to give a quotation here and there. The heading is: “Enemy assets and looted property,” and then a resolution is taken as to what should be done about State ownership and private ownership of enemy citizens. It is resolved that private ownership should if necessary be abolished. I quote the following—

1. (1) assets belonging to the government or any individuals within those United Nations occupied by the enemy; and
2. (2) looted gold, currency, art objects, securities, other evidence of ownership in financial or business enterprise and of other assets looted by the enemy.

There are a large number of recommendations urging the seizure and the disposal not only of the property of neutral states, but also the property of individuals or institutions within those states. I do not wish to go into the merits, but I do assert that if this is the brotherliness with which this institution begins, it is doomed not merely to failure, but to chaos and probably to a disaster for civilisation. If something at least is to be expected then good faith is indispensable and it does not appear under the resolution mentioned here. This is power grouping of which the world has during the last 24 years had bitter experience, and as a result of which not only millions but tens of millions have been plunged into misery, not to speak of the defenceless men and women that have lost their lives as a result of the disaster. If the world desires peace it must not begin with this kind of thing. Good faith is the only foundation on which a good business can be built up. My time is becoming short. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the wording of the Select Committee’s report. I wish to say in advance that I cannot miss the opportunity. I am going to support the proposal for affiliation with the monetary fund not because I believe that this fund is going to supply a solution for world problems, but because I as a citizen of the Union, as one interested in the economic welfare of South Africa, am compelled to act in the best economic interests of South Africa. I believe it is my duty to support affiliation with that monetary fund because I believe that the foundations laid down here for the fund will be in the best interests of South Africa, namely that the international currency will be dependent on a gold cover, if I may put it like that, because the international currency will practically be the form of the gold standard, which in my view is the only practical means of eliminating the uncertainties of the currency; and I support it because it will be to the advantage of the gold mining industry because it will ensure the position of gold in the world in connection with international currencies, and because South Africa is one of the most important producers of gold in the world. That is why I believe it to be my duty to support affiliation with that monetary fund, but I do not expect that anything of far-reaching significance will result from it, and I also do not hope that South Africa will ever find it necessary to make use of the advantages of the fund. But it is my duty to vote for affiliation, because I believe that through this we shall to a certain extent strengthen the economic future of South Africa. But when we come to affiliation with the international bank, I just briefly wish to say this. Where the bank is not going to possess sufficient funds, and where the bank also does not intend to finance from its own funds the needs that exist for the economic development and the reconstruction of backward countries, there the bank falls short of its obligations.’ That is defect number one. But defect number two, which is much more serious, is the following: this international bank is not in the first instance going to take part in that development. But the international bank is only going to guarantee private moneylenders that their money will be safe. In the nature of things only a few of the nations can be creditor countries. There will only be a few of the nations who are in a position to advance money. There will only be a few in a position to advance money to other countries, and where South Africa is asked, with its own great problems, with the need of capital existing for development in this country, where even the mouthpieces of the Government, namely various Ministers, have expressed the view that South Africa is in need of overseas capital, and have expressed a desire that foreign capital should be introduced into South Africa, to South Africa where this position obtains and where the bank does not undertake to tackle this matter itself, but only to act as guarantor for lenders of private capital, for these reasons. I am not prepared to vote for affiliation with this bank. I see my time is very short. I just wish to make a few remarks in connection with Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the report of the Select Committee. I have every respect for the members of the Select Committee, but I would like them to realise that my view is that there is a considerable degree of vacillation as regards their own attitude between Paragraphs 4 and 5. I should like to ask one of the members of the Committee to explain Paragrap (9) to the Committee. The paragraph reads—

The Committee will observe that the Select Committee here makes use of quite a few adjectives. They speak in the first place of adequate indications, of sufficient international support and of a truly multilateral character. I just wish to say that the Select Committee has made the best of the matter in adding these adjectives. I regret that I have to make this remark. I desire a new world no less than any other member of the House. We are all more or less standing on the threshold of a new world. How long it may take before we cross the threshold we do not know, but where we in the past as developed people, each according to his ability, have assisted in contributing to the creation of our own environment, through which the advantage of our fellowman may be promoted to a greater or lesser extent, and where the world has now for the second time passed through this terrible and devastating disaster, we expect that there should at least be goodwill on the part of the representatives of all great nations, and I miss this in the agreement.

As one of the members on this side of the House who served on the Select Committee on the Bretton Woods Draft Agreements I feel that it is necessary for me, after the remarks made by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), to render account for the belief which persuaded me to give this recommendation to the House.

It was unanimous.

Yes, it was unanimous. The report of the Select Committee was unanimous. The two members who represented this side of the House were the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and myself. Our recommendation to the House was unanimous. The hon. member for Ceres said that he was somewhat sceptical about an international organisation of this nature. Let me openly admit that when I went on the Committee I was also filled with doubts. I am not only sceptical, but let me assure the hon. member, I am cynical because we have learnt from experience that there are certain great powers in the world which try to abuse an international organisation of this nature for their own purposes. Let us now admit that openly. There are always great powers in the world which are out to abuse an organisation of this nature. Experience has taught us that, but the fault does not lie in an attempt to establish an international organisation; the fault lies with the great powers, and the point of view which I adopted was that if a large power wanted to abuse its powerful position in the world it could do so better without an organisation of this nature as with such an organisation. An organisation such as this is not a guarantee for world peace or world co-operation, but an international organisation of this nature at least puts all the small powers of the world in a position where they are able to stand together in order to use their full weight in the interests of the world. The fact that many of these organisations have been abused is sufficient to make one cynical. The events taking place at present at San Franscisco make one more and more cynical but it is the only chance which all the small nations of the world have to stand together and to let their influence be felt fully against the greed and thirst for money of the great nations. Well, if it fails we shall make another attempt. That was the first point raised by the hon. member. Secondly—and here we fully agree with him— it carried great weight with us that the conference which adopted the Bretton Woods resolutions was not sufficiently representative of the world. I readily acknowledge that, and if it is to succeed it should be representative of all the nations of the world. That certain countries were excluded, that enemy countries were excluded from the Bretton Woods conference one is able to appreciate, but how they are able to justify the exclusion of certain neutral countries, is something I do not know. They cannot justify it. Just imagine a country like Switzerland, the most peace-loving country in the world, a country that has never harmed any nation in the world, a country considered as loving peace above all other nations in the world, was not considered worthy of attending the conference. That must be put right and that is the intention of Section (9) that before we join the organisation we want an assurance from the Minister to the House that that organisation Will include all the countries of the world and should at present include all the neutral countries of the world. I merely lay down that promise and I do not believe that there is anybody who is able to refute it. If you want to promote world trade the whole world must co-operate. If you want to combat world disease you cannot only treat a part of the world body. You must treat the whole world body. That is obvious and that is why we are in favour of the establishment of a monetary fund and an international bank so that the nations of the world may all be represented thereon. All the nations of the world must co-operate if you want actual co-operation amongst the nations and future peace. The hon. member did not even mention another difficulty and that was an objection which weighed very heavily with us and it was the right of veto given to three nations under the scheme to defy the wishes of the rest of the world. We know what role is being played by the right of veto at the San Francisco Conference, that one nation in the world will obtain the right to nullify the functioning of an international organisation which is to be established. That is the right of veto.

That has now been put right.

No, it is a very important point. I want to read the section in connection with the right of veto to the House. San Francisco makes the phrase “right of veto” hateful. It is Section 7 of Clause 4 on page 13—

There are only three nations having 10 per cent. or more of the total quota and they are Great Britain, Russia and America. Any one of those three may prevent Section 7 coming into operation. Here one again has the right of veto in the hands of one of the great nations of the world to thwart the wishes of the rest of the world. We hate that phrase “right of veto”, but unfortunately in this section, in Section 5, there is a safety-valve, if I may call it that. May I explain the position as follows: We feel that the exchange of almost every country in the world is today over-valued. The possibility exists therefore that the monetary fund under Section 7 will decide; the rates of exchange of most countries are overvalued; we must change the price of gold, then we re-establish the correct relationship between goods and gold. One country—let us say Russia or America or Great Britain will say: No, we refuse to allow it to take place although it is in the interests of the world that there should be a change in the price of gold. That is the right of veto. At San Francisco it is a matter of dispute. Here it is something objectionable. But fortunately there is a safety-valve in Section 5. Section 5 provides that supposing there is another nation exercising its right of veto then the other nation may apply to the fund for a re-valuation of its rates of exchange. They are re-valued according to the world opinion of what the price of gold should be. That one nation may then stand aside; it is then isolated and if it is isolated it is powerless. This section is therefore in that respect a big improvement, there is not the slightest doubt about it. I have now referred to all the objections. We considered all the objections. We are cynical about all interational organisations because of our past experience and because of the events at San Francisco, but the fault lies with the large powers’ greed and thirst for money and they are able to do more harm in the world if there are no such organisations. Here at least the small nations have an opportunity to stand together in the protection of their interests. There is the right of veto but there is also this safety-valve. What persuaded us to recommend it? In the first place the price of gold is assured. South Africa is a gold producing country. There are three countries in the world especially interested in the establishment of the organisation and the success of the organisation and we might have been blamed that we were harming the economy of South Africa vitally if we should decide not to join the fund. It secures the position of gold. I merely want to say this to the Minister. I believe that gold should be re-valued, and in view of that the agreement with the Bank of England should be allowed to lapse at the end of the war, and I think it would be a good thing if we do not enter into a contract again until things have been adjusted. Secondly it is often said: Are we not again putting the entire control of money in the world in the hands of a number of international financiers? That is a reproach often made in this connection. I join the fund because I have in mind that you are thereby taking control out of the hands of a few self-appointed international financiers, and to whom are you going to give it? I heard in the days of the gold standard that five people met every morning in Lombard Street to decide the price of gold and the value of foreign exchange. They had the power in their hands. We are now taking that power from them and we are giving it to the nations of the world. Surely that is an improvement. In the third place, we considered the matter from a point of view of our secondary industries; to what extent are we taking that weapon which we had in the past out of our own hands in that way to protect the secondary industries of the country which also amounts to the protection of our entire national economy. The safety-valve in this of course is the provision on page 29 where provision is made for a transition period. Under the provisions of Section 14 we retain the power, notwithstanding the obligations assumed by us for three years to continue with anything we have done up to now to protect our trade and industries. I think that trade and industry will admit that if we have a transition period for three years they will have an opportunity to adapt themselves to the new conditions. Let me say honestly that I do not believe that South. Africa considered from a selfish point of view except in respect of the gold industry, has really the same interests as other nations in the establishment of the fund and the bank. We are not a large credit country building up large trade balances externally for investment there so that we desire the guarantee of the bank. At present we have not the funds and will not have them in the immediate future to make large investments externally. We are also not a large debit country. It is not necessary for us to call in the assistance of an international organisation if we want to raise a loan externally. The credit of South Africa, notwithstanding the system of taxation followed by the Minister of Finance, is still very good; so good that we would probably be able to obtain funds in the world market for our purchases at a cheaper rate of interest than will be afforded by the International Bank.

I will not hold that against you.

