I move—

In view of the Government’s request to the churches to observe tomorrow morning as a thanksgiving occasion for the copious rains in the interior, church services will be held tomorrow morning, and I think hon. members of the House would surely wish to attend these services, and therefore I move that we do not sit tomorrow in the forenoon, but commence at the usual hour tomorrow afternoon.

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

In the short contribution I hope to make in this debate, I want to confine myself to a discussion of some points in connection with the international situation, and I especially want to confine myself to a discussion of a few points which were raised by the Leader of the Opposition. Other points in this long debate I have to leave to other hon. members. I shall have no time for that. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has given us a sombre representation of the international situation as it is developing in the world today, and I must say we will all agree that the international situation today is dark, and difficult, and serious; and, in certain respects, dangerous. Circumstances totally different from those expected when the war came to an end have arisen. Perhaps people were expecting too much. Perhaps expectations were at too high a pitch for a new world, for the calming down of emotions, for a state of peace. Today we see something quite different; we see a situation developing which to a large extent gives cause for anxiety. There is disruption among the nations and turmoil; there is a spirit of unrest and fomentation which casts a shadow over the future, and, coupled with that, there is a spirit of despondency, a spirit of anxiety which enlarges and aggravates all. In addition to that, there is the physical state of the world in those countries which were ravaged by the war; there starvation, suffering and anxiety have been experienced for years and are still being experienced; and to a certain extent they are still spreading, with the result that the situation in the world is particularly difficult and full of danger. There is darkness ahead of us. A thick cloud shrouds the future, even the near future, and no one today has a clear vision; not even the great visionary statesmen are today seeing how the future, and even the immediate future, will develop. I say that because it makes it so much more imperative for us to be very careful in our actions in discussing this new situation. If there has ever been a time when we were called upon to be cautious, calm and patient, it is today. The world is agitated and is becoming more so; and if the leaders of the world also become confused, you may have a very dangerous situation developing. I am not expecting a state of war in the world for many years. The world is tired and satiated with warfare, and I do not think there is much danger of a war in the near future. The spirit of humanity is moving in altogether another direction. But you can get a state of disorder and lawlessness and chaos in the world which may be almost as destructive as a way itself, and we have to be very cautious in discussing the matter and in our actions. Partiality will take us nowhere. We have to be patient and allow the facts to develop. Let us wait for more light before pronouncing judgment. Let us realise the deep seriousness of the situation, because the position is without a doubt unutterably serious, and we have to realise the deep seriousness and the responsibility which rests upon us in connection with such a situation. The Leader of the Opposition criticised me yesterday. He found fault because on a previous occasion, in discussing the Yalta agreement, I accused him of narrow-mindedness in regard to it. But I did that in the same spirit in which I am speaking today, viz., that one feels that the situation is extremely serious. It was extremely serious at the time, and I criticised him in that spirit. At that time, as hon. members will recall, we were in the midst of a critical period of the war. It was on the eve of the invasion of the Continent of Europe, and we were entering a dangerous stage, and I found fault with the Leader of the Opposition for saying that Yalta was a victory for Russia and that the position had already been lost at Yalta. I held the opinion that with leaders such as the late President Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill it was inconceivable and impossible that men in such a powerful position would capitulate and hand the victory over to Russia, and in my opinion it was an irresponsible opinion for the Leadér of the Opposition to express at that time, something which could just occasion ill-feeling. I criticised the Leader of the Opposition in that spirit, and I have to criticise him in the same spirit today. I do not think, in view of his speech yesterday and the line he took, that he was revealing sufficient responsibility for us to follow. The only thing which appeared from the speech was that Russia is today our enemy. The hon. member spoke of Communism and of Russia without distinguishing between the two. At the stage we have reached today, the difficult situation in which we find ourselves, the misunderstanding among the nations and the leaders, it is no use pointing to Russia and proclaiming her our enemy. That may lead to trouble, and no matter what the facts may be or what truths the future may reveal, I think it is a very undesirable and dangerous attitude to adopt today, and I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is doing the country or the world a favour. You see, I need not point out that what is said here in South Africa, even in this House, travels far. This is not simply a discussion among ourselves for local purposes. It is reported, recorded, and the voice of South Africa is heard all over the world, and it is certainly heard in the centres where the danger is greatest. Everything which is said here by a man in the responsible position of Leader of the Opposition is reported and recorded and on him rests, as he has said, a burden and a responsibility which we have to bear. I do not think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has promoted the matter by pointing to Russia and by proclaiming Russia our enemy. Neither South Africa nor the world will benefit by that. It is not in our interests to make enemies. We know that the situation is dangerous and to say in anticipation who the enemy is and against whom you have to take action is, to my mind, not responsible action.

From where does the danger come then?

The future will reveal where the danger lies. One can have one’s opinion; anyone is at liberty to have his opinion on the course of events, but we have to act very carefully in discussing these matters.

The Leader of the Opposition has made one very remarkable statement, and in many respects that was the most remarkable thing he said, viz. that in the struggle between the ideologies which he sees ahead of us, South Africa will take her stand with the Western powers. You see, that goes very far. I would just like to point out the results. It seems to be an altogether new direction in which the policy of the Nationalist Party is being directed.

Is it something new to you that we are anti-Communistic? You were overseas and perhaps you do not know about that.

The party now says that in the struggle ahead, in the struggle between the ideologies, the Nationalist Party and the whole of the European population of South Africa will group themselves alongside the Western powers. That does not rhyme with the old history of neutrality which we have had.

Don’t impute to me words I never used. Of course we are anti-Communistic. I said our sympathies lie with the Western powers, but we are not going to join in the struggle.

I know, that goes rather a long way, i.e., the position being adopted there. I do not object to that, I am very pleased with the attitude the hon. Leader of the Opposition is taking up. Situations arise in the world such as those we have passed through when no one who desires to do his human duty, i.e., do his duty by his Fatherland, can stand aside and say that he will stand aloof. I can quite understand that, and I am glad to hear from the Leader of the Opposition that that is now his attitude.

We take it then that you will fight against Communism?

I am expressing no opinion, I am speaking of the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition.

Will you allow me to give an explanation? I do not know whether it is the custom of the Prime Minister, but it does sometimes seem so, to impute words to one which were not used. In any case, here it certainly has been the case. I said that in the struggle between the ideologies our sympathies in South Africa are above all anti-Communistic. We stand for democracy. I clearly stated here that our party said so during the last war. That was the unanimous decision in 1941 at the Union Congress of the Nationalist Party and that was the resolution at all the other provincial congresses. Is that not sufficient proof of our attitude? I just want to explain here what I said: Our sympathy is not with Communism but with democracy, i.e., on the side of the Western powers. That was all I said. But I added that we are standing aloof from the struggle in Europe between the countries and ideologies because our danger lies here in South Africa, and we will not be able to spare one single soldier from South Africa to take part in any struggle in Europe. That is what I said, and the hon. Prime Minister should not come along and impute words to me I never used.

I did not intend to impute words to the hon. member he did not use, but my clear impression was as I expressed it just now. His sympathy lies with the Western powers in the struggle which may arise and which may extend to South Africa; it may develop into a struggle between Europeans and non-Europeans, and the European population here will have to stand together.

Yes.

What is wrong with that?

That was not the attitude in the last struggle during the past five or six years. That is a new attitude.

No, surely!

The Leader of the Opposition has called Mr. Churchill as a witness for the attitude which he adopted and he gave his interpretation of Mr. Churchill’s speech and quoted extracts from it to point out the danger. Mr. Churchill is now the chief witness. I now notice from information which appeared this morning that the hon. Leader of the Opposition now agrees with Mr. Stalin. He is making the same accusations and has the same views on Mr. Churchill’s speech.

That is a silly remark.

It may be that both the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Stalin are mistaken in their views on Mr. Churchill’s speech. It is possible. As far as South Africa is concerned, we have had nothing but a brief report of the speech. It was a speech which lasted for more than an hour. There was just a short column in the newspapers in connection with it. I personally find it very difficult to arrive at a conclusion, on the ground of the brief report which has appeared here, as to the situation as Mr. Churchill actually put it. There are certain expressions, but they may have been taken out of their context and you cannot arrive at a conclusion unless you have the entire context. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has placed his interpretation on the statement, and he has given the statement a still sharper colour. In my opinion we must act very carefully in giving such an interpretation to what Mr. Churchill has said. I am not here to defend him. I have the highest opinion of Mr. Churchill and also of his behaviour before and during the war. Nobody has seen further in all the great crises of mankind than Mr. Churchill. I would be fairly careful in ascribing ideas to him that may result in a new world war, or that may give an indication of a new world war. I doubt in all seriousness, if the speech is considered seriously as a whole, whether it will lead to such a conclusion. I do not accept the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Churchill is now his chief witness. It may appear quite otherwise if we get at the truth of the matter. There is the fur they consideration that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has taken only certain extracts from the speech of Mr. Churchill. What Mr. Churchill emphasised especially was that we should exert all our powers to strengthen UNO. In this he did not see, like the Leader of the Opposition, a failure, something that is already lost. On the contrary, in the report as it reached us, he said very clearly that he still puts his hope in the founding and the building up of the new organisation. There is no doubt there. It cannot be otherwise. Mr. Churchill, with all that he has so far done and contributed to make the organisation strong and to found it, could not have adopted any other attitude. To say that he considers UNO a failure, that is unthinkable. Mr. Churchill has always held the view, for years already —he has made numerous speeches on this point — of what he called a “fraternal association” between the English-speaking group. He has always been in favour of it, and he has repeatedly said so in the speeches he has made. That was always his attitude during the war, in the times when he collaborated with Stalin in the heartiest fashion. I think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has taken a one-sided view of Mr. Churchill’s speech, that he attaches his own interpretation to it, and draws conclusions that are unjust to Mr. Churchill, and that cannot be justified. Stalin does the same, but he naturally does it because he feels annoyed about the speech that has been made. We can infer only one thing.