The bank is demanding 1½ per cent. more than the figure at which the world fixes our solvency. South Africa is in a position that we do not require the assistance of the bank to which we should then pay 1½ per cent. We do not require either the bank or the monetary fund. I consider it a gesture to the world that we are prepared to participate in the promotion of peace and friendliness and co-operation amongst nations. Let me say this to the Minister. In view of the fact that America has decided to join it seems that this matter will become an established fact. Its scope should cover the world. To exclude countries such as Switzerland would be a great folly. We would feel very unhappy if South Africa should enter an organisation in which there is no room for a country such as Switzerland. In the second place we make the condition that we want to enter not as a part of a group but as a soverign independent country and not as an appendage to any country. We want to have the right of freedom on such organisation to make our influence felt as a free nation amongst the free nations of the world. Just one more reply to the hon. member. He said here that it appeared as if the international bank will not float loans and that it would be a few nations which would then loan out money with the bank’s guarantee. The bank need not only guarantee loans. The bank itself has a fund of £9,000 million at its disposal and there will be cases in which the bank from its own funds would grant loans for the reconstruction of all parts of the world. I think it is worth while remembering it. Although I am hesitant about the value of international organisations on account of our past experience I am nevertheless prepared to ask the House to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee.

I find myself in the somewhat exceptional position of making a speech after the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) without opposing his remarks. I am glad that in connection with this important matter he and I are in agreement in the interests of South Africa. We consider this proposal purely from that point of view, and I want to give an assurance that if South Africa enters this fund and bank it will do so as a soverign independent country. The House will not expect me at this late stage to deliver a long speech on this matter. On a former occasion I expressed my general point of view but I also undertook to have the matter investigated by a Select Committee. That has been done and permit me to express my appreciation, and I am sure that I am expressing the appreciation of this House, for the good work done by the Select Committee. It is quite clear that the Select Committee not only devoted much time and attention to that matter but acted objectively and without Party feeling. I want to express my thanks for the manner in which they dealt with the matter and for the thorough report submitted by them. The crux of the matter is to be found in paragraph 6 of the report—

Where something like that is not only necessary but also imperative South Africa in my opinion cannot remain outside. I think that we should enter but not only as a gesture. I consider it in the interests of South Africa to enter. As far as the fund is concerned the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) stated, and the hon. member for George emphasised it, that it is of great importance to South Africa as a gold producing country. It will not be in the interests of South Africa to remain outside. As far as the bank is concerned I also think that the utilisation of that capital would contribute to post-war rehabilitation and ultimate national prosperity. The bank is perhaps restricted, as was said by the hon. member for Ceres, but in any case the bank could not do everything and it was necessary to insert provisions relating to guarantees. The bank will render a great service in the interests of international rehabilitation and prosperity and South Africa definitely has an interest in that. In the end South Africa cannot be prosperous if the world as a whole is not also prosperous. As a part of the large world it is to our benefit that this scheme should be developed successfully. To that degree I differ from the hon. member for George— that it is more than a gesture and indeed to the benefit of South Africa that it should join the bank and the fund. In view of the remarks made by the hon. member for George and his explanation of the matter it is not necessary for me to add anything. I merely want to express the hope on behalf of the Government that the House will accept this motion.

As Chairman of this Committee I just want to say a few words and first wish to express my satisfaction that the report of the Committee was unanimous. I think that is indicative of the kind of thing perhaps going on throughout the world today, that when it comes to questions of this magnitude and importance there are people in Parliaments, with all our Party differences, who can take an objective view and make a decision accordingly. The main idea of this agreement is that there shall be multilateral action, and in those circumstances the Committee stressed that point in its second-last paragraph, where it says that the Committee will make the Union’s final decision contingent on indications that there will be an attempt and proof forthcoming to give the fund and the bank a truly multilateral character. We stressed that point. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) is agreed about this. He says that such an instrument is necessary but what he is afraid about is that this is not the instrument, and the reason why he thinks that is because he is evidently afraid of Party political influences. He is however prepared to leave it in the hands of economists. It is rather amusing to read of the controversies going on in countries like America and England. In America they say this is Keynes’s Agreement. In England they say it is White’s agreement. In America the bankers had a great movement afoot against these agreements, telling the Americans in great headlines things like: “American babes in Britain’s Woods”. Another one is: “Bankers unite, you have nothing to lose but your Keynes”. Now if Keynes had been in charge as they agitate he was they would have been no better pleased. The Americans say Keynes was in charge and the British say White was in charge. We in South Africa were very fortunate in having two men at the Conference, both economists, neither of them being politicians. I am ’ very disappointed really that we have not had time to have the evidence led before your Committee printed, and I think in that regard the House may not feel so sure about things as perhaps the hon. member for George, a member of the Committee feels, because these two representatives were put to the most searching enquiry and replied to the most searching questions and I think that if the House had had the benefit of that evidence, it would have given a feeling of confidence that some of us may not have now. But I am impressed by the fact that these two men looked at this matter objectively, first of all; then from the economists point of view, but realising that the economist cannot have always his own way 100 per cent., and that as well as being coldly scientific before such a problem he also has to be human, and all these considerations bore with them. Those representatives, I am sure, represented the point of view of South Africa as perhaps no man in this House could represent it, and there can be no doubt in the minds of those two gentlemen that this agreement is one first of all in the interests of South Africa, and secondly that South Africa should take part in these agreements because it is our duty, shall we say, to the world, and it is our gesture to the laying of the foundations of the prosperity we will have to build up in the world. So my hon. friend the member for Ceres must bear that in mind. If we approach that agreement in the spirit in which the hon. member for Ceres approached it, one of suspicion, one of not trusting any one, one of scepticism, we would have got nowhere at all. But this is an attempt to throw out a challenge to the nations of the world to try multilaterally to solve first of all the economic problems of the world. I am personally very thankful indeed that when this challenge came to South Africa if your Committee’s lead is followed our answer Was: “We shall lend a hand”. That is about all I have to say, except that I would again emphasise the fact that this report represents a unanimous decision, and I hope that this House will in that spirit unanimously adopt it.

Motion put and a greed to.

Report adopted.

I would like to reply to a few points raised yesterday afternoon, and first of all I want to mention the point I omitted to reply to in the speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). He also referred to what he described as the unfortunate coincidence of a publication in the newspaper about reduced food rations in Britain and the restoration of meat on Wednesdays. I would like to place in proper perspective the step taken by us here, not to restore meat on the meatless day but partially to restore it and to permit of the consumption of limited quantities of meat on Wednesdays. In the first instance this step is purely temporary and will come to an end in just a little over a fortnight from today. The reason why that step was taken is that if it was not taken the result might quite well have been that a great deal of food would have been lost. We know that in this severe winter and with bad grazing we can quite easily lose thousands and tens of thousands of head of stock, both large and small, and I therefore decided that it was in the interests of the consumer as well as of the producer that meat should be consumed as we were not able to place in cold storage the whole of the supplies over and above the 65 per cent. of the slaughterings of 1943 which is the quota now. We found that our freezing and chilling facilities were not quite sufficient and the only solution was to allow a little more consumption. I would like to inform the Committee also that with regard to my very keen desire to make available all possible food supplies for export to Britain I have taken the step not only of offering the quantity of M and B rations I have mentioned, but I have asked the Food Controller to get into touch with the Defence Department with a view to their finding out if there is not a quantity of these M and B rations which may be made available to Britain. The defence people have undertaken such a survey and I am hopeful that it may.be possible to make available a little more food for Britain.

†*The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised the matter of Winterton and I regret that I omitted to reply to him. The position is that I did make an investigation, as I promised during the previous Session to the hon. member, although we did not find it necessary to consult the farmers there. I enquired into the papers. There is a whole history attaching to the matter. I went into the position and we are engaged in taking steps with a view to finding a solution to the difficulty. I could read from the report submitted to me, when Nestlés, the owner of the factory again took steps to apply the conditions subject to a penalty. The mother companies discussed the question in America and they probably felt that the justification was on the side of Union Milk.

When was that?

It must have been in 1942 or 1943. Then we come to the steps taken by me and the report continues. [Report read.] My hon. friend will therefore see that I did go into the matter and if possible I want to so arrange it that the farmers will be able to supply their milk to the factory perhaps by the taking over of the factory by Union Milk.

Why did you not consult the farmers in the investigation?

I am aware of the whole position and the farmers could tell me nothing more. The facts are known to us and they are not doubted.

But what about the new steps which you intended taking?

I do not know what objections farmers may have if it is possible to take those steps to which I have referred here. I also want to point out to the hon. member that the Dairy Control Board objected to the report. The Department then took steps to inform the firm of Nestlé to take steps for settling the matter between the companies. That is how the matter now stands. We do not know what they are prepared to do. If they are not prepared to bring the matter to a solution, further steps will be required. Up to the present we have as yet heard nothing of their intentions. I now want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo). He again referred to dairy prices to which I yesterday replied fully. He spoke especially about the £72,000 which has to be paid in connection with the importation of condensed milk from America and it was his contention that if that money had been paid to our own dairy farmers we would have had sufficient condensed milk manufactured in this country. I want to draw his attention to the fact that this quantity of condensed milk was imported for a very special purpose and when we saw that there was not a sufficient quantity in this country to meet the very high demand for that article at present, that scheme was accepted. Further I want to give an assurance that I have instructed the Dairy Control Board to go into the whole matter whether it was possible to divert more milk to the condensed milk factories and I thrust that the Dairy Control Board will find a solution along these lines so that the condensed milk factories will be able to obtain more milk. The hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) spoke about the price of wheat. I merely want to say that the new price of wheat for the ensuing season which has been announced by me is the price recommended by the Wheat Control Board. When I say that the price was recommended I mean that they recommended an increase of 1s. 7d. per bag and I then for the sake of convenience granted 1s. 6d. on the recommendation of the National Marketing Board. It was a unanimous recommendation made by that body representing the large majority of producers in the country and it was confirmed in the terms in which I spoke a little while ago by the National Marketing Board and it is felt all round to be a fair increase in the price of wheat and I trust that the hon. member will not be too hard on the Wheat Control Board in connection with its recommendation.

They will have to justify themselves.

The hon. member will have to fight it out with them.

No. I must raise it here. Where would I otherwise find an opportunity?

The Wheat Control Board is not present to reply. I agree with their point of view but I want to ask the hon. member to appreciate my position as Minister of Agriculture. If you accept the recommendation of the producers you are taken to task as was done by the hon. member, and if you do not accept it you are equally taken to task. What must I do?

I must convince you.

Do not always hide behind the recommendation of the Wheat Control Board.

No, I am putting the facts and the facts are strong and if the hon. member never fares worse than having such strong facts he will be on solid ground.

†The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) reiterated a suggestion she made last Session that there should be a full scale enquiry into the production costs of maize. I indicated last Session my complete agreement with the policy of having cost surveys with a view to establishing as nearly as possible what the production costs are in respect of the various agricultural products the prices of which we fix. Maize, in my view, is the most important of all of them. Maize is the product which is basic to a number of other agricultural products, quite apart from the fact that it is the staple food of millions of people in this country, of by far the largest part of our population. Instructions have been given to the Division of Economics and Markets to undertake a survey of production costs of maize as soon as possible. We have, however, the same difficulty that I indicated to my hon., friend last Session, namely the limited manpower at our disposal. We have simultaneously an urgent task to complete in the determination of the cost of production of dairy products. My hon. friend has heard the debate on that very vexed question. It is necessary we get that survey completed at the earliest possible date, and until it is finally completed we shall not have much of the skilled manpower available that is required to go on with the maize survey.

Cannot we have an outside commission?

If we have an outside commission we should still have to have many of our skilled officials to assist, as we are doing now in the case of the dairying costs enquiry. We should still need to have a number of officiers of the Division of Economics and Markets in order to assist in having the enquiry completed in the shortest possible time. I am, however, prepared to go into and to consider the feasibility of the appointment of a full-scale commission as suggested by my hon. friend. Then she also raised the question of margarine, and she suggested I should give an answer that would give satisfaction to all sides. If I thought it was possible I should attempt to do so, but I think we have seen enough in this debate to see how impossible it is to give an answer that will be satisfactory to all sides. The Government’s policy can be quite simply stated. It is not to retard or damage the dairy industry but to develop it to the fullest possible extent. I know my hon. friends over there will not quibble with that. At the same time the Government feels there is a great deficiency in edible fats for the population, and it is necessary for the lower income groups to have that deficiency made up by a supply of edible fats at a price more or less within their reach. It is therefore the policy of the Government to see that diet requirements of the population as a whole are provided for in such a way that there need not be a surplus of either margarine or butter, and so that the dairy industry is not in any way jeopardised or harmed by the margarine industry. That is the nearest I can come to giving an answer that will satisfy everybody.

And a very good answer too.

I thank my hon. friend for the suggestion it is; but that is the policy of the Government. We will do our best to carry it out in the way I have suggested. She also suggested that subsidised foods should be made available in depots not only in the large centres but also in the outside areas where there are big masses of people in great need of these foods. I am prepared to go into that question and to explore it fully in order to see whether that extension can take place at a later stage or not.

†*The hon. member for Heilbron (Maj. P. W. A. Pieterse) further spoke about dairy prices. I have already said much about them and I do not want to enter into them further. He also mentioned another matter, viz. the abuses by speculators in connection with milch cows. He said that they left milch cows for a period of two days without having them milked and that the cows with their udders full were then sold at auctions as very good milch cows. I will have the matter investigated by the Dairy Department and if there are abuses and we could put a stop to them by taking practical steps we shall do so. Then he raised the matter of the fixing of prices for kaffir corn and while he himself admitted that at a certain stage producers were prepared to accept a price which was the same as that fixed for mealies, he now objects to the price which has been fixed, viz. 20s. 6d. and he said that it should be 22s. 6d. The position in that respect is very simple. We have fixed a price which is 1s. 6d. higher than the price fixed for mealies, and I must say that the Mealie Control Board under whose control kaffir corn falls recommended a difference of 2s. instead of 1s. 6d. which I accepted and which was recommended by the National Marketing Board. The Marketing Board admitted that the price for kaffir corn should be higher than for mealies because the costs of production were higher than in the case of mealies, mainly as a result of the bigger risk attaching to the production of kaffir corn. However, other factors had also to be taken into account, and the Marketing Board then recommended a difference of 1s. 6d. per bag and not 2s. The Marketing Board emphasised the fact that although malt factories provided an important market for kaffir corn when there was a surplus it could be used as fodder for stock and for human consumption, but that it then would compete with mealies and that a fair relationship should be maintained in order to avoid an insoluble marketing problem arising. The Marketing Board also emphasised the fact that the price fixed for kaffir com, which is now for the first time guaranteed, will have the tendency of increasing production. If there is stability it may easily be a stronger stimulus for farmers to produce kaffir corn.

What is the price fixed for bird-proof kaffir corn?

According to the announcement 19s. per bag. We must bear in mind the difficulties which may arise if we have an excessively high production of kaffir corn at the expense of mealies, and therefore I thought that the difference should be 1s. 6d. rather than 2s. Experience will have to teach us whether we have acted correctly or not.

†Then the hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) raised various questions which I propose to reply to by letter, seeing the hon. member is not here.

We should like you to give a reply now.

If there is any question my hon. friend particularly feels interested in I am prepared to reply.

That is not the point; we should like to hear what you have to say.

First of all the hon. member raised the question of the, Virginia Cheese Company. A new application will have to be made to the Dairy Board, and the matter will ultimately have to come before me if the Board refuses to register. Then he raised the question of the vermeer-bossie. We have a special experimental station which is dealing largely with this problem in this particular area. During this Session a deputation came to see me from the Northern Districts Development Association, led by a former mayor of Kimberley, and I then gave instructions that the work done by these gentlëmefn should be given greater publicity so that the public will know the work that is being done, and we also decided to strengthen the staff there. So I hope my friend will regard that as welcome news. Then he also raised the question of kraal manure, which he said was being sold by the farmer at £4 a ton and that they were receiving a rebate from the railways, and that it was being sold at exorbitant prices by these dealers.

By speculators.

Yes, by speculators. And he suggests that the price controller should fix the price. That has been gone into. The difficulty in fixing the price is that there is no uniformity in the grade of the kraal manure being sold. So we have adopted a modified form of control by allowing these people to operate as dealers only after they have a permit that is issued by the Controller of Fertilisers, and if any complaint is made against an authorised dealer about his selling manure not up to the standard or at an improper price, and if an objection is made, properly supported by the objectors, the permit of such a person will be withdrawn. If our friends will help us in preparing the way for taking action they will be rendering a service, and if information is submitted we will withdraw the permits. But if these dealers work in a proper way they will be helping the farmers and they should be permitted to carry on. If they are exploiting the position the remedy is in the hands of the farmers themselves to bring forward complaints.

They are charging £2 2s. a ton for stuff worth only 17s. on the market.

We are prepared to deal with that. In regard to the sample of bad maize the hon. member showed me, that is being taken up with the Maize Board, and in due course I shall be able to advise him what the position is in regard to that. In regard to the circumvention of Clause 6 of the Forestry Act, I should like to inform him that the administration of that part of the Act is being taken over by the Division of Veld and Soil Conservation, and we can expect some tightening up; but if not I shall be prepared to follow up his suggestion and to take the matter up with the police. Then the hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. M. Warren) made certain points to which I shall reply more fully by letter, seeing he is not here. But I shall, for the benefit of other members, briefly deal with them. First of all he raised the question of the effect of taxation on food production. I am dicussing that matter with my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, and I shall again bring this matter to his attention in view of the way my hon. friend has raised it in the House. Then there was a point raised by the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels).

†*The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels) was concerned about the price of beef but I do not believe that I have to enter into details. I think that the country as a whole has accepted the new beef prices as satisfactory. As far as I can remember I have received no representations against the prices myself and as far as I am able to determine they are satisfactory. I have increased the seasonal increases to figures above those for last year and we anticipate that as a result of that there will be a more regular flow of slaughter cattle to the controlled areas throughout the year than was the case last year. We could even expect if to be much more the case if one took into consideration the fact openly admitted by the hon. member for Bethlehem in the debate that farmers kept stock back in order to obtain better prices while they were at present releasing stock because they realised that the prices would not be changed. He is however wrong if he is under the impression that I do not intend effecting improvements. I have brought the grades closer together and also granted a bigger seasonal increase for this year than was the case last year.

Does it also apply to mutton?

In that respect also grades have been brought closer together, but as the hon. member knows we have not accepted the principle that in the case of mutton a seasonal increase in the price should be granted. The prices are stable throughout the year. Then the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) also spoke about the matter, but it is clear that he has not made a study of the matter, otherwise he would not have spoken as he did. For example he said that farmers object because they were unable to obtain £1 for a wether. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) showed me a letter from a farmer in his constituency who despatched a number of wethers and old ewes during this time of drought and the average price which he received from the Controller at Port Elizabeth was 32s. apiece.

†Then the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett) has made some thoughtful remarks about the dairy position. The suggestion he has made that there ought to be no divided control as far as dairy products are concerned merits the closest arid most careful attention. There is, of course, a suggestion that we ought to have a fresh milk marketing scheme quite apart from the control the Dairy, Board now exercises over industrial milk, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the hon. member’s suggestion. I do not want to commit myself for either single or divided control, but I can promise him I shall have the whole question thoroughly investigated. He also made a valuable suggestion about the necessity for rationalising the distribution of milk. I am quite certain a substantial saving can be made to the consumer if that rationalisation were to take place. But an investigation is already taking place; the Distributions Costs Commission, under the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), has for months, I do not know whether I should say for years, but for some time, has been going into this question, and I understand the first interim report will deal with the distribution of food. I think we ought to await that report before we take further steps in regard to the rationalisation of the milk distribution.

†*The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) who is in my opinion the ringleader in the attack upon the meat scheme said that the Advisory Agricultural Board did not agree with me as to the position which I explained in connection with the amendment of the Marketing Act and the fact that I did not introduce those amendments during the current Session. The hon. member said that he admitted that they agreed with me on the question of the necessity for amendments. They supported the amendments which I had ready. But he said that they did not agree with me on the step which I had now taken not to introduce the proposed alterations to the Marketing Act during the current Session.

They did not agree that they should be postponed for another year.

That is exactly what I am saying. In this connection I stated that I took the Advisory Agricultural Board into my confidence and explained the whole position to it, and it agreed that the steps which I proposed would ensure success for the establishment of a long-term scheme.

Yes.

Then I am unable to appreciate the hon. member’s objection.

Revision of the Marketing Act should not be postponed for another year.

Was that the executive commitee?

I said the Advisory Agricultural Board.

The executive committee consists of officials.

I think the hon. member now has in mind the executive committee of another board. I referred to the Agricultural Advisory Board and not only does it agree with me but it has undertaken to explain the position, as I put it, to farmers outside so that they could appreciate the position. I therefore do not know where the hon. member obtained his information. He stated that I should not think that he was not well informed, because he obtained his information. I myself addressed the people and they made their contribution to the discussion and I think that I am in a position to be able to state their point of view. I do not know who are the people who whispered something in his ear.

†Finally, the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) raised a number of questions. He wanted to know what the Government proposes to do in regard to the eradication of jointed cactus. He suggests that a million morgen of our best land in the Eastern Province is affected. I paid a visit to those areas during the last recess, and I got some conception of the extent of this problem of the eradication of prickly pear and jointed cactus. The cochineal insect that we employ has not been a complete failure, though my friend indicated that, and we find in cases where there is heavy infestation it is possible by combining the biological method of employing the cochineal insect with the method of felling that we can reach the stage of complete eradication. My friend will see £25,000 down on the estimates for the proposed prickly pear scheme. I should like to indicate two schemes we are having for the eradication of prickly pear. One is a subsidy scheme and the other a departmental scheme. Under the subsidy scheme landowners and local authorities may undertake the felling of prickly pear on their land and upon the completion of the whole or of certain defined portions they will receive a subsidy of 50 per cent. of the felling costs as finally assessed by the Department, subject to conditions I will send on to my hon. friend. Under the departmental scheme the felling of prickly pear on private land, municipal commonages, etc., will be undertaken by departmental gangs at a charge of 50 per cent. of the labour costs of felling as finally assessed by the Department, and subject to certain conditions I will also see my hon. friend gets. That is as far as prickly pear is concerned. Then in regard to jointed cactus, my Department has a scheme worked out and we are discussing final details with the Treasury. Up to the present we have not been successful in getting Treasury approval for the scheme we propose, and there is no amount on the estimates for that particular item; but we are persevering and I hope we will be able to make a start to deal with jointed cactus also. I trust I shall be able to announce this at a later stage. In regard to nicotine sulphate, we have been doing our best to import as much as possible, but it is very difficult to get quantities available now from other countries. But we are persevering because we badly require this particular substance, and I undertook yesterday to make a full enquiry into the suggestions made by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle). Finally he raised the question of the wool scheme. I am not in a position to say very much about that because my hon. friend knows that the Union, together with Australia and New Zealand have sent delegations to the Wool Conference which have been sitting in England for the past four or five weeks, and that delegation is now on its way back, and will be able to report to the Government when I get back to Pretoria. They have been discussing the whole question of the post-war marketing of the accumulated stocks of wool and the marketing of future clips. They were there to explore the position and report to their Governments. They were not empowered to take decisions. That is all I can say. These questions have been thoroughly examined by those countries in conjunction with Great Britain and the delegations will now be able to make their reports to the governments, and that I think, disposes of the various points raised yesterday.