If they are such friends, why should he then feel annoyed?

I am not now talking about friendship. I am talking about the present state of affairs, about the explosive condition existing in the world — the results of which nobody can see. I wish to point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I wish to point out to South Africa that we should not hasten to draw conclusions in one or the other direction.

But I used his own words.

Yes, by extracts here and there. Let us be wise; let us keep our armour bright and be prepared for any difficulties that may come; but let us exert the means at our disposal and our powers to make a success of the world organisation. I think that it is the only line of conduct that we can follow.

There is one matter raised by Stalin that is also receiving serious consideration. You see, to create the impression that Russia is out to make use of power politics, to expand its territory and to spread its power over the whole world is perhaps a totally wrong conception of the matter. Stalin’s interview that has now reached us, shows that he has quite another view. He says: We were attacked; we Russians were attacked by our neighbouring States; the whole German attempt was against us through the door of those countries, and in future we wish to have certainty and security; we do not wish to have it happen in those countries again; we wish to have governments there that will not allow themselves to be used in future to open the door for the enemy to attack us.

Does that include Iran?

I do not know. The hon. member must not ask me that. He must ask Stalin whom he includes. That is an alternative view of the matter. You may say that Russia is out to gain world domination, to play the same part that Hitler wished to play.

Churchill says so.

No, he does not say so. The other view is that of Stalin, which is also a reasonable view, that it is Russia’s aim that it wishes to know that the small States lying around it will not be used again by an enemy to open the door for an attack on Russia. We must be patient. At the moment there is a state of fear and uncertainty in the world. We still have to deal with the aftermath of the spirit of war, and what happened there, which makes the position very difficult, makes it necessary for us not just to draw conclusions that Russia has this or that intention. She says that it is not her intention to make use of power politics, but to have a number of States around her that will not open the door for attacks upon her. It does not look like a war that is coming. I mention this because I wish to urge carefulness. Do not let us come to conclusions too hastily. The world is in an astonishingly difficult position. The spirit obtaining in the world may easily result in the world being thrust in the wrong direction. It does not befit us, therefore, to make hasty judgments, and condemn people who may perhaps have very different and better intentions. Let us act with circumspection and not make the position still worse by speeches made here. There is no doubt that we should be careful. Do not think that what I say here is said in defence of Russia or any other country.

It looks very much like it.

I adhere to what I said three years ago in London, that we are living in a dangerous world. I said it three years ago in a speech that was then called an explosive speech. My attitude was that we are living in a dangerous world, and that peace is not going to comë automatically. A system of peace would not be built up automatically. Grant time; it may take a generation, and it may take more than a generation, before we find the bridge to the future. The world is going through its greatest revolution in its history. It has now been in progress for a generation. It began with the 20th century, and it is still in progress now. We are in the middle of it, and it may be a generation before we get through it. In the meantime, if we wish to protect the interests of the civilisation of mankind for the future, we must see to it that we build a bridge very carefully to get through the revolution. To make hasty judgments now is dangerous. In my opinion, the end of the war is not the end of our difficulties. The great expectation there was of an endless reign of peace immediately after the war was a vain hope. Such things do not happen.

Hear, hear.

Those things take time.

We heard that a better world would come.

We are all looking forward to it. We work and pray for it, but it will not be born like a child tomorrow. No, as I understand the position, the world is passing through an amazing revolution, and things are happening and things will continue happening for years that will give shocks to the world. The old powers are busy falling. Some are becoming weaker and new ones are arising. The world constellation is changing; the social conditions of the world are changing and undergoing a fundamental revolution; and it may take a generation before we work through it. My appeal to humanity is to be patient. Be human; be reasonable, and be prepared. We may not sit and sleep, we must keep our lamp burning, but on the other hand we must not just talk of war and war purposes. If we do this, then we may make the evil still worse.

For us the question is: What can we do under existing conditions in the world? South Africa is a small country; it has no great significance, but we have our contribution to make, as we have done, and we exert a certain amount of influence. We are on the African continent, where we play a fairly important role, and as such we have a position attracting the attention of people even’ in far-off lands. The question is now: What is South Africa’s attitude going to be? In my opinion, there is only one clear line before us, and that is, as things now stand, to support the new organisation of UNO with all our strength. I see no other way. The League of Nations has disappeared. We live in a dangerous World, a world with weapons that have never before existed in history, and that are becoming more and more dangerous. We have made an effort, and it was an effort that so far has gained a certain measure of success, that has had more success than was expected of the new peace organisation.

If the Security Council does not function, how can it then help in a difficult period?

If it does not function, then the whole organisation may collapse. Look at what has happened. There was a very difficult state of affairs, but take what happened in London during the last meeting of the Security Council. Nobody can say that it was a failure. Even the right of veto was used, but although no decisions were taken, a conclusion was nevertheless reached, and a line of conduct was adopted that assisted matters. There is no doubt that the free speech that existed on the Security Council was of very great use. In my opinion it was good that the Great Powers in discussing matters amongst themselves spoke frankly and freely and did not think out formulas, such as happened at Geneva, to cover disputes. Let them fight it out there amongst themselves. That was the line of conduct followed by the Security Council in London, and it was not without good results. UNO and the Security Council must remain in operation. The right of veto will sometimes be applied. Let it come. But use this new, this only weapon of peace that we have. The contrast is only the atomic bomb and only the weapons with which fighting takes place. The only weapon of peace that humanity possesses is this new organisation formed by 51 nations. Let us give all our powers to it. It will not be a success at once. There will undoubtedly be setbacks and failures. It is something that may perhaps take years and a generation to form a firm bulwark for peace, but give it a chance. Do not think too much of war and think that everything is lost. Do not give the impression that we are moving forward between ideologies after a great war. In my opinion that is the way to destruction. The new weapons and inventions are too dangerous; this way is the most dangerous way that will lead to the destruction not only of civilisation, but of humanity itself. I therefore say that my advice in the first place is to stand by UNO, even if it is not a success in all respects, and even if it still has to overcome many difficulties. We as a young nation have every reason to devote our energies to it, and we are going to do so. We are going to put our own house in order, look to our own defence to defend our own land. It is obvious that we have to do this, and it is very possible that in the immediate future financial and other burdens will be laid on us that will be heavier than before. But that is because we are not only going to support the organisation of the nations, but because we wish to be prepared. Build up UNO, and build up in our own country to make our country safe. That is the line of conduct that I think we should follow in these times, and that is the line of conduct we are going to follow.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition has put certain questions to me. What about the future and the conferences that are to be held? A conference will be held, a so-called peace conferénce in Paris, where decisions will be taken about the Japanese possessions in the Far East and about the Italian possessions in Africa that will be taken from those countries. These are the questions that will be discussed at the peace conference of Paris. There will be a preliminary discussion between the Prime Ministers in London. Naturally it is of the greatest importance to us first to exchange our views in order to see what our interests in the matter demand. Take for example the islands in the Far East near Australia and New Zealand. It is a question how to deal with it. This will be discussed. So also the question of the Italian possessions in North Africa. It is essential in my opinion and it is also desirable that those questions should be discussed by the Prime Ministers so that we can see what our common interest is and what is the best line to follow at the eventual congress. The question of the Italian colonies in North Africa touches South Africa very closely. We have learnt that it is of great importance for the position in the Mediterranean Sea. We have the greatest interest to see that an arrangement is made in connection with the Italian colonies that will not be dangerous to the future of South Africa. We have interest in everything touching the African continent. [Extension of time.] I shall not keep the House busy much longer. We have learnt that everything affecting the African continent also affects us, and we must keep our eyes open for our interests in Africa. All these dispositions on the colonies in North Africa and along the coast of the Mediterranean Sea may affect us. I know how difficult the situation is. There will be numerous difficulties, and I think that we should discuss these matters in London before we proceed to the conference in Paris.