I thank the Minister for the statement he made yesterday and today in connection with meat. We now at least know the position as far as the Government is concerned. He has again informed us that he intends introducing a long-term scheme. We feel somewhat uneasy because if it is not introduced on a sound basis we fear the whole matter will be a failure. The Minister is unable to state that his scheme has really succeeded up to the present. One matter about which we feel uneasy is this. Is the Government convinced that it has sufficient cold storage accommodation to carry out a long-term scheme?

That whole question is at present being investigated.

But will it not be the same as with the Dairy Committee that we should first wait for a report? It is necessary to provide cold storage accommodation. We are glad that an investigation is being conducted. That however is not sufficient. We know that the present scheme is being carried out under the emergency regulations, and six months after the war—that will be one of these days—those emergency regulations will lapse.

No, it means six months after the Peace Treaty—after the war against Japan is also past—and that will still be some time.

Does that mean that the cold storage accommodation which is at present being used by the Government for the scheme will be capable of being used over the whole period?

Yes, I have power under the emergency regulations.

Then the Minister has sufficient time at least to make provision that when the long-term scheme is introduced there will be sufficient cold storage accommodation because it is indispensable to the success of such a scheme. Farmers have already contended that cold storage facilities should be provided at centrally situated places and not necessarily in the large cities where you find the big abbatoirs. Such facilities could be provided, say from a central depot inland, and if the Minister of Transport then provides the necessary refrigerator trucks stock may be slaughtered there and transported in refrigerator trucks to the big markets. The Minister should pay some attention to us because we are desirous of helping him. When he introduced his scheme we gave him good advice. He will remember that we discussed that scheme in a calm and composed manner and that we prophesied that the scheme would be a failure. Actually it has not been a success.

If you had given me more assistance the success would have been greater.

No, we did help. But the Minister must appreciate that farmers do not farm for their health. They must also make a living, and he has fixed prices in such a manner that farmers are simply unable to come out. Some time ago I put a question to the Minister whether certain resolutions adopted by the farmers’ congress at East London had been brought to his notice, and his reply was in the negative.

At that date they had not yet been brought to my notice.

I then want to read to the Minister the resolutions which were adopted by farmers at that conference in connection with meat. The first was—

Who must pay the l½d.?

The price paid by the consumer and the price paid by the farmer are very far apart. We do not know where that money goes. I think that the Controller takes a large percentage.

One-sixteenth of a penny.

We would like to know what happens to money between the producer and the consumer. The second recommendation was—

In his reply the Minister said that he had not yet decided on the seasonal price for mutton. I want to give it to him for consideration and express the hope that he will go into the matter to see whether he could not apply the same seasonal considerations in the case of mutton as in the case of beef. Then—

Those are farmers who know what they are talking about, and it will be a very good thing if the Minister will devote attention to to this recommendation—

That the majority of the meat board should comprise the representatives of organised farmers by means of the South African Agricultural Union.

That the Government should give a clear assurance that farmers under the long-term scheme would be able to produce at reasonable prices and reasonable profits ….

That the long-term scheme should be introduced as soon as possible but not until the final conditions decided upon by the Meat Board have been submitted to the South African Agricultural Union for approval.

That the margin between the producer and the consumer should be drastically reduced and that consideration should be given to the elimination of that margin.

The margin between the consumer and the producer is too large.

I have reduced it by a half-penny.

I would like the Minister to go into it.

I appointed a committee several weeks ago to go into the matter.

These are the few points which I wanted to bring to the attention of the Minister, and I want to express the hope that he will consider them seriously. I will hand these resolutions adopted at the conference to him. He will see that nothing drastic is proposed in them. They contain the honest convictions of people who desire to co-operate to make the scheme a success. I would like the Minister thoroughly to go into the matter because farmers do not feel easy about the scheme. At this conference they expressed their opinions honestly that farmers are not opposed to the meat scheme in principle and that they want to co-operate to make a success of it. We want to help to bring that about. We feel uneasy that this matter will be tackled in such a way that it will result in a failure and that will mean that the meat trade will be harmed for a long time.

I merely want to make a few remarks in connection with fertiliser in order to bring the position to the notice of the Minister. I would like to know from the Minister what is the present position in connection with fertiliser. By this time the Minister will fully appreciate that the Western Province is that part of the country which very much depends upon fertiliser, much more than any other part of the country. Our possibilities of production are becoming worse rapidly and we would like to see the Minister do everything in his power, and we would also like to know the possibilities and what arrangements will be made so that we will at least from next year on have available a large quantity. Then I would also like to bring something in connection with the allocation of fertiliser to the attention of the Minister. I fully realise how important it is for the Controller to give 100 per cent. satisfaction in connection with the allocation of fertiliser under existing conditions. I “also know that he is doing everything in his power to carry it out as well as possible. Nevertheless I want to draw attention to an anomaly. It relates to the position of vegetable farmers. I want to say to the Minister that the basis of the allocation is at present of such a nature that it is mainly carried out according to the extent of the cultivated area. We should remember that a vegetable farmer cultivating from 20 to 50 morgen produces as much food as a wheat farmer cultivating from 500 to 700 morgen, and yet the allocation in respect of the vegetable farmer is in most cases not even one-third. I want to admit that at the last allocation vegetable farmers were in a slightly more favourable position than during previous years, but the position is not yet in any way what it should be and I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to the matter and to see that an improvement is effected. Another point which I would like to raise relates to kraal manure. Areas have been demarcated from which the different provinces should obtain their kraal manure. I well understand that steps have been taken not to transport kraal manure backwards and forwards and over too long distances. I do not desire preference over other provinces but the position of the Western Province is such that the area which has been demarcated for the Western Province is precisely the area from which the Western Province has for the past 25 or 30 years obtained its kraal manure. The position is that the Western Province at the outset in fact only used kraal manure and the result is that that area, which I admit is larger than that of the provinces, has been exhausted to a very large degree, especially the parts near the railway. We now find ourselves in the position that our area is practically exhausted and where there is still kraal manure it is very far from the railhead so that it is capable of being supplied at very high costs. I really would like the Minister to go into this matter thoroughly and consult the Railway Administration to grant us a larger area. I have received quite a few letters to the effect that military lorries which gave us much assistance have to a large degree been withdrawn with the result that we are unable to obtain the manure, and just on the other side of our demarcated area there are large kraals of manure which are available and which are not being used by the province for which it was set aside. I want to express the hope that the Minister will go into the matter. Then I further want to express a thought on the views already expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) in connection with the sending of food to the countries which will perhaps experience famine. I want to support that suggestion very strongly. I trust and I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture with the responsibility borne by him and with due regard to the needs of our own country will carry out that suggestion. I want to give him an assurance that our farmers, and I am sure my friends opposite also, will not protest, so that it will be possible for him to make his contribution as large as possible which he is able to make to the countries which are perhaps experiencing famine. I say that with conviction to the Minister and also to the benefit which the farmers will derive therefrom in general.

In view of the fact that the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) has raised the question of the supply of food to distressed countries, I want to state that the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) yesterday explicitly mentioned Britain, as Britain had done such a lot for us during the war.

But the Minister gave an explanation.

Yesterday I addressed the Committee on the same subject after the hon. member for Sunnyside had spoken, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House and the country a misrepresentation of the reporter of the “Cape Times”. I stated emphatically that we were not opposed to the sending of surplus food to other countries, provided such surplus foods were available—to Britain or any other country. The farmers are anxious to find markets. But now I want to read the misrepresentation of my speech in the “Cape Times”. My speech is in Hansard, but the following is the report broadcast by the “Cape Times”—

There he leaves it and says nothing further. This is the misrepresentation broadcast in this country to create the impression that we on this side want to send food out of the country whilst there is a shortage for our own people. We receive telegrams that natives in our country are starving. The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) last night showed me a telegram indicating that people in his constituency are starving.

What food are you referring to?

Mealies.

We are not exporting mealies.

If there is a surplus of foodstuffs we are not opposed to exporting such surplus. But I do not want a misrepresentation as that of the reporter of the “Cape Times” to go out into the country, so that at a later stage it will be used against us that we were in favour of sending food out of the country whilst our own people were going short. I want to return to the meat position and once again I want to say to the Minister that our Party on this side of the House and the farmers in the country are not opposed to control. I reiterate that we and the farming community desire control. Why? Because we can no longer continue on this loose basis we have had in the past. We have to plough and to sow, to raise cattle and produce, and we have never known what we would get for it. We desire control because we believe in stability, and for that reason in principle we support the policy of control boards. But whilst doing that, we have to protest that whilst control is being exercised over the produce of the farmers, and whilst there was a fair market and a fair price for the farmers’ produce, the Minister suddenly came down on us with his scheme and brought down the price for the farmers in the way he has done. The Minister’s predecessor informed us, and he also said so, that this will be a price determination for abnormal times. I can only say to the Minister that in these abnormal times all sections of the community have made money. Some of them have enriched themselves. The Minister used the term “pots and pots of money” being made by people. He was not referring to the farmers. Whilst the rest of the community has made money in these abnormal times and whilst in these abnormal times prices have risen right through the country, the Minister has come along and has brought down the price level for the farmers, and placed the farmer on a lower basis. The Minister has endeavoured to satisfy us and to pacify us by saying that he is going to call into being a long-term scheme for the farmers. That long-term scheme will also be judged by the advantages it will create for the farmers. A lot depends on what is going to happen between the farmer and the consumer. Under his scheme the Minister has brought down the price of the farmer, and on the other hand he has also pinned down the producers and guaranteed them a price which more or less was the price they were paying before. In that sense he has afforded them protection. But has the Minister carefully gone into the question of what is happening between the producer and the consumer? Has he ascertained the profits which are being made by these people in between and the profits they are still making in this first year of the scheme?

The Controller has very carefully gone into the matter.

Why then does he not take steps to reduce this gap between the pl-ice the producer receives and the price the consumer has to pay, and why does he not give a share to the farmer.

I have already given the farmer ½d. extra.

I want to read to the hon. the Minister how many hundreds of thousands of pounds are being made by these parasites who come in between the farmer and the consumer, very largely at the expense of the farmer. The Imperial Cold Storage Company is a middleman and the following information is contained in the official publication “Stocks and Shares”. In 1939 they made a profit of £91,000—I am quoting globular sums. In 1941 their profit was £176,000, in 1942, £241,000, in 1943 they made a profit of £459,000. In the first year of the Minister’s scheme the Imperial Cold Storage made no less a profit than £290,000. Does the Minister know about these things?

Do they only handle meat?

They handle meat and other produce of the farmers.

They also make profit on milk, butter, cheese, eggs and suchlike.

They are making their profit out of the farmer and the consumer as middlemen. The Minister becomes irritated as soon as these things are mentioned. I mention them in order to show that the producer does not get his just due and to prove that the producer and the consumer are being exploited. The Minister now tells us that his Department will enquire into the matter. I say that it is a crying scandal that this kind of thing is allowed to continue and that these parasites get fat on the lifeblood of the farmer. The Minister tells us that the meat farmers have to make sacrifices so that a long-term scheme can be called into being. He has promised such a scheme last year, and at the time I asked him how long it would take before he would have the long-term scheme. He informed us that if he were not to come the following year, we would be here to crucify him. There the Minister is sitting. He has not yet given us his scheme.

The scheme is there.

The Minister should not try to mislead us. The scheme has been announced by him, but is it an acceptable scheme and is it now available for the farmer? I am not referring to the scheme which is now being applied. I am referring to a long-term scheme for which we apparently have to wait for at least two years. Even this year the Minister has not come forward with his Bill, and we are still waiting. The Minister told us that we would be in a position to crucify him. In a previous speech I said that we were going to give him a lifelong sentence. But it seems as if we should rather crucify him. We are disappointed that the Minister makes us wait all this time for a longterm scheme, and that the farmers are being sacrificed for two years now already for the sake of advantages which they may derive under a long-term scheme. We want to know what the fixed price is going to be under a long-term scheme. We do not know what the price level is going to be. Apparently the Minister wants to wait until the return of normal times, so that he can lay down a lower price level, and then the scheme will not be worth the paper it is written on. We place no reliance on the promises of the Minister. From time to, time he makes promises. The farmers have suffered considerable losses and the Minister only held out promises. Is the Minister not anxious to see the meat farmers in a flourishing state? The farmers want to rehabilitate themselves so that they can cast aside the unjust aspersion that they are continually lying on the doorstep of the Government. Is the Minister not anxious to see a flourishing farming community? If he enables the farmers to become flourishing, it will be a great credit to him. But it seems as if he does not want to see them doing well. [Time limit.]

I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the assistance he has rendered to the Northern Transvaal in view of the drought. I can give him the assurance that this assistance is highly appreciated by the farmers. Secondly I want to thank him for the assistance he has promised in those parts where we had an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. I think the officials of the Department have achieved wonders in stamping out food-and-mouth disease and to limit the outbreak to a small part of my district, but I want to ask the Minister no longer to keep the people in suspense. There they have a lot of cattle which should be slaughtered. They are not allowed to take cattle out of the area or to bring anything into the area. Grazing is diminishing. I want to ask the Minister as soon as possible to take the steps promised by him. I have accompanied his officials to the farmers to inform them of this promise. All the farmers have agreed and therefore I now ask the Minister to carry out his promise as soon as possible. I also want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence with his colleague, the Minister of Finance; where a man takes his whole herd and has it slaughtered—not with his consent, because he is not responsible for the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease— where he has 200 head of cattle and they are being sold, he should not be called upon to pay income tax on that capital, because he was not desirous of capitalising his assets at that moment. It is a serious matter with the farmers that they have to pay income tax on the animals they have to sell. I therefore want to ask the Minister to discuss this matter with the Minister of Finance. It is a serious matter. There is another point I want to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is that these officials should get evidence before the Transvaal Game Commission which has been appointed. The farmers are very concerned on account of the game coming through, and I think the time has arrived for the Government to fence off that part of the Transvaal, just as they were able to make a fence of 50 miles within a short time. That is all I want to say in regard to the question of foot-and-mouth disease, but there is another difficulty I desire to bring to the notice of the Minister. We have been dipping our cattle for the last 30 years and now as a result of drought the tick pest is increasing again. Possibly you will say that the farmers have to dip, but there are no dips. In Zululand an official has been appointed in connection with ngana, to try to determine the best means to combat the disease. Can the same not be done in this case? The farmers are now compelled to trek from their farms, and the tick is increasing on a very large scale, and I hope and trust that the necessary funds will be made available to produce the means to combat the disease. I want to say that as a result of East Coast Fever and “hardwater” and redwater and gall sickness we lose more animals than through any other pest. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to make funds available for research work in that regard. There is another point I want to put to the Minister. I know that his Department will not agree, but it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The person who is in charge of this cross-breeding section at the Mara Experimental Station, is conducting experiments with various bulls, but he has a lot of Afrikaner-cattle. He sells pure-bred Afrikaner-bulls and he is the man who is carrying out the cross-breeding experiments for the Government. Why should he be allowed to sell pure-bred bulls, whilst the Government is also selling cross-bred bulls? The Government cannot show me a single farmer who is satisfied with cross-bred bulls, but because we are living in an area where we have “hardwater” and redwater and gall sickness, we have to be satisfied with crossbred bulls. I say again that if the person who is in charge of the experimental station does not want to sell pure-bred Afrikaner-bulls, we cannot take it amiss, but we feel that it is wrong that he should be allowed to breed pure-bred bulls, and to sell crossbred bulls to us. There is yet one other point I want to mention and that is in regard to noxious weeds. I know the Minister says that his Department is doing all it can. My objection is that there is no co-operation whatsoever between his Department and the Department of Native Affairs. In the native locations these weeds increase on a tremendous scale. The farmers do their utmost to keep their farms clean, but it is of no avail if there is no co-operation between the various Departments in order to tackle this problem on a national scale and to do something to rid the country of these noxious weeds. In the Northern Transvaal along the rivers and spruits, these weeds are multiplying on a very big scale. It does not help us if we as farmers keep our farms clean, whilst in the native locations and on the rivers and spruits these weeds increase without being checked. I hope that the Minister will obtain the co-operation of the Department of Native Affairs so that we can keep our farms clean. Then I want to say a few words on the labour question. I want to ask the Minister to do everything in his power to meet the farmers. We have been informed that machinery cannot yet be imported. With the labour condition being what it is today on the farms, I must say that I am very concerned as far as the future of South Africa goes if we cannot obtain machinery. Without machinery the farmer cannot continue. One does not want to work late at night when the sun has set, and with the labour conditions being what they are today, that will be necessary if the farmers cannot get machinery. We want to ask the Minister to do everything in his power in order to provide the necessary machinery, so that the farmers can continue cultivating their farms and to fence in their farms as far as possible. There are farmers today who with two or three men make a success of farming on a big scale, but then they must have the necessary machinery. Just one other matter. I appeal to the Minister wherever a farm is situated on the slopes of a mountain, by legislation the destruction of such property on the slopes of a mountain should be prohibited. The natural growth is being destroyed today. The future is at stake if we do not take steps to protect the mountain slopes of South Africa.

I think the hon. the Minister since yesterday has gained the impression that he has now more or less satisfied the mealie farmers, because so far he has heard nothing in this debate about mealies.

*The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Your colleague, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Wessels) said that I have met the farmers fairly well.

The Minister knows that we have now for years put up a fight over the prices of mealies and this year it was exactly the same. I have not risen to fight with the Minister because he has not given us the price we asked for. The season is now in swing; the crop is being harvested and we have not received the price for mealies which we wanted. I want today to give the Minister a little bit of good advice. It is now June. In July the farmers will begin to plough for the coming season. There is a shortage of mealies; every year there is half the crop. Let the Minister rise now and give the farmers the assurance that they can carry on ploughing and that they will at least get the price they want, that they can carry on and sow as many mealies as they possibly can. There is no danger that the farmers in the coming year will produce more mealies than are required by the country. There is no question of export. The people who think that we can export mealies do not know what the position is. The Minister knows what the position is and here is a golden opportunity to say to the mealie farmer: “Come now, do your best; sow the lands with mealies and see if we cannot put the position right, if we cannot produce the necessary food, and here is the price which I shall give you; I will give you the price for which you have asked”. We have for days fought with the Minister over the price. We asked for £1 per bag. We got so far that the Minister agreed to fix the price at 19s. and what happened? Shortly afterwards the Minister came and offered us an extra 6d. as consolation. He asked us to harvest more quickly and to deliver the mealies a little moister. I want to say to the Minister that if he had, right from the beginning, given the farmer the price he asked for, we would not have had this position. The farmers asked for a reasonable price. The mealie farmer has never been unreasonable and he will also not be unreasonable now. Tomorrow that 6d. which is offered to the farmers to encourage them to bring in their mealies quicker will fall away. Whilst the Minister has decided to increase the price by 6d., why cannot he now extend that concession until the end of July? With the unseasonable rain which fell in May, we know that the mealies again absorbed moisture, that the mealies are again damp, and that the farmer cannot gather his harvest in so quickly. The Minister must try to be a little practical. Let him go to the farmer’s farm and see what is happening. Take the advice of people who have actually grown up on the mealie lands. I now want to ask the Minister to still decide today that that additional compensation of 6d. per bag which he has granted, will continue until the end of July. In July the mealies are dry, and then the farmers begin to harvest on a large scale. I want to suggest that the Minister should allow this concession of 6d. to continue until the end of next month. Another matter which is of very great importance, where we are dealing with a shortage of mealies, is that the Minister’s Department must devote special attention this year to the provision of fertiliser for the mealie farmers. I want to appeal to the Minister to see to it that this year the mealie farmers get a larger quantity of fertiliser. We no longer get the crops which we used to because we by no means get enough fertiliser. In view of the shortage of fertiliser, it seems to me a matter of impossibility to produce a crop which will be big enough for the needs of the country. It is sad to reflect that mealies have to be imported to South Africa from other countries at higher prices. The Government will have to pay the difference in price, and they will have to pay large sums of money. Rather take that money and encourage the farmers to produce more, and I am convinced of it that the farmers will grow more mealies. It is sad to think that farmers who formerly used 15 bags of mealies per month for their farmhands, now get only five, six or seven. If a family heeds a bag of mealie meal a month then they cannot manage on half a bag. It is a matter of impossibility and therefore I want to ask the Minister to give the farmers the assurance that he will at least give them so much in order to encourage them to produce more, and that he and his Department will do their best to give the farmers as much fertiliser as possible, in order to encourage them to produce enough mealies for the needs of the country.