The hon. member has further asked whether bonds will not be imposed upon us that will bind or chain us anew. I wish to set his mind at ease in that respect. I do not have the least intention and expectation that such things will be demanded. The demands as far as defence are concerned were laid down in the Charter of San Francisco and they were approved by this House. If anything is necessary for defence outside the boundaries of South Africa, then it is for UNO to consult us and to make an agreement with us on what should be done. Any bonds that will bind us are already finished and they were laid before this Parliament.

I spoke about a special agreement with England in case of a possible war, and I said that you must not go and bind South Africa.

That is obvious. I do not believe such things will be raised. I have not the least idea that it will be brought up. If it does happen then it will make the difficulties that now exist a thousand times worse because it will be a combination that will bring the whole world into commotion.

You do not know precisely what will be discussed there.

Except the question of the colonies in the East and round the Mediterranean Sea. That is the matter that will be dealt with.

What about the association of the English-speaking countries?

That is an ideal that has been expressed. It is a good thing, but it is not a practical measure, and if we now go and make an attempt to found such an association within the greater union of the United Nations, then it will immediately be taken as a challenge by the other nations, and it will give rise to all kinds of difficulties in connection with which the organisation was not intended to act. I think that hon. members on the other side are still filled with the fear of bonds from outside, and they cannot set them aside. There will be nothing of the sort, and if anything is done, then this Parliament will be able to decide about it.

Hear, hear.

There is no question about that. Nothing else can happen. The only bonds that bind us have been approved in the Charter. Only one word in conclusion, and that is to direct a word of warning to the hon. Leader of the Opposition on the last point raised by him in his speech, and that is the possibility of a quarrel and possibly a struggle between Europeans and non-Europeans in South Africa. I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of such a thing happening if we Europeans do our duty and if we act fairly towards all coloured people and if we follow a social policy that will undermine communism in the country and strike it at its roots. If South Africa follows such a policy not only in regard to the European population but also in connection with the non-Europeans, no such struggle will come.

I said so.

There I agree with the hon. member. Then there is no possibility of any communism in the country on a large scale. The attempt now being made to start communism in the country arises to a certain extent out of the internal local condition. We do not see an external or foreign influence behind the movement. All that we can see are internal difficulties and bad conditions giving rise to such results that people grasp at a stupid weapon, at an impossible weapon such as communism, which is an impossible weapon in a country such as South Africa, to find a way out. If we do our duty overseas towards UNO and if we put our house in order in South Africa as far as defence is concerned, and if we do our social duties towards all sections of the population, honestly and sincerely, I see no chance of trouble as far as South Africa is concerned. I think that that is the line which we should follow, and the less we speculate about the possibilities of great wars in the world, and the less we fan the wind that is already blowing— because that spirit is on the move in the world—it is fanned by irresponsible advice— the less we do that kind of thing, the better it would be for South Africa. I do not take a pessimistic view of the future. If I am pessimistic, then it is only about the question of time. The solution of the evils of the world will take time, and will not happen tomorrow. It did not happen at San Francisco, and it will not happen here or there in the near future. A change must come in the world. For that, time is necessary. But if we do our duty carefully, then it is going to happen. A new spirit will appear. Mankind will become tired of the struggling and intrigue that is going on, a better spirit will come and create the atmosphere for the new conditions that we desire. That is possible. And if we work in that direction I do not believe that there is any possible danger in future in the path of South Africa.

It is the custom of this House to devote four days to the discussion of the Budget in general and that the last of those four days be used for the Railway Budget. Today I wish to restrict myself to the Railway Budget. I just wish to say in advance that the Hon. the Prime Minister has tried to read the Leader of the Opposition a lesson because he read out extracts from the speech of Mr. Churchill. In his opinion the conclusions drawn were not correct. But it would have been more effective if the Prime Minister had taken a few quotations and tested whether they are wrong. The same conclusions drawn by the Leader of the Opposition were also drawn in England and America, and now also in Russia. They could, therefore, not have been wrong. The Prime Minister suggests that our armour should be kept bright. In other words, there must be an armaments competition. An armaments competition usually ends in war. We cannot keep our armour bright without remembering that other countries also keep their armour bright. The potential enemy also does so, and this results in war. You cannot alone keep your armour bright; your potential enemies also keep their armour bright, and the final result of it is war. The hon. the Minister of Transport has lately achieved fame as a life-saver. We learnt the other day that with great presence of mind he did rescue work here in Table Bay and saved a few young fellows from the jaws of sharks. He has also rescued the deficit that he had and the deficit that he intends having next year from the jaws of the sharks. This budget of the Minister of Transport is certainly one of the finest camouflaged budgets that has yet been introduced in this House. It is par excellence an artificial budget that the Minister has put before the House. The financial position of the Railways apparently still seems very favourably, and he has gained that favourable position by juggling a bit with the Reserve Fund of the Railways. If he had not done so, if he had not juggled with the Reserve Fund of the Railways, then he could not get that apparently favourable financial position of the Railways. Last year the Minister budgeted for a deficit of £19,000. In the course of the year he raised the tariffs by 10 per cent., and he now expects in his revised budget a deficit of between £1¼ million and £1½ million. That is the position as he now represents it. He budgets for the following year to a deficit of £50,000 and if we accept it so, the position seems to be fairly favourable. But what the Minister forgets to emphasise is that in order to obtain a deficit of £1¼ to £1½ million, he has robbed his Renewals Fund of an amount of £1¼ million, and only by adding this to his income that he is now able to expect a deficit of £1¼ to £1½ million. He has also in order to reduce his deficit for next year robbed the same fund of an amount of over £2 million, and he uses that money for income and then he budgets to have a deficit of £50,000. That is the attitude he adopts, but he goes still further. He goes to his bankrupt Superannuation Fund that is already insolvent and takes an amount of £441,000 from it and this he uses as income, and then, after he has made these raids on these two important funds of the Railways, he says that he expects a deficit of £50,000. The hon. Minister has boasted that he is an experienced business man, that he has successfully done business, that when I and others were still at school he had already made a success of his business. It seems to me that the hon. Minister finds it easy with his business knowledge and his business skill to create surpluses, that it does not depend on the income of the Railways. In future it will not be necessary for the Railways to have a surplus. If they have a deficit the Minister is able with his skill to transform it into a surplus. The Railways do not have a Capital Redemption Fund. All other businesses have such a fund. That is good business. The fathers of the Constitution in South Africa did not find it advisable to give the Railways such a fund, but they created other important funds in the Railways, and those funds must be maintained and must be built up strongly so that that money can be used to do certain work. The most important of these funds is your Renewals Fund. Every year a fixed amount is taken from income and deposited in the Renewals Fund. That amount is not fixed arbitrarily; it is not an artificial amount. That amount is fixed scientifically so that when the assets have been used up there must be enough money in the Reserve Fund to replace those assets. These funds play an essential part in the existence of the Railways and the funds must be kept sound. I wish to give an example. If the life of an engine is estimated at thirty years and it costs £30,000, the Railways must pay an amount of £1,000 into the Renewals Fund every year for the locomotive, so that when the thirty years are past and the engine is worked out, then there is money to buy a new engine. I say the funds are fixed on a scientific basis. In 1934 we had the Grenville Commission consisting of people of high standard in the Railway Industry, experienced people who made an enquiry and brought out a very valuable report in connection with the Railway Administration and its activities, and they found that the percentage that has to be contributed to the fund should be 100 per cent. of the total amount of the depreciation on the capital valuation. Mr. Pirow felt that he should not do this and contributed only 60 per cent., but gradually it was found that the 60 per cent was inadequate and he had to take money out of the surplus and pay it into the fund to keep the fund strong enough to be able to meet its obligations. The Hon. Minister has now again appointed a commission of experts consisting of people who have years of experience in the depreciation of rolling stock, and that commission has again suggested that the contribution to this fund should be 100 per cent. a year, and the Minister then accepted it. He then paid 100 per cent. into the fund every year, but last year the Minister saw that his income shot up and his expenditure shot up and that his income could no longer overtake the expenditure. Then he was forced to do something, and what did he do then? He called the Railway Board, laymen in the sphere of wear and tear and depreciation, to decide to throw overboard that scientific percentage fixed by experts. What does the Railway Board know about wear and tear or depreciation? The Minister appoints his own people who have had years of experience in connection with the matter and they fix the percentage, and then he calls together the Railway Board consisting of laymen to throw overboard that recommendation of the experts, and they decide to reduce the level of contribution to 50 per cent. Thereby the Minister gained from October last year up to the end of this financial year an amount of over £1 million. If he had adhered to a sound railway policy his deficit should have been £2½ million by the end of this financial year and not £1½ million, but only by robbing this fund of more than £1 million can he announce to this House that he expects a deficit of £1½ million. It should have been £2½ million. The annual contribution to this fund is more or less £2,340,000. That is on the 100 per cent. basis. The Minister proposes to reduce the contribution in the following financial year by 50 per cent., i.e. he is going to take £2,340,000 from this fund and add it to his income, and then he still expects a deficit. What does he do next? He goes and plunders his Superannuation Fund to an amount of £441,000 and he adds it to his income and now he says that he expects a deficit of £50,000. This is what the Minister calls sounds finance. He manipulated his whole Budget. I wish to say this, that if the Minister can do this then it is impossible for the Minister to have a deficit for a few years, whatever the income of the Railways may be. The Minister further pointed out that the fund stands at approximately £16,000,000, and because that is so, he says: Look, I spend approximately £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 out of that fund today to buy new engines and rolling stock, but it will still take a few years before I spend that money and therefore I am entitled in the meantime to borrow money from that fund to use it in order to increase my income. But if that can be allowed the Minister might as well go and borrow money from his Pension Fund and add it to his income and then he can show a surplus. He can create completely artificial surpluses whenever he wishes, and this the Minister calls a sound financial policy. He reminds us, when we express doubts about measures of this type, that he is an experienced business man and that we are merely school children in comparison to him. But I shall let the Minister himself give evidence precisely how serious the position is in regard to rolling stock on the railways. Last year he pointed out in his Budget speech that the rolling stock on the railways that has to be supplemented from this fund, is in an extremely critical state. This is what he said—