I do not want to mention subjects which have been discussed by other hon. members, but I want to associate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) in connection with weeds, etc. I would just like to bring a few points to the attention of the Minister, and the one is that in my part of the country the people are very concerned about the price of grain bags. It seems to me that the price of grain bags is not controlled, and the farmers feel alarmed that the dealers can probably ask any price for those grain bags whereas the price of mealies is fixed. The grain bags which we could last year buy for 1s. 6d. or 1s. 7d. we must now pay 1s. 9d. and 2s. for. I want to bring it to the attention of the Minister that the farmers are alarmed at the fact that the price of grain bags is not fixed whereas the price of mealies is fixed. They feel that it is unfair. I would briefly also like to associate myself with what was said here in connection with the combating of parasites. I am talking now of bush-ticks and such like. In the Eastern Transvaal, as hon. members know, there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and our farmers are very concerned about it. When we see how the bush-ticks multiply and how little co-operation there is between the Department and the farmers, then we feel very anxious. As soon as a stock disease breaks out and regulations are applied, then the farmers consider that it is a brand new thing, and they begin to hurl reproaches at the Minister’s head and at the Department which naturally is unfair. The farmers in my part of the country desire more co-operation with the Department, and I would like to propose that where stock inspectors usually go round once or twice a year to inspect sheep for scab, they should also supervise the cattle. I think especially of the cattle belonging to the natives. Sometimes the stock inspector comes there and he inspects the few sheep and he does not see how the poor wretched beast is eaten up with bush-ticks. I would therefore like to suggest that when the stock inspectors visit the farms, they should at the same time also inspect the cattle. I am afraid that if the natives go on like this and neglect their cattle in this manner, then one of these days we will have east coast fever in that vicinity, and then the Minister will be blamed. I just want to tell the Minister what the position is of fresh milk farmers all around Pretoria. They are not against the Minister; the people do not want to criticise the Minister, but they find themselves in this position: the municipal regulations are so strictly applied to those people that it costs them a surprising amount to produce their milk. Finally I just want to say that the farmers in my constituency and the people I have met there, are entirely satisfied with the meat scheme. They welcome it. I know of many cases where people sold a number of cattle to’ speculators for which they received £450, and where they sold the cattle under the meat scheme, they got £500 for the same number of cattle. I am quite prepared to prove in black and white that the meat scheme is entirely practical and that it is beneficial to the farmers. I therefore hope that the Minister will not take notice of the threats we have heard here in connection with the meat scheme. He is building a foundation here, he is building a monument which in the future will stand as a proof of his steadfastness. I would still like to say a great deal about fertiliser, but I do not want to take up the time of the House any longer, because other hon. members have already spoken about it. I just hope that the Minister will take into consideration the question of the parasites and bush-ticks and also the question of the price of grain bags. Last year speculators bought up the grain bags and now they want to sell them to the farmers at any price.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn), when the Minister stated that he thought that the public outside were quite satisfied with the price of mealies. The public are not satisfied with the price of 19s. per bag as was recommended by the Minister and published in the Government. Gazette. I want to ask the Minister what is the function of the Mealie Control Board. Has the Mealie Control Board been created as a dummy or, has it a function to fulfil in this House? Has the Mealie Control Board then only been entrusted with distribution and the issue of permits to people who require mealies, or has it other functions which it should fulfil? Is it not a function of the Mealie Control Board to consult with the Minister and to recommend prices? The Minister has not as yet accepted the recommendation of the Mealie Control Board. For the last three years the Mealie Control Board has recommended to the Minister that a certain price should be fixed, a price approved by agricultural unions and by co-operative societies, but the Minister has from time to time refused to accept those recommendations and this year he came along with an increase of 6d. a bag. That merely covers the increase in the price of a bag. Further the farmer has to be satisfied with the same price as was received by him last year. Farmers during the past two years saw their crops fail in the Eastern Transvaal. If one were somewhat lucky during this year and harvested a thousand bags of mealies one would only make a profit of £250 and if one accepted the cost of production as being 14s. 6d. per bag. I do not know whether the Minister accepts that figure but if one does accept it, then such a person only makes a profit of £250 if he harvests one thousand bags of mealies. I want to ask the Minister whether he considers that farmers are able under these abnormal conditions to live decently on an income of £250. Are they able to properly feed and clothe their families and are they in a position to afford sending their children to high schools? I do not think that the Minister has thought about the matter in that light, and if he has thought about it why does he refuse increasing the price to £1 per bag?

Will it be of considerable help if they could obtain 1s. per bag more?

An increase of 1s. more per bag amounts to £50 per thousand bags and will be of much assistance. Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) stated that farmers during 1940 only received 7s. per bag for their maize. That is incorrect. During that year farmers received 10s. and subsequently the price of mealies rose systematically, but the costs of production at that time were not so high. Labour has gone up by 200 per cent. and the price of machinery has gone up 50 per cent. and more. Those are factors which should be taken into account. I want to ask the Minister to be good enough to appoint a commission of enquiry to determine the costs of production in respect of mealies. It is one of the most necessary points for the country that consumers should for all time know what production costs are connected with the production of mealies and what are the profits made by farmers. Consumers are under the impression that mealie farmers are at present making enormous profits, which is not the case at all, and therefore I want to urge the Minister this year if possible to appoint such a commission because it is essential that consumers and farmers should be satisfied and to give satisfaction to the Mealie Control Board in this respect. I want to come to another small point and that concerns the levy obtained by the Mealie Control Board. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) asked the Minister what levy was collected by the Mealie Control Board for mealies marketed by it, and the Minister mentioned the figure of £7,675,530. I do not know whether this figure given by the Minister is correct, but if it is correct, I want to put this question to the Minister: What has the Mealie Control Board done with that amount of seven million pounds? Seven million pounds is a colossal amount which has been collected and therefore I want to ask the Minister how that money has been spent if the Mealie Control Board did collect it? During the year 1942-’43 co-operative societies sustained a great loss. Were they compensated out of this amount? If not, did the Government make provision on the estimates to compensate for the loss sustained by co-operative societies? There are societies which have lost thousands of pounds. Where the Mealie Control Board has decided that dampness should not exceed 12½ per cent. the Minister came along and acted contrary to the policy of the Mealie Control Board. Chaos is created in this country if you do that sort of thing, and the Minister allowed those chaotic conditions to continue and we do not want them. I now want to come to another point and that relates to beans. Here one finds precisely the same condition. Rumours were spread throughout the country that a maximum price for beans would be fixed. I went to the Secretary for Agriculture and asked him what the position was. He stated that there was talk of the price being increased, but apart from that the Secretary for Agriculture asked farmers to produce beans. They took that advice and bought beans at £10 per bag and now rumours are being spread in the country that a maximum price would be fixed. What was the result? The price of beans fell by almost 100 per cent. One is unable to pay £10 per bag for beans. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that a maximum price will not be fixed during the present year.

The price has never dropped.

What is the present price?

At present it is £6 or £7 per bag. Before the war one bought mealies at 7s. and 8s. Before the war one bought a suit of clothes at £6 and £7, at present one has to pay £20. We should not therefore speak about pre-war prices where we find ourselves in these abnormal conditions owing to the war. Before the war one was able to buy a suit of clothes at £6 and £7 and today it costs one £20. Do not let us speak about the time before the war. We have abnormal conditions at present as the result of the war. I asked the Secretary for Agriculture what was going to happen, because co-operative societies did not know what to do. They had to receive the beans and did not know where they stood. The Secretary for Agriculture then replied that he did not know what he was able to do because the Price Controller was responsible. I am unable to appreciate the Price Controller being responsible for the fixing of prices. That is one of the things which flabbergast me. The Secretary for Agriculture or the Minister of Agriculture surely are the persons who should say to the Price Controller: This or that must be announced by way of proclamation. But this is the reply one receives. There are chaotic conditions in the country which should not be allowed to continue. Farmers are filled with fear because they do not know what the price will be tomorrow. For farmers maximum prices only are fixed and not minimum prices. Last year for example the Minister fixed the price of potatoes at 30s. per bag and farmers now have to sell for 14s. and 15s. per bag, but dealers still have the right to sell potatoes at 4 lbs. for 1s. That is the type of exploitation which is permitted in the country and we appeal to the Minister as the responsible person to prevent the farming community being exploited. Why should dealers have a free hand? Why are minimum prices not fixed so that the trade would also be restricted? That will be an encouragement for farmers because they will then know that the price cannot drop lower. But one never gets minimum prices, only maximum prices are fixed. Take the position with regard to bags. Bags are during this year being sold at 20½d. per bag in respect of bales of 200 2½ lb. bags, but there are dealers who held over from last year thousands and thousands of bags owing to the small crop, and the bags are in their stores, but while bags were last year sold at 14½d. they are at liberty to sell those same bags during this year at 20½d. and make another 6d. profit. The trade is allowed to exploit the farming community and the Minister then closes his eyes.

Dealers do not admit that I protect them. Ask them.

Nobody can deny facts. The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) intended bringing the same matter to the attention of the Minister. [Time limit.]

There is a growing feeling amongst the urban citizens that unless we have a complete national economy we cannot build up the wealth of this country, and for that it is essential we have a prosperous and healthy agricultural industry. There is an overwhelming opinion in the towns that everything possible should be done to assist agricultural development and to assist agricultural producers. At the same time it is felt essential that the price to the consumer when the products are brought into the towns should be reasonable. I am sure the farmers will support any action or any agitation to keep down the price to the consumer, because the whole prosperity depends upon having as good a market as possible. I should like to say to the Minister that one of the outstanding criticisms of the meat scheme is not the price paid to the farmers but the fact that in addition to there having been a shortage of meat from time to time in the towns, the price has been unduly high.

Pre-war statistics do not show that.

Statistics are not always reliable. They are often based on technical points. The housewife comes to me and tells me how much more she has to pay. Complaints are made from time to time on this point.

They are being investigated now.

I hope in that investigation they will not turn a deaf ear to the problem of rationing. In Great Britain though they are still at war with Japan, rationing has been introduced, and I think we have to accept the principle that rationing is not only a war-time measure. It will be necessary to apply some system of rationing in South Africa. I think the Minister has himself to blame for much of the criticism that has been levelled against the meat scheme, and for this reason. He has neglected, I do not say wittingly, the real propaganda that should be done. If the public of this country were continually told, as they should be, that many of the difficulties have arisen because much of our foodstuffs have had to go to our army or be sent overseas, I think the majority of the people who supported the war policy of the country would be much more reasonable.

I cannot control the Press reports, and I have often stated these things.

I think this is a matter that should be repeated continually. The same criticism applies to a question that was raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) yesterday in regard to the sending of supplies to Great Britain. The Minister yesterday gave us an illuminating statement. He explained how the cargo of mutton came into this country, and he told us how meat supplies had been provided to the Admiralty. Had the public known all these things there would have been a feeling of satisfaction which under the circumstances does not exist. He also gave a valuable detailed statement yesterday showing the amount of foodstuffs the Department is arranging to supply not only to the Admiralty but also to Great Britain. The exports in any case are not going to prejudice the producers, because they are going to be paid. The Minister has already shown his anxiety to carry into effect the policy recently adumbrated, and it is unfortunate the public do not know that what they are asking for has already been done. If they had this information a good deal of the Minister’s work would be made much smoother. I hope that the public will be informed continuously and that the sending of food to Great Britain will be speeded up as much as possible, because food that reaches Great Britain today when they are in dire need will be of much greater value than food sent when their difficulties are tided over. I hope he will energetically pursue that policy. I think, too, that he should supplement what is being done as an ordinary business proposition today by some specific gift of food to the people of Great Britain as a definite mark of appreciation for the great sacrifices they have made. The Minister referred yesterday to the amendment to the Marketing Act that he had hoped to introduce this Session and that he is going to introduce next Session. I hope that in the amendments he is making the Minister will make provision to ensure that land suitable for production will not be kept out of production ….

I cannot allow the hon. member to advocate legislation.

I am sorry I overlooked that. The point I want to put to the Minister is that he should see to it that the Bill to be introduced next Session is circularised to the public and to people specially interested, during this recess, so that those interested, whether the farmers, the distributors, the public or the control boards, will have the fullest opportunity of studying these matters, and so that next Session we shall have a House that is informed on them. The third point I want to make is on the subject of soil erosion. We should like to have a very definite statement in the light of the almost alarming statements that have been put to us as to the gradual deterioration of our soil, and I hope that he will see that active steps are taken and that some effect will be given to the recommendations that have been made by the Agricultural Committee of the Planning Council.

Last year, if I remember correctly, the Mealie Board recommended a price of 20s. for mealies, and this year they have again recommended 20s. per bag, but nevertheless the Minister has fixed the price at 19s. I would like to know from the Minister in view of his not accepting their recommendations, whether he has no confidence in his Board. At the commencement of the Session I put a question in connection with the price of artificial fertiliser, and the Minister said that he was really not responsible for the price. The Price Controller is responsible and the Minister, so he says, has no power to reduce the price. I will quote two instances. On the one hand you have the Mealie Control Board and the Minister refuses to accept their recommendation, but on the other hand you have the Price Controller, and whatever the Price Controller recommends is accepted. I do not think this is fair towards the Mealie Control Board. That body must serve the Minister with advice, but if that advice is disregarded, we could just as well dispense with the Board. On the 9th March the Minister also replied to a question of mine in connection with a formulatetd scheme for the fixation of mealie prices. He said that the matter was receiving the attention of the Marketing Board. I would like to know from the Minister how far the scheme has progressed. Then I also want to appeal to the Minister to fix the price for next year’s harvest. I cannot lay sufficient emphasis on the importance to the farmers of knowing when they begin to plough what the prices are going to be the following year. I fear that on account of the small harvest this year, we will only have mealies until March. Then the mealie supplies will be exhausted, and it is therefore necessary for the Minister to make it as attractive as possible for the mealie farmers to come into the market early next summer, say April, or perhaps as early as the middle of March, but if you sow as early as say August or September, you are running more of a risk than when you sow in October or November, and that is why, in view of the shortage, the necessary compensation must be given to those who sow early. I think the Minister should pay the compensation to the middle of June. If he does this, he will have a large quantity of mealies delivered early in the season. I also asked the Minister this year whether he was afraid of over-production, and if that was why he did not want to guarantee a price. The Minister did not want to reply to my question in the House, but I hope I am not giving away a secret when I say that he told me in the lobby that he was not afraid of a surplus. Why then can the Minister not tell the farmer what the price will be? If he is afraid of a surplus, one can understand that it is a difficult matter. We have had experience of surpluses, but in recent years there have been shortages, and everyone will agree that we would rather see surpluses than shortages in the country. Then there is another important matter. I understand that the Minister or the Food. Controller is about to, or has already issued instructions to the millers prohibiting the manufacture of mealie rice, otherwise known as samp.

It will be done by the Mealie Board.

I do not know whether it is a fair and just step. Today with our modern machinery, we produce a product called mealie rice which compares very favourably with the rice which is imported from India and elsewhere. Mealie rice is sold at 1½d. or l¼d. per lb., while imported rice costs as much as 5d. or 6d. per lb. It is a by-product of mealies in connection with which we can have great expectations, and we must try to encourage people to eat it. Then we will not have to send all that money out of the country. In my opinion therefore I do not consider it right that a prohibition should be placed on the production of mealie rice. Then I would also like to know what the position is in connection with the damage sustained by the co-operatives two years ago through the rotting of mealies. The damage was sustainéd bécause the then Minister and his board encouraged the farmers to deliver mealies with a moisture of 18 per cent. Thereupon quite heavy rains followed and the goods were not well stored, with the result that the people sustained a loss of £150,000. I would like the Minister to tell me what the position is/ Who is going to bear the loss? Yet another important matter for the mealie farmers is the extension of the grain elevator system. The original idea was chiefly to facilitate export. Today the Department of Agriculture pays farmers a subsidy to make mealie silos themselves on their farms. It is of great interest to our farmers, for if they have mealie silos, then the bags are not destroyed and they do not sustain great damage through mice, etc. If the Department gives the farmers a subsidy to build their own mealie silos on the farms, it is surely also desirable that the Government should consider extending the system of grain elevators so that there are proper warehouses, for otherwise we may perhaps again sustain great damage as in the past. Then I want to ask the Minister to do everything in his power to improve the position as regards artificial fertiliser, and to let the mealie farmers have the artificial fertiliser as early as possible. As things are now, the mealie farmers in our parts sometimes get the artificial fertiliser only in December. If you sow mealies then, you reap four to five bags per morgen less than when you sow in October or November, and it is therefore of the utmost importance that artificial fertiliser should be provided as soon as possible. [Time limit.]

On a previous occasion when I referred to marketing by the Deciduous Fruit Board the hon. Minister was unfortunately not present, and as a result certain matters I raised were not replied to, and I feel it my duty to lay some of these matters before him again. If there was one section of our agricultural industry that had an opportunity to make hay while the sun shone it was the deciduous fruit industry during the war period. Before the warthe bulk of the fruit was exported overseas; the export trade had been built up over many yéars by careful scientific knowledge, and the best marketing principles were adopted and everything done to ensure a successful industry being established, but there were signs even in pre-war days that unless something was done to handle surplus products of the industry the industry would suffer very seriously financially. That did happen. It became necessary for the Government, year after year, to give large subsidies to the deciduous fruit industry. I claim that had the industry got down to things as they should have done and appointed a marketing expert to assist them in distributing their product locally, the present position would never have arisen. Never in the history of South Africa haVe the people had such poor fruit and had to pay so much for it. Last season, particularly, the standard was very low, and the prices particularly high, and we have a right to know why this should be so, particularly when the Government paid out a subsidy of £280,000 to the industry. We have oh that board so-called consumers’ representatives, one of whom is a member of this House. I would like to ask the Minister what exactly are the functions of the consumers’ representatives; and how is it considered possible for three representatives of the consumers in any way to influence the policy of the board which has a majority of producers? The producers are fine gentlemen of high standing, and with a good knowledge of production, but I am very sorry to say, with very little knowledge of marketing, and that is amply borne out by the conditions attending the marketing of soft fruit in South Africa. One of the big bones of contention of the fruitgrower when exporting his fruit was that the agent who handled the product took a large commission, and that his total export costs amounted to no less than 30 per cent. of what the fruit realised. Yet we find on analysing the cost in respect of the fruit handled locally by this board, that it realised £607,000 the season before last, and that the handling costs amounted to £224,000, or 35 per cent., and that although there were no shipping freight charges to pay, and freight charges are always the largest item of expenditure. Then again the fruit was not distributed in such a way as to ensure that the majority of the people were able to get it. In Cape Town during the season before last an attempt was made to market grapes, and I believe that scheme found favour with the housewives, but this year it was not repeated. So prices went up, distribution was bad, and the consumer was thoroughly dissatisfied. I suggest once more that the board displayed no imagination in the marketing of their product. If it had some imagination and employed a man qualified to market its products it would enable our fruit to find a ready market in our own country. I am anxious that at this stage consideration should be given to this matter so that the position may be improved in the coming season. I should like to know what the Minister and his Department intend doing and whether the board is being reorganised and a marketing expert appointed to it to advise them, and whether it is the intention of the Government to make any enquiry into the industry itself. I feel that a certain amount of enquiry is necessary. I cannot understand why the costs of production for fruit sold on the local market should be higher than for the same product when it was shipped overseas, especially when freight charges had to be paid as well. Furthermore I would like to know why the administration costs of the Deciduous Fruit Board are so high. It seems to me to be out of all proportion to the value of the work done. I see that the manager of the exchange on occasion flies to Pretoria. If he has to fly there I feel he should not fly at the expense of the fruitgrower, particularly when a train is available. It is possible that before the end of this year, although not very probable, South Africa will again be in a position to export fruit, and I want to express the hope that if exporting is to start again the growers will not overlook their local market. They have done so grossly in the past, but the only way to make the industry a success is to have both a good overseas market and a local market. There is no necessity for the people in this country to do without good fruit. They are prepared to pay for it just as the people overseas. It seems to me to be a matter only of running the industry on sound basis lines. I cited before just one example in which the board could increase its sales of good quality fruit, namely that now the season is over all fruitgrowers should be circularised and asked to send an estimate as far as possible, based on production of the last few years, of the amount of high quality fruit they can supply. If that is done and more is done to advertise the sale of such fruit as “private orders”, I am sure that large quantities of fruit will be sold at the best prices and find a ready market. There are many people who would willingly place an order of at least one tray of good fruit a week. But I find nothing like that has been done and therefore I feel justified in criticising the marketing methods of the board. There has been no method actually. The only method adopted appears to be that of allowing fruit to find its way on to the market, after arranging for a certain quantity to be taken over by the manufacturers, the jam factories and the canning factories and the drying sheds. I believe that last year 40,000 tons were marketed, yet I could find no evidence of any sound marketing scheme such as in the case of the Citrus Board. There one sees an organisation which has taken the fullest advantage of the opportunities offered to it by the war. It was in the same position as the deciduous fruit industry. It had to encourage local sales, and I would like to congratulate the Citrus Board on the way they marketed their fruit. I cannot see why the Deciduous Fruit Board could not have done the same thing. If the Minister wants to stop criticism inside this House and outside it he should make full enquiry into the matter to see what can be done, and if in future a subsidy is asked for he should at least see that such a subsidy is deserved.

The Minister of Agriculture is being served with advice from all sides of the House, and through all that advice one can discern a state of dissatisfaction in the country in connection with farming activities. In recent times it has become the mode on the part of the Minister of Agriculture that as soon as the pressure from the farmers and the dissatisfaction amongst the farmers becomes too strong, he begins to talk of what they are doing for the war and for Great Britain. With those tactics he satisfies the members on the other side. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) stood up here today and blamed the Minister for saying too little about what he is doing for the war and for Great Britain. If he says a little more, then the other side will be more satisfied. I want to tell the Minister of Agriculture that he must remember that he is Minister of Agriculture in South Africa, that the question of production, the fixation of prices, the question of foodstuffs and food distribution are all mainly in his hands, that a very important duty rests on his shoulders and that it should be his task to afford satisfaction to the people in the country itself. He must give satisfaction to the farming community outside. If he wants to fulfil his obligations as Minister of Agriculture he must give satisfaction to the people who have to produce those products, and then he must ensure that those products are so distributed that satisfaction is also rendered to the people who receive them. I hope that the Minister will now divert his attention somewhat from outside things and that he will first see that his own house is in order, and that he will cease making use of the old story, namely that as soon as there is difficulty and dissatisfaction is rife on this side and even on his own side, of trying to satisfy his people by saying what he is doing for the war effort, what he is doing to provide supplies for the army and to send supplies to Great Britain. He knows and members on the other side who are becoming so fidgety know what the conditions are in our own country. In almost every sphere of farming there is dissatisfaction. I just want to say to the Minister in connection with price control that dissatisfaction is rife amongst the farmers. There is dissatisfaction everywhere in the country in connection with his meat scheme and the control over permits, and we on this side just like members on the other side receive letters daily in that connection. Yesterday I received a letter from somebody who said [translation]—

The Minister gave a radio talk and said that preference would be given to people in drought-stricken districts in the issue of permits. In that way he is trying to satisfy the people. What are the facts? This farmer wrote further—

If the Minister knows anything about farming, then he will realise that if a farmer at a time like this wants to send his sheep away on the 4th May and he only receives a permit at the end of May, he is going to sustain an enormous loss.