This is the critical state in which his rolling stock finds itself, and this does not apply to rolling stock but to all capital assets, stations, railway coaches, and all other capital assets. Last year in his Budget of capital expenditure for the year ending 1946 the Minister budgeted to spend on rolling stock alone an amount of £42,000,000, and of that amount he proposed to spend £5,300,000 by the end of last year, and he proposed to spend another amount of about £5,295,000 by the end of this month, and he left over an amount of approximately £31½ million that he still has to spend in order to buy trucks and engines and railway coaches, etc. If this is deducted, then his Reserve Fund is less than £10i million. This shows that the condition of his Renewals Fund is not adequate to meet the obligations that it has to meet. The Hon. Minister boasts that he is constantly beating records. He made a record as regards train-miles and also other records, but he must not forget that when he is beating records in using his trains at a high rate for traffic, then he is also beating records of wear and tear and depreciation. While he is beating those records, the Minister is also reducing the amount that he will contribute to the fund created to replace that worn-out material to 50 per cent., and then he tells us that that is good business. The Hon. Minister has in his desperate attempt to lay his hands on money in order to balance his income and expenditure, robbed the Pension Fund of an amount of £441,000 a year. What is the position of this fund? In 1939 the actuaries found that there was a deficit of £6,500,000 in the fund. In other words, the fund is hopelessly bankrupt, and they then suggested, and the Minister accepted it, that for 23 years he must pay an extra amount of £441,000 into the fund to make the fund solvent again, but the Minister is compelled under the Pension Act to keep the fund solvent out of railway income, and if the fund is not solvent he has to pay money into it and make the fund solvent. What does the Minister do now? He now stops the payment of this £441,000 from the next financial year. The Minister said in his opening speech that factors have appeared that may perhaps bring about a change in the fund. I am sorry that the Minister was not more frank and did not tell us what those factors are. I shall now tell the House what those factors are. The Minister is going to make certain improvements on the railways that will make this fund still more bankrupt. In 1937 Mr. Pirow added the responsibility allowances then paid to the staff to the pensionable wages and salaries of his staff, and the actuaries state that that addition, that those gradings which took place then, resulted in the fund going millions of pounds bankrupt. But the Minister has now done much more. The actuaries are now busy drawing up the report, but I say this—and we shall see whether I am right— that the Minister is making that fund bankrupt with a further few million pounds, and while he makes the fund bankrupt with a further few million pounds, he goes and stops the contribution that he has to make to the fund every year. He does this to obtain income so that he can make his income and expenditure balance. I am sure that even the Minister, with all his business experience, cannot say that that is sound finance. It seems as if the Minister is scattering his traditional Scotch carefulness and thrift to the four winds of the earth. I took it that the Minister, true to his origin, was a careful and thrifty man, but, judging by the way expenses are incurred, it really seems to me that the Minister has said farewell to carefulness and thrift. The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) gave the Minister details of reckless extravagance on the railways, and I do not wish to go into the details again, but I wish to point out to the Minister that the Auditor-General reports to Parliament that in 1942 there were 473 senior officials on the railways drawing a salary of £850 a year or more. Within three years the Minister pushed the number up to 774. There were 473 officials receiving more than £850 a year, and within, a period of three years, states the Auditor-General, the number was increased to 774. The hon. member for Vredefort has here showed very effectively how new posts are created and how officials are appointed in posts that formerly were not necessary. I just wish to say this, that the Minister in his zeal to create new posts in order to promote certain officials, goes so far as to make that regarding at such a rate that some officials do not even have the opportunity of assuming duty in the new post before they are again promoted to the next post. I am thinking of officials appointed in a post created at £1,600 a year. Nobody assumed duty in that post, and before the official concerned could assume duty in that post he was appointed to another post at £1,800 a year. In this way the lift system has been used. Through it the Minister has placed an unbearable burden on the railways. He has made the railways top-heavy. I say that these increases are going to affect the pension scale radically; these increases are going to cause greater deficits in the Pension Fund, and while the Minister does this he comes and takes his contribution to the already bankrupt Pension Fund away, ’ and he expects us to be satisfied if he uses that money for income to cover his expenditure. The Minister budgets for an expenditure of £64,000,000. Do you know that the wage account of the Railways alone amounts to £34,000,000? But that is not all. To this must be added a cost of living allowance of £7 million. £4 million must also be added for overtime, in other words, over £40 million of his £64 million budget goes only to wages and salaries. I say that the Minister has in recent times been very careless, especially in connection with his high officials and the creation of new posts at high salaries, and that he spends money in a wasteful fashion. The Minister has 175,000 officials in the Railway service, and he tells us that 9,000 more railway officials are returning from military service. He tells us that he has appointed 7,000 returned soldiers in the service that were not previously on the railways, and he says that there is still plenty of room. In other words, it seems to me that he wishes to push the number of railway officials up to 196,000. The Minister says that the six years’ war experience of those 7,000 officials that were not in the service previously will count as railway service for purposes of promotion and grading. The Minister is busy loading his pension fund with extra burdens which he imposes on it, and while he does this he stops his contribution to that fund. I say that the Minister himself will realise that that is not good business. The Minister is today in a precarious position as far as railway finances are concerned. I think that we on this side can wash our hands in innocence. We have tried to save the Minister. In the years when he had millions of pounds in surpluses we warned him that he must build up his Tariff Reserve Fund and make that fund strong. We said that if he did this he would be able to use that fund when one day the reaction began.

Then he says we are Jeremiahs.

Yes, the Minister said that the policy which I suggest is a panicky policy. He says he does not allow scare-mongers to get him on the run. I then asked that he should at least increase that fund to £10 million. That was the policy of this side of the House. The Minister would not agree. But a year later the Minister saw what had happened, and then he increased the fund to just under £10 million. Then he made a speech in the House and said that he had decided to follow the sensible policy of his colleague in Rhodesia of making his Reserve Fund strong, and he said that if he had followed that sensible policy before we would have had a Reserve Fund of £20 million and not £10 million. But when we on this side asked him to do this he said that we were scaremongers. Today the Minister sits on the ash heap of lost opportunities. Now it is too late. There is no longer an opportunity of building up the Reserve Fund out of surpluses. Now he is tampering with the Reserve Fund in order to help cover his expenditure. During the time of surpluses the Minister acted like a Father Christmas. He distributed presents right and left. He also gave presents to the Defence Force. The cavalcades received presents; the peoples of other countries received presents. Like a big Father Christmas he gave presents to all these people. I say that that opportunity is past today. Today he can no longer distribute presents, but he now has to take money out of the Reserve Fund in order to make his income and expenditure balance. What struck me is that the first step in the direction of economy taken by the Minister in this desperate position in which he finds himself today, is to attack the European labour policy. The Minister has said that he has appointed a commission to enquire into the policy because the continued existence of the policy is impossible. He ascribes it to the fact that he cannot obtain European labourers. The Minister will pardon me if I say that he makes me think of the Jagger regime. After the first world war, when he also began getting deficits, he went and made the position of the European labourers on the railways so precarious, so unbearable, so untenable, that they had to leave in order to make room for cheap native labour so that Mr. Jagger could make his income and expenditure balance, until Sir William Hoy, his general manager, stated in his report that the condition of European labourers on the railways was so bad that it was worse than that of the kaffirs. I see the Minister shaking his head. I say Sir William Hoy said this of the Jagger regime.

The Railways must then have been in a critical state when I took over.

You did not take over from Mr. Jagger.