It is done by the Meat Board on which there are farmers.

Every time the Minister hides behind the Meat Board. He sees to it that people serve on those boards who will play lackey to him and behind whom he can hide. The same applies to the Agricultural Advisory Board. Many of those people are persons who occupy posts of high officials and who have to eat out of the hands of the Government. Then the Minister hides behind them. It is his duty to satisfy the public and to satisfy the farmers of the country. I say that anyone who knows something about farming will realise that if a man in a part which is stricken by drought applies on the 4th May for a permit and only receives it on the 28th May, he must suffer an enormous loss. Then I have the further information that those people asked as early as December that the district be declared a drought-stricken district. We know that the farmers wait as long as possible before making such an application, for they are not eager that the district should be declared a drought-stricken district. I just want to say to the Minister that it is time that he gave his attention to the marketing centres of the farmers and that he ensured that the farmers obtain their permits to send their cattle there in time. I have also received quite a few letters from agents who deal with the sale of the farmers’ cattle. One wrote to me from Kimberley [translation]—

10,000 Head of cattle had to be left over. So much for the drought-stricken areas. I want to quote another example. As recently as the 10th May an agent wrote to me—

One case was brought to my attention where a farmer made application to send sheep to Bloemfontein. They could not take the sheep at Bloemfontein and they issued a permit to Johannesburg. He loaded the sheep on the Saturday and they were only sold on the following Saturday. Anyone who knows something about the matter will realise what this means to the farmer. The delay in connection with the issue of permits leads to fatal consequences for the farmer. The farmer is dependent on it. When we bring this state of affairs to the Minister’s attention, he says: No, I am hiding behind the Meat Board which does this or that.

That is a distortion of what I said.

No, I am not distorting what the Minister said.

On a point of personal explanation. I did not say that I was hiding behind the Meat Board. I said that they issue the permits.

I leave to anyone with a grain of common sense to come to a conclusion as to what the Minister said. I was speaking of the delay connected with the issue of permits, and the Minister’s reply was that it is the Meat Board which performs this function. He is the responsible Minister. He is responsible for the Meat Board, and when he comes here and says that it is the Meat Board which has done it, and not him, then he is hiding behind the Meat Board.

I only wanted to furnish you with information which you were apparently unaware of.

I am quoting this information. It is a common phenomenon throughout the country, and if the Minister does not know that the farmers are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs, then he does not know what is going on among the farmers. They are not only supporters of this side who are dissatisfied. Supporters of members on the other side are also dissatisfied. I have read out letters from agents. One was in English, and this indicates to the Minister that all sections of the farmers are dissatisfied as regards this matter. I want to say to the Minister again that the sooner he, as the responsible Minister, gives more attention to this matter, the better it will be. As long as he tries to hide behind others, there will be confusion in the country. Then I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s policy is in connection with the export of cattle. There is, for example, an offer which has been made from the Belgian Congo in connection with the purchase of high-grade Friesland cattle, and we would like to know what the Government’s policy is in this connection. [Time limit.]

I was not surprised at the tirade we have just heard from the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein). I knew at the time the Minister made his statement in connection with the Meat Scheme in this House and they attacked him, that such would be the consequences. Words were used against the Minister to the effect that he was giving cause for a revolution as regards his scheme and that he would see blood. Such were the words used here; they are recorded in Hansard and members can read them there. I knew at that time that we would be getting a somewhat lower price but that our prices would be stabilised. I supported the Minister and I returned to my district and told the farmers that they should adopt it in principle as it would develop into a long-term scheme and that we would be deriving benefit from it. That was the statement I made and the farmers of Rustenburg are satisfied with the scheme. They support it 100 per cent. But that day I knew that we would be getting these complaints, because members on the other side fought the scheme tooth and nail. Unfortunately the farmers followed their advice and kept their livestock from the market. Now we have the position that the farms are overstocked. This country has gone through difficult times; the consumer almost starved. That was the advice given by members on the opposite side and that was the result. Now the scheme is beginning to work smoothly and the farmers are noticing the effect and the results. Now they want to put their stock on the market and they cannot get permits fast enough because they cannot slaughter so fast. They are going to suffer loss because they cannot send their stock to the market in one bunch. Now again the Minister is being blamed for not issuing permits fast enough. But members on the opposite side will have to give an account of the advice they gave and they will have to bear the consequences. The hon. member for Boshof can say a good deal; we know that he can say a good deal in this House, but he cannot get past the fact that his electors will keep him responsible for the advice he gave them last year.

I am prepared to meet them with you,

When the sheep and cattle begin to starve on account of a lack of grass the farmers will call him to book. As far as I am concerned, I shall continue to support this policy. We are going to make a success of this policy in the country and the farmers will reap the benefit of it. Unfortunately they are going to suffer for a while. I say once again that in spite of all the encouragement the Government has given, in spite of all the premiums on cattle and sheep, those members said: No, we must break that scheme because in doing so we will break Strauss and by breaking Strauss we break the Government. That was the whole object they had in mind. They will have to give an account of the advice they gave. All this talk will be of no avail. The caravan will continue. We are going to make a success of the scheme and the livestock farmers are going to get stable prices.

It is very questionable whether one should pay any attention to what the hon. member who has just sat down has had to say. I would just like to tell him that it was not said on this side “Strauss must go.” It is the father-in-law of a member who now sits over there.

He is not a farmer.

All the same, he is a front bencher on the other side. The English farmers of the Eastern Province also said “Strauss must go.” If they did so on our advice it proves that the English farmers in the Eastern Province have more faith in the Nationalist Party than in the members on the other side. But just listen to the nonsense the member on the other side spoke. He says it was because the farmers listened to us that they do not know what to do with their livestock today.

That is so.

That hon. member should keep quiet; he is selling his livestock outside the controlled areas. Where is the Minister of Lands sending his livestock? Those motives strike me as dissembling.

On a point of order. May the hon. member use those words?

No, the hon. member should withdraw them.

I withdraw. But I say that when people get up in this House and they say they support the scheme and then send their livestock to other than controlled areas, then I have the right to question their actions and motives, whether they are honest or not. I do not lend myself to that sort of thing. I would just like to ask the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) whether he knows that it is as a result of the drought that farmers now have to sell their livestock.

It is only partly as a result of the drought.

If that is the hon. member’s attitude he is revealing ignorance. He comes along and says the scheme is a success. How can it be a success when we find that in December, January and February there was so little meat on the market that the Minister had to import 80,000 carcasses whilst now there is more than enough meat on the market. If that is a success I should like to know what a fiasco is. For four months there is hardly any meat on the market and for the next two months the market is Overstocked.

That is due to the absence of rain.

That hon. member is now coming to his senses. The Minister now rejoices because the farmers have to send their livestock to the market. The drought has become his ally. He now feels that his scheme is a success. Speak to the farmers on the other side, with the exception of the hon. member for East Griqualand (Mr. Fawcett), and listen to what they have to say about the scheme. The hon. member for East Griqualand has also become a lackey to the Minister and we pay no attention to what he says in this House. This scheme cannot be a success, for the following reasons. The most important is the big difference in price between the various grades. I am now speaking of mutton. You have prime, first grade and second grade. Every person who has had any experience of the livestock market knows that in times of plenty primes are priced higher and medium prices drop very considerably, but directly there is a scarcity you have the phenomenon that primes do not decrease in price but mediums rise until they reach the level of primes. Now how has the Minister fixed the prices? Between primes and first grade there is a margin of one penny and between first grade and second grade there is a margin of tuppence. I know on whose advice these prices and grades have been fixed and from where they got this nonsense. In the 1942 index price the difference between prime and first grade was ½d. and beween first and second grades ¾d. Now they have simply doubled the difference. If we point out these matters, members on the other side say we are drawing politics into the matter. I would now like the Minister to listen to the resolution adopted at a meeting of the Karroo Agricultural Union held at De Aar. It was adopted the day before yesterday and I want to say that the majority of those people are supporters of the United Party—

And it goes on—

The Minister is sheltering behind the fact that he has appointed a commission in connection with the grading of meat. I would just like to say to the Minister that the appointment of a commission such as the one he has appointed is not the work of a sensible man. In the first place he appoints Mr. Gert Lotz, a director of the Reserve Bank. Then he appoints Mr. Fawcett who, as we know, is a lackey to the Minister. The Minister says that he is a practical farmer. We know that he is more of a speculator and that he will not deny. Then he appoints the chief grader, Mr. Hershel. He is a person for whom I have the greatest respect, but just imagine, he appoints this man to investigate his own work. Have you ever heard such nonsense? Mr. Gert Lotz has to support the policy of the Government. The member for East Griqualand is a lackey to the Minister and what can we expect from a commission like that. We can understand the Minister flinching from dissatisfaction and his resorting to a scheme which he intends introducing after two years, the so-called permanent scheme. The Minister says that he deferred it on the advice of the Advisory Board. I want to say to him this afternoon that there are certain persons on that board in whom I have no confidence and for whom I have no respect. Do you know what has happened in connection with this scheme? A certain person who was the chairman of a large co-operative society when this scheme was announced, sent me a telegram asking me to support this scheme. But do you know what he does with his own sheep? He is sending them to the uncontrolled market at Stellenbosch. I do not like mentioning names but I am going to mention the name of this person so that the Minister can phone him if he likes. It is Mr. Roux, of Namaqualand. For seven years I have been sending my sheep to “Kaap Sentraal” at Cape Town, where they are sold according to grade and weight. But here we have a scheme which is being controlled in the interests of the middle man and if we were to have such a scheme I would rather see it set aside. There is another point I want to make. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down was such a feeble and false prophet that this House cannot take him seriously. In the course of this Session he predicted that within ten days there would be no meat in Cape Town. He was one of those who advised farmers not to send then sheep to the controlled areas.

On a point of personal explanation, I challenge that member to mention one instance in a private conversation or in a meeting where I told farmers not to send their sheep to a controlled area.

At a public meeting at Murraysburg a question was put to the member pertinently as to what he advised farmers to do. He tried to escape but eventually he admitted that he did not send his sheep to a controlled area and I ask him to deny that.

I deny it. It was an S.A.P. friend who put the question to me. He tried to trap me. I said that I had sent 350 sheep to Johannesburg; Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether you heard what the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J, M. Conradie) has just said here. I understood him to say that I am trying to tell lies to extricate myself.

No, I said that you were caught.

I beg your pardon. I said that I sent 350 sheep to Johannesburg for which I would have received £1 18s. before that time and I got £1 6s. 9d. and the sheep averaged 37 lbs., and when I met the chief grader of the Government he told me that he had seen my sheep and that they weighed 45 lbs. I then said that unless there was an improvement as regards that I would send no more sheep but that I left it to every man to act according to the dictates of his conscience and to send his sheep if he felt so inclined. I said I supported the principle of the scheme because for seven years I have been selling my sheep to the central dépót at Cape Town.

I hope this interruption will not be deducted from my time. The hon. member has condemned himself. It appears not so much from what they say outside but from speeches they make here and from Press reports of their speeches, that every thing had been done to frustrate the scheme because they thought that if they could break Strauss they would break the Government. I would just like to say that as far as the meat scheme is concerned I do not sell my Persians and goats in the controlled area but I do sell all my merinos there. I now move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 9th June.