That European labour policy was instituted not with the purpose of making those people work for years and years on the railways as European labourers, but to give them an opportunity of working themselves up to the position of station masters and station foremen. I remember how the late Minister Charlie Malan one day proudly said to me: “Haywood, the European railway labourer can become General Manager, there is nothing to prevent him.” But it did not remain at that. The late Mr. Charlie Malan introduced evening classes where these people could further qualify themselves and work themselves up. That is the European labour policy introduced by the Nationalist Party. They did not like the old S.A.P. Government bringing thousands of people from overseas and crowding the service with them. The present Minister is again doing this. He has admitted that he has already brought 170 artisans from overseas and pushed them into service here. That was the policy at that time also. Only the other day I got a complaint from my own constituency that European labourers have to work in the same shed with kaffirs. I asked to see the System Manager and asked Advocate Swart to go with me. We met the System Manager there and found that it was true that black gangs worked together with European gangs. What reason was given for this state of affairs? We called the people together and the System Manager was there, and the excuse was that they could not obtain European labourers. But in the presence of the officials a European labourer said that they have to come on duty before seven o’clock and that they have to work to one o’clock without a drink or bite of food. They related how one person towards eleven o’clock ate a piece of bread, and that it was taken from his hands and thrown under a truck. Surely that is not civilised treatment, but uncivilised treatment, and in this way the present administration will make conditions impossible for the European labourers and force them out. If the Minister treated these people decently like Europeans and give them a break when they have to work from seven o’clock to one o’clock, if the people are treated as living souls then he will get more European labourers. If he will see to it that the people get a chance of promotion, he will get more people. The Minister is now again beginning to import people from overseas, and he is paying £40 and £50 a month to artisans from overseas. There is already a considerable number. In my constituency there is a person working as European labourer and in his spare time he makes furniture for a furniture factory. I have seen it. It is of the best. I took him to the Administration and said: Can you not make an artisan of the man, as a joiner? The answer was: “Sorry, we cannot do it, because he has not passed through his apprenticeship.” Here in South Africa our citizens are expected and required to pass through an apprenticeship to become artisans and earn £40 or £50 a month, but people from overseas are imported and merely given a test, and if the test is satisfactory they become artisans at £40 a month. Our own citizens do not get the opportunity and have to work for hunger wages. It is time that the other side of the House developed a little more national feeling and looked after our Union citizens. A week ago somebody told me that he had met a person from overseas who wished to find work. He said that he could not find or obtain work because he was not an artisan. Shortly afterwards he met the person in the street with a brush on his way to his work. Then he told him that he was now a painter, that he had been appointed. He receives a wage of 3s. to 4s. an hour, but our own citizens do not get the opportunity. I ask the Minister to act more sympathetically towards our own people and to give European labourers the opportunity of becoming artisans even if they are over 21 years. Among them there are born artisans, carpenters, painters, etc. But discrimination is taking place against them. I appeal to the Minister to be sympathetic towards these people. Then he will get European labourers in the Railway service, because then there will be chances of promotion for them.

There is no doubt that the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Haywood) feels that as a member of the Opposition in criticising this Budget it is his duty to make a mountain out of a molehill. After listening very carefully to what he said I am satisfied that he has not even made an ant-heap out of his criticism. One often hears from Opposition members that they are vitally concerned about the Railways staff.

But today their arguments are not in their favour. One of their arguments in criticising the Budget is based on the Minister’s attitude in reducing the contribution to the Renewals Fund by 50 per cent. I feel that the Minister has done the right thing. His predecessors, whenever they found it difficult to balance the Budget, usually resorted to reducing the conditions of service of the staff. I think it is clear to each and everyone in this House that in view of the fact that it was impossible for the Administration to import new rolling stock, they had to prolong the life of the existing rolling stock by spending a tremendous amount of money on it. The Minister has therefore done the correct thing by not contributing the ordinary amounts to the Renewals Fund. When one remembers the increased cost of materials and the heavy additional expenditure of overhauling and prolonging the life of rolling stock, which amounted to millions of pounds, and bearing in mind that the Renewals Fund stands at the healthy figure of approximately £17 million, it is only right under such abnormal circumstances that the contribution to the fund should be smaller. To me it seems as if nothing would have pleased the Opposition more than if the Minister, in order to make good the deficit, had resorted to the practice of his predecessors, viz. balancing the budget at the expense of the staff. They would have been very pleased indeed, not from the point of injuring the staff, but from the point of making the Minister unpopular. I regard this as an excellent Budget, because, notwithstanding the millions paid in cost-of-living allowances to the staff, the tremendous expenditure for unavoidable overtime, the substantial improvements in conditions of service, and an all-round increase in salaries and wages, the latter item alone costing £4 million per annum, the Minister has found it necessary to increase tariffs by only 10 per cent. I think it is a marvellous achievement, and as an ex-railway man I can assure the House that never before in the history of the railways have greater concessions been granted to the railway staff. I only hope that, rather than resorting to taking away concessions from the staff and as long as the Renewals Fund stands at a high figure, the Minister will continue to find the means of balancing his Budget by making a smaller contribution to that fund. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) referred to the rapid increase in the salaries of the higher paid officials. There has been a big and necessary increase in staff, as well as in the salaries of the higher paid officials. That only goes to prove how rightly fair, generous and big-hearted the Minister has been to the staff. For over 30 years the staff in the more senior positions were badly paid. The fact that the activities on the railways have increased tremendously during the last few years explains the necessary rapid increase in the additional higher posts created during the last few years. I am certain that the staff, English- and Afrikaans-speaking, all good South Africans, will not compliment the hon. member (Mr. Haywood) for quarrelling with this rapid increase, which was long overdue. The hon. member has also referred to the lack of opportunities for promotion granted to the lower paid individual, the rail worker, or European labourer. I must say that rapid strides have been made in the upliftment of these unfortunate people. I will remind the hon. member that the Minister in his Budget speech mentioned very definitely that an important committee had been appointed with a member of the Railway Board as chairman, to go into the whole question of seeing what further opportunities could be afforded European labourers to gain advancement in the service. I realise that the Administration is finding great difficulty in keeping that section of the staff up to strength, and I know the reason which is that with better educational facilities and more opportunities offering in employment elsewhere, outside Government service, the day will come, and it is not very far away, when the Administration will not be able to obtain any European labour to fill the ranks of the rail workers at present rates of pay. However, I am certain that when this committee of senior officers make their report to the Minister, the Opposition will have no cause to complain in so far as opportunities for the lower paid staff are concerned. It has been mentioned by other speakers on the ordinary Budget that the means test which applies also to the Railway pensioner should be abolished. I want to direct an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider very seriously the abolition of the means test. I said before and say again that it is wrong in principle, and absolutely iniquitous. I do not know that the means test is applied anywhere else, and I think that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways should take a leaf out of the book of the Johannesburg Municipality where there is no means test. I feel that a pension to a Government servant is granted on the basis of the value of the pound. To introduce a means test is to place a premium on thriftlessness. To show how unfairly it acts, I need only quote the case of an official who had 40 years’ pensionable service. His pension is £249 per annum. Through being thrifty he possessed a house, but on account of serious illness medical authorities recommended that he should leave the Transvaal and come down to the Cape.

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

When the House adjourned I was saying that the pensioner proceeded to Cape Town after selling his house in the Transvaal for £1,250, which amount he intended investing in a home at Cape Town, but he has not been able to obtain a house. Being a pensioner with £249 per annum, under £250, which was the cost of living allowance limit adopted, he made application, but was informed that in view of the £1,250 savings he possessed, regarded as such under this means test, he was not entitled to a cost of living allowance. I maintain* that that is grossly unfair. An individual and his wife plus an invalid child have to live on £249. He has not been able to purchase a home to replace the one he possessed in the Transvaal, but is compelled to pay just on £20 a month to live in Cape Town, leaving him a balance of a matter of 16s. 8d. a month to purchase incidentals. Under such circumstances, it is absolutely impossible to use any form of transport or buy clothes. I understand, in arriving at the means test for pensioners, it is argued by the powers that be that a pensioner does not require, as in the case of a Government employee, the same amount of clothes or to spend much on transport. That may be so. But at the same time, realising the tremendous increase in the cost of living today, and the depreciated value of the pound, how is it possible for these pensioners to live? I must emphasise, as I have emphasised on previous occasions, that if the means test is not applied to Government servants who have other means, I cannot for the life of me understand why it must be applied to pensioners. Although I was a party to drawing the extra session allowance granted to members of Parliament last year to meet extra cost of living, I would like to know why the means test was not applied in our case.

I have received just on 1,000 letters from pensioners throughout South Africa on this question. They are in a file right here on my desk for any member to see. They make pitiable reading. When this question was raised through the Press and these pensioners asked whether any member of Parliament was prepared to fight their case, I fell into the trap by replying, and landed myself with so many appeals, I advised them to approach their respective members of Parliament, and that no doubt they have done. Whether a member is on this side or the other side of the House, belonging to the Dominion, Labour or Herenigde Party, I have no doubt they all feel with me that this means test should and must be wiped out. I want to remind the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance that I feel so concerned about these pensioners, who are the pioneers of the country, that, in view of the bitter feeling of the pensioners and their lack of faith in members of Parliament who they think can but won’t do something for them, it is my intention, if I fail to soften the hearts of the Ministers, to ask members from all sides of the House to form a deputation to make a last appeal to the Ministers to see whether something cannot be done to have the means test abolished.

I would also like to make an appeal to the Minister in connection with re-employed pensioners. I understand these re-employed pensioners, with their ripe experience, who were recalled to replace members of the staff anxious to proceed on active service, will in return for their wonderful job of work be given a gratuity of 13 days’ pay for every year’s service, provided they have not had less than five years’ service. I do not know why the Minister has made the stipulation of not less than five years’ service, because these men, as I said before, performed an excellent job of work in keeping our railways going. I feel that they were really part of our military forces on the home front. And when one takes into account that a soldier’s gratuity is at the rate of £1 10s. a month for every month’s service after a matter of three or six months’ service, I appeal to the Minister that it would be definitely a great injustice to these old men who gave of their best services, even if it were only one, two, three or four years’ service. It does seem unfair that two men working side by side, one having four years and 11 months’ service gets nothing, while the other man, with five years’ service is paid a gratuity of five times 13 days’ pay. I would also like to ask the Minister to have an investigation made into the question of meals on dining cars. I feel that they are definitely on the downward grade. I appreciate the difficulties which we all experience when it comes to foodstuffs, but at the same time there is room for some definite improvement.

In conclusion, when one realises that the public are being called upon to bear the burden of only 10 per cent. in increased tariffs on pre-war rates to meet the tremendous additional expenditure in overtime, the abnormal prices that have to be paid for materials, together with the most important fact to me that the staff have had a square and generous deal from the Minister, I am certain that the Opposition, but for selfish party considerations, must agree with me that the Budget presented by the Minister to this House is a first-class one.

I want to start at once where the last speaker stopped. He stated that the House would agree with him that this Budget is a first-class budget. If that is his opinion I can only come to the conclusion that in his case it is—to use an English expression—a case of wishful thinking. When one bears in mind the facts, one cannot make a statement of this kind. The Minister of Finance is in the House. He has repeatedly told the House how good the financial position of the country is. And now the Minister of Transport comes forward with estimates which reveal a deficit of £1¼ million on the Railways, and then we find that a member on the other side says that this is a first-class budget. I can only say that in saying that he speaks against his better judgment. How can the hon. member convince other people when he does not believe that himself? We did not hear a single “hear hear’’ from the other side. The hon. member himself did not believe it because he contradicted himself.

It is noteworthy under what circumstances the estimates were introduced. The Minister has introduced estimates in this House for seven years. For six years he has shown surpluses, and now in the seventh year he is faced with a deficit. What is noteworthy is that this is the first year after the war; and in saying that he is faced with a deficit I say it emphatically. This side of the House said year after year that at the rate at which the Minister of Transport carried on adverse times would arrive and that that would be just after the war. The Minister of Transport did not believe it. He did not believe that there would be bad times; he did not believe that the day of judgment would arrive as far as the Railways are concerned. We always pointed out that as the Minister was carrying on, the day of judgment would come after the war when there would be a general slackening and depression. But these estimates are noteworthy because the Railways are showing a deficit during a period of prosperity, at a time when according to the Minister of Finance the country’s financial position is excellent. If this deficit had come after the war, during a period of depression, it would not have been so disturbing, but it comes before there is a depression. It should be noted how the Minister introduced his budget. He began, as he has always done, by speaking of records. That was how the Minister introduced his budget. He referred to the records which had been broken in connection with goods traffic, in connection with passenger traffic and the record figures as far as coal traffic is concerned. That is during a period of prosperity. That is why this deficit is so noteworthy. And let me say at once that it is not a deficit of £1,250,000, as the Minister stated, but a deficit of £2,250,000, because he took £1 million out of the Renewals Fund. I want to deal for a few moments with the method adopted by the Minister. I want to tell him that this side of the House does not lack confidence in the future of this country and its development, nor do we ever blame the Minister of Transport when he expresses full confidence in the development and expansion of our country. What we do hold against him is his over-optimism in his own capabilities. The Minister has got into the habit of always presenting himself to this House as a successful businessman. He suffers from over-optimism. He can be as successful as he likes but one has to face hard facts, and that is where the Minister made a mistake. He believed to such an extent in his own capabilities that he always turned a deaf ear to the warnings of members on this side or even on the other side. His conceitedness in his own success, in his ability to convert deficits into surpluses and his belief that the evil day would not arrive, played tricks on him. It is noteworthy because last year the Minister estimated for a deficit of £19,000, not because the revenue decreased; the revenue was £3,500,000 more than the Minister estimated. It has not been a period of depression therefore, but unfortunately for the Minister and his estimates the expenditure also rose. A few weeks ago the Minister stated that unfortunately he had made only a minor mistake as far as the estimates for 1945-’46 are concerned, and that is that he under-estimated the expenditure. The expenditure was a great deal higher but unfortunately the expenditure rose more sharply than the revenue. Although the revenue increased by £3,500,000 the expenditure increased by £4,775,000. Consequently there was a deficit. In examining the Minister’s efficiency over this period of seven years in which he controlled the Railways, we cannot help thinking of the records that were broken, and we ask ourselves how he acted during that time of records and surpluses and how he is acting at the present time when there is a deficit. It is then that one discovers whether a Minister is efficient or not, and one also discovers what his views are. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) pointed out that during the time of surpluses the Minister distributed presents like Father Christmas to the Department of Defence in the form of rebates, right up to the Belgian Congo, by selling trucks and locomotives right up to Uganda, by allowing the Minister of Finance to impose a tax on the Railways, quite unlawfully. That was how he acted during the period of surpluses, but the Minister stated that he was building up huge reserves during the period of surpluses. That is all very well, but let us see how the Minister treated his staff during this time of surpluses. It is true that the Minister doubled the number of senior posts during his term of office but how did he treat the lowly paid officials during this period of surpluses? Year after year the Minister failed to bring about improvements. When did he start to bring about improvements? Eight months before the war came to an end — on 1st October, 1944. During the six years of war the Minister did nothing, but when the war came to an end, and when we told the Minister that the red light was showing, that we must be careful, he proceeded to do something for the lowly paid Railway officials. When I listened to the—I am tempted to say—nonsensical and ridiculous argument as to why the number of senior posts had been doubled, I could hardly believe my own ears. The Minister says that the number of senior posts were increased because the work had increased to a great extent, but does that not apply to the lower ranks as well? Is it only the work of the senior officials that has increased? Of course not. I do not propose to fake that nonsensical argument any further. I want to confine myself now to the deficit of £1,250,000 or rather the deficit of £2,250,000, on the Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1946. The Minister estimates a deficit of £1,250,000 but he has taken £1,000,000 out of the Renewals Fund and the deficit therefore is really £2,250,000. I read the Minister’s Budget speech carefully. Does the Minister say how he is going to meet this deficit? I hope the Minister will give his attention to this question. I cannot find a single word as to how he proposes to meet this deficit of £1,250,000. I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether they noticed that the Minister was careful to suppress that. Why did he suppress it? There can only be two reasons. He might have suppressed it because he felt that he had reason to be optimistic and that the revenue could be greater next year than he estimated for, so that he would be able to cover this £1,250,000 out of next year’s surplus. I want to say this afternoon without any fear of contradiction that no businessman would act with such over-optimism. It is only a businessman who has a very high opinion of himself who would do it. Why does he not say how he proposes to meet this deficit? The Minister has something at the back of his mind. I believe that it is his intention to take this sum of £1,250,000 out of the Tariff Reserve Fund, but why does he hesitate to say it? Because he has said in this House time and again that the Tariff Reserve Fund is there to meet deficits during a time of depression. His policy has now resulted in his having to make use of the Tariff Reserve Fund at a flourishing time. If my conclusion is wrong, I hope the Minister will take us into his confidence and tell us how he proposes to meet this deficit. Now I come to his argument as to why he wants to use the Renewals Fund to make up this £1,000,000. Last year a number of members, I think the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) as well as other businessmen, stated that they were concerned because the Renewals Fund was being increased to a sum of £17,000,000. The Minister then replied that the Renewals Fund was to be used to replace the old material of the Railways and that every penny of the £17,000,000 was necessary to replace worn-out material. He stated that he would need even more. But now he takes £1,000,000 out of the Renewals Fund, and his argument is that new material is not available at the moment. In other words, this sum is not required today. He has already taken £1,000,000. Next year he will take £2,000,000, making a total of £3,000,000. When material becomes available he will have a deficit of £3,000,000 in order to replace the worn-out material. In other words, the Railway material is in such a condition that the cost of reparation will become more and more, and the cost of replacement will become higher and higher. Is this the work of a good businessman? Four years ago I told the Minister that if he did not keep the rolling stock in a good condition he would later find himself in a position similar to that of a motor car owner. The car is continually in the garage and the time comes when the reparation costs are so high that it pays one better to buy a new motor car. One reaches a breaking point. But now the Minister is weakening the fund which it is intended to use to replace the worn-out material. I have a shrewd idea what the Minister’s reply is going to be. This £1,000,000 that we took out of the Renewals Fund last year and the £2,000,000 that we are going to take out of it next year will be described as a temporary measure. We are only borrowing it. When one has to borrow from the Renewals Fund during a time of prosperity, what hope is there of repaying the loan in times of adversity? That will be the Minister’s only argument. I have already stated that the Minister said that he was building up huge reserve funds out of the surpluses so as to create reserves for a period of depression. But unfortunately he is now faced with a deficit during a time of prosperity. Let us see what he does when faced with deficits. To which fund does he go first? I have already mentioned that he takes money from the Renewals Fund, a fund which, according to his own statement and those of the General Manager, will not even be sufficient to replace the worn-out material. But that is not all. Coupled with that is the safety of the public. When one uses old, worn-out material, accidents are only to be expected. The Minister is now playing with fire. But I want to show further how he acts at a time when he is faced with deficits. He acts just as I expected he would. The Minister stated that he was setting an example to the country with reference to post-war social security as far as the Railways are concerned. Which fund does he go to first? As soon as he is faced with the first deficit he no longer contributes a sum of almost £500,000 to the Pension and Superannuation Fund as he ought to do. He is endangering the future of the Railway staff. Is it to be wondered that he can no longer get rail workers? At the very first setback he puts his hand to the fund which is designed to ensure the security of the staff. During all the years when there were surpluses he waited and waited until eight months before the end of the war before giving an increase in salaries to the lowly paid staff on 1st October, 1944. Now that he is faced with a deficit he immediately puts his hand to the Pension Fund which is designed to secure the future of the staff. Then we come to the Betterment Fund. Do hon. members know what the purpose of this fund is? The Minister states that this fund shows a deficit of £50,000. For that reason he prefers to deposit the full amount into the Betterment Fund in respect of 1945-’46 and to estimate for a deficit of £50,000. I am pleased that he did that, at any rate. But then I come to the Tariff Reserve Fund, which the Minister proudly held out as something wonderful to meet deficits during a period of depression. As I have already said, the Minister will probably be forced, having regard to the deficit for 1945-’46, to take a large sum out of the Tariff Fund. That is the position. I do not want to enlarge upon the financial policy of the Railways, because my time is limited. We warned the Minister repeatedly. During the past six years he had an ideal opportunity to keep the Railways on a sound footing. He did not want to heed our advice. He coupled the Railways to the war effort. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) said, he distributed presents like Father Christmas. Now that he is faced with difficulties, he puts his hand to the fund which is designed to ensure the security of the Railway staff and he endangers the safety of the public by withdrawing money from the Renewals Fund. But there is something else which is coupled with the deficit, and that is something which one can expect from a Minister who belongs to the old S.A. Party. For years there were two points of view in this House as to whether the Railways should be purely a business institution or whether the Railways should be used to promote the general welfare and prosperity of the country. There was a great dispute as to whether European labourers or non-European labourers should be employed. The members of the old S.A. Party stated that non-European labour was cheaper, and there was a terrific controversy Until the late Minister Charlie Malan stated that he maintained that European labour was economically a sound proposition. Briefly, what was the attitude of the other side? After the first World War of 1914-T8, ex-Minister Jagger discharged thousands of European labourers and appointed non-Europeans when the Railways experienced difficult times.

Not thousands—that is wrong. Hundreds, yes.

What does the present Minister do? He stated that he would appoint a commission to see why he could not get rail workers, who incidentally were known in 1924 as white labourers. How many European labourers were there in 1924 when the Nationalist Party came into power?

The Pact Government.

The hon. member must not become so excited. When the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924, there were 3,080 European labourers in the Railway service, and up to March, 1933, when the Nationalist Party was no longer in power, Minister Charlie Malan increased the number of European labourers to 11,977.

Cresswell was the man.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) now suddenly recalls the sound policy which was carried out in the days when he co-operated with the Nationalist Party. He recalls that he was also a member of the Pact Government.

The S.A.P. is dead.

Politically the hon. member will also die still. He has belonged to almost every possible party. But how many non-Europeans were employed in the Railway service in 1924? When Mr. Charlie Malan became Minister there were 44,000, and at the end of his administration in 1933 the number had been reduced to 25,000. The non-Europeans disappeared, and found a haven elsewhere.

According to your figures, there were fewer rail workers at that time.

That is a typical S.A.P. argument. They maintain that the kaffirs do more work than the Europeans. That is their argument. That is why they are S.A.P.s; otherwise they would have been Nationalists. That was the argument they advanced during all those years when it was sought to employ Europeans. According to them, the employment of European labourers, in comparison with natives, would involve a loss of 2s. 6d. per day per labourer. I have pointed out how the number of European labourers increased under the policy of the Nationalist Party. Let us see, however, how the number of European labourers was reduced during the term of office of the present Minister. According to the Minister’s figures, there were 15,181 Europeans on the fixed establishment in 1939. What is the position today? By the end of December, 1945, the number had been reduced by 3,000 to 12,263. That is the Minister’s policy.

Many of the rail workers became clerks and obtained promotion.

What wages did the Europeans receive at that time?

When the present Minister came into power in 1939, the number of native labourers was 53,374. What is the number today? According to the Minister’s figures, it is 68,954. Within six years the number was increased by 15,000, while the number of European labourers was reduced by 3,000. Can one be surprised when the Minister says that he proposes to appoint a commission? I am pleased that the Minister is making a note of this point.

Give us the wage scales now.

When the Nationalist Party came into power in 1924 you let them walk the streets without food. The Nationalist Party then said that rather than let them starve we would appoint them in the Service, even if they only got 4s. or 5s. or 6s.

They did not get 6s. but 3s. 6d.

Even though their wages were only 5s. or 6s. we must not forget that since that time the standard of living has altered considerably. The salary of every man, of every official, of every person in South Africa has increased, and the increase in the wages of the labourers only kept pace with that general increase. Last year I put a certain question to the Minister which brought to light a number of facts. I asked the Minister when the model town at Burgersdorp would be erected. I waited and waited until eventually the Minister said that it would be erected in 1945. I waited, and the model town has still to materialise. We are becoming perturbed. I hear rumours from railwaymen that it is now proposed to give out work on contract on the Cape Eastern line. If the Railways give out work on contract the contractor will employ the cheapest labour—and it will not be European labour according to his ideas. I then went to the Minister and his Department in November and asked them whether it was true that they proposed to give out work on contract. I waited for a reply throughout November, December and January and eventually on the 11th February, two days before the Part Appropriation came under discussion I received a reply. Notice how carefully it has been framed—

“Aanbesteding” means giving out on contract. A sugar-coated pill is now being offered to, conceal the hollowness of the Administration’s action. But I put a further question because I was rather perturbed. I asked what was to become of the model town at Burgersdorp which was intended for Europeans exclusively and where—I want to say that to the Minister’s credit—the people are well treated. Let me read what he wrote to me in regard to these model towns. He says in the first place—

Then he goes on to say—

They will no longer come to Burgersdorp now. A number of them will go to Cathcart in the Eastern Province and those who cannot go to that model town will be provided for elsewhere. And now I should like the House to listen to this because it means the end of these model towns—

Let me say this. It is an old S.A.P. policy to get rid of European labour in a surreptitious, sly way and to appoint non-Europeans in their place. If I had not brought forward these things the Minister would not have made any statement up to this point. I have received letters since I have been down here and the railwaymen are worried. They cannot help being reminded of Mr. Jagger who threw Europeans in then thousands—the other side says hundreds but I say thousands — on to the street and appointed non-Europeans in their place. Now I come to another point in this connection. Why is it that the Minister cannot get European labourers? Let me tell him why. The first reason is this. During the time of the late Mr. Charlie Malan when European labourers up to the age of 45 were engaged, they were eligible for promotion. They could be promoted and rise to the rank of stationmaster and even to the rank of general manager. Today the position is different. There is a regulation which lays down that if a person joined the service after 1937 and if he was not under the age of 21, he cannot be considered for promotion to a graded post. I want to say here that it is Mr. Pirow who introduced that iniquitous policy. In 1932 he sent out a circular letter in the first instance which was later withdrawn, and it was followed by another circular letter to the effect that European labourers who joined after 1937 and who were not under 21 years of age at the time they joined could not he promoted. I want to say to the Minister of Transport that we have repeatedly in this House discussed the question of the promotion of people in the senior posts. We pointed out that by means of the elevator system which operates on the Railways posts are regraded to suit the man whom he proposes to appoint to the post concerned. That is not the only question. How must the European labourer feel if he is over 21 years of age and if he joined the service after 1937, if he is not eligible for promotion? I shall be glad if the Minister will investigate this matter. The Minister stated here during the war years that when labourers applied for appointment to the Railways they were asked whether they were not fit to join the army.

Why not?

The fact remains that not everyone was in favour of the war effort. I am merely giving the reasons why the Minister cannot get European labourers. The hon. member now admits that I am right. That is the reason why the Minister could not get European labourers. What is more, when a European labourer joined the service during that period he was informed that he was only on the temporary staff of the Railways. He was not given any assurance that he would be placed on the permanent staff. Now I want to tell you something, which I regret to say, is the truth. It is no disgrace to work but the fact remains that the European labourers on the Railways belong to the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population. They are good men and they need not be ashamed of the work they are doing, but they must not be constantly penalised because they are Afrikaans-speaking. The Afrikaans-speaking staff had their own organisation, Spoorbond, in which they felt at home and in which they could live up to their ideals. That organisation was banned.

That is an old story.

It may be an old story but it is a true story. Not only that, but the Reddingsdaadbond is regarded as a political organisation and it is not permitted to hold functions in railway institutes. The Sons of England, the Society of Friends of the Soviet Union and organisations of that type are allowed to hold functions in the railway institutes but organisations, such as the Reddingsdaadbond, of the Afrikaner in the Railway service who works on the Railways to improve his economic position, are not allowed to hold a function in the railway institute. There is one thing I admire of English-speaking persons. I lived in England for three years. They taught me one thing and that is patriotism. They taught me that when I come to South Africa I should not be anything but myself, that I must be an Afrikaner and love only my own nation, my own language and my own traditions. When an Afrikaner is employed on the Railways, he must not be prevented from establishing his own organisations such as Spoorbond, as the Minister of Transport has prevented him from doing. The Minister prohibits the Afrikaners from organising but not only does he allow non-Europeans to organise but he pays for it. He allows them to send out organisers at Railway expense but on the other hand he wants to kill the organisations of Afrikaans-speaking persons. Let me say here that we do not like discussing these things continually. We are told to forget the past but how can we forget the past when all these things I have mentioned take place, when we have a Minister in the Cabinet who attacks the Church, when our language is attacked, when the Broederbond, the Reddingsdaadbond and all Afrikaner organisations are attacked? That is the reason why the Minister cannot get European labourers, because they are Afrikaners. You may think it strange, but if you talk to those people you will find that the greatest insult that you offered them was to ban Spoorbond. There they could live up to their traditions. The other sections of the staff, even the natives and other non-Euro peans, are given the right to approach the Minister through their organisation. But you deprive the Afrikaans-speaking persons of that right.

It is again the old story.

It can be as old as the hills, but I say that we will never have rest, peace and unanimity in our country while you imagine that you can suppress the feelings of the Afrikaner.

Now I come to another point. I hope the Minister will cause the position of the European labourers to be investigated and that he will revert to the good old policy of the late Mr. Charlie Malan as far as European labour is concerned. Give these people who are capable an opportunity. The Minister tells us that he promoted the highly paid officials according to merit—“it must be on merit.” If that applies to the highly paid officials, let it also apply to the lowly paid officials. Do not adopt a policy which precludes a person over the age of 21 and who was appointed after 1937 from all chances of promotion. I want to come to another-’ point, and I shall* do so briefly because the Minister of Finance is in the House at the moment. When the war broke out in 1939 the price of petrol in the interior was 1s. 8d. per gallon and 1s. 4d. in the coastal towns. Today the position is that the price of petrol in the coastal towns is 2s. 3d. per gallon and in the interior it is 2s. 10d. One would like to know why petrol is so very expensive. Let us see how Mr. Pirow as Minister of Railways succeeded in making petrol cheaper. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a certain amount of diffidence after listening to that inspired speech of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). The hon. member, when he speaks, always reminds me of a motor car. He starts off in low gear and finishes in top.

What do you do, start in top and finish up in reverse?

Nevertheless I rise with a certain amount of diffidence because I am sure the hon. member thinks his speech was very inspiring. It struck me that there was possibly 10 per cent. inspiration and 90 per cent. perspiration in it. It was amusing to me to hear the hon. member calling the Minister to book about his business methods. I do feel that the hon. member should be the last one to criticise the Minister. If he is being fair to himself and to the Minister, he will know what the Minister is budgeting for, and that the Minister is showing fine vision and looking to the future of the country. He should know the Minister is allowing for hotels and for improved air travel and encouraging tourists to come here. He should also know that at present there is a buying commission from the Railways overseas to assist to restore the condition of the present stock and modernise it as far as possible. We have had two attacks from the Opposition. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) led off, followed by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg, but I think the attacks were very weak indeed. I do not think the Minister is worried or that he has anything much to answer for. I feel the same about all the speeches about the Budget for the last three days. I feel that the attacks coming from the Nationalists had their fire all expended. They reminded me of a whipped dog running away with their tails between their legs, and to explain it to myself, words came to my mind written by Lord Tennyson in the poem of “The Revenge”—

That is what I feel about the Nationalists. They dare not touch the Government again. Yesterday we had the Leader of the official Opposition talking about Communism. I use the term “official Opposition” with emphasis, because now we have the Dominion Party and the Labour Party in opposition too, and the word “Opposition” is being freely used in the House. At times I feel that the hon. member for Maritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) and the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) find themselves in an invidious position, because references are made to the Leader of the Opposition, which refer really to the Leader of the official Opposition. We had the Leader of the official Opposition warning us about the Communistic danger in South Africa. He referred freely to the speeches of Mr. Churchill. I was very pleased, because I have a great regard for the ex-Prime Minister of Great Britain, and I felt that I had something in common with the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan). If only the hon. member for Piketberg had that much in common with Mr. Churchill during the war years we would have had better co-operation in this country. It just shows us that they want to forget. No wonder the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) wants to forget the war years. Wasn’t he the one who said that the men and women in uniform should be debarred from using our regular passenger trains? The same thing applies to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). Didn’t he get up in this House and suggest that coaches should be attached to our goods trains for the men and women in uniform? He probably would have liked to see them travelling in cattle trucks. To come back to the hon. member for Piketberg, he warned us about the Communistic danger. I want to ask him and other responsible members of their party whether they are really sincere in this scare of theirs, as regards Communists, and whether he was not possibly talking with his tongue in his cheek.

The hon. member must not use that expression.

I withdraw it, Sir. I want to know whether the hon. member really meant that he was afraid—let me put it that way—of the communistic section in South Africa. I want to qualify that question, and I would appreciate an explanation from any responsible member of the Opposition Party. In October of last year after the municipal election in Johannesburg the elected representatives of the people—I think there were 45—had to elect from amongst themselves a mayor and also the chairmen of committees. Johannesburg, as we all know, is the largest city in the Union. Four of these elected city councillors were nominated for the position of mayor. In the preliminary voting two of these candidates dropped out, leaving a Ratepayers candidate and a Labourite. This Labourite had been branded by the Nationalists as being a communist, had on numerous occasions been branded by them as a communist. From my own knowledge of the particular person I cannot confirm that she is actually a communist, but I would like to say—and I think I can say so without fear of contradiction—that she is extremely Lettish, and if I could put it perhaps a little more bluntly, I would class her as an undeclared communist. But she has been branded by the Nationalist Party as a communist. I know very well that this person travelled to Russia before the war, I know very well that after her return to the Union she was noted for making speeches on Communism and the policy of Russia right throughout the country. I know very well also that this lady was noted for touring the whole of South Africa collecting medical aid for Russia. I could say quite a lot more but I do not think this is the appropriate time. To come back to the elections, this Labourite and the Ratepayers representative were the two opposing each other. In the council there were five Nationalist councillors. I believe that Dr. Ross, the leader of the Nationalist Party in the city council of Johannesburg, was approached by leading members of the church to make sure that a communist was not elected mayor of Johannesburg. What was the result? When the ballot was taken the result was that the ballot returned was 19 against 21. The outgoing mayor realised that the four Nationalist members present in the council had spoiled their papers. He made an appeal to them, saying that it was their duty to vote, that every councillor present must vote. He again called for a ballot and exactly the same thing happened. He went to a third ballot and he again warned the Nationalist members that it was their duty to vote and they still did the same. The position was that the Labourite, this person who was branded as a communist by the Nationalist Party, was leading 21 to 19. All the Nationalist Party city councillors had to do was to vote and by so doing they would have shown no alliance with the communists, but they refused to do it and after the fourth ballot, after the papers had been spoiled again, the mayor said that since Johannesburg had to have a mayor he would be forced if they continued to spoil their papers, to elect the candidate who received the greatest numbers of votes. Again they went to ballot and the same thing happened again, and this Nationalist-branded communist was elected.

Why do you say “Nationalist, communist mayor?”

Because the Nationalist Party branded that person as a communist.

But they did not vote for a communist.

No, they did not but they allowed a communist to get in; that is the backdoor business.

Did you want them to vote for a United Party candidate?

There was no United Party candidate. The hon. member, as usual, is not using his ears. At any rate, not being satisfied with that, our friends the Nationalists in the city council assisted the extreme Left section of the city council to gain control of the committees and the chairmanships in the city council. After listening to that speech of the hon. member for Piketberg yesterday, I made a certain remark and you, Sir, made me withdraw it and I dare not repeat it, but one wonders whether there is not an alliance in this case. In this House we hear speeches such as the speech we heard yesterday from the hon. member for Piketberg, warning the country against Communism, and outside this House you find an active alliance between the Nationalists and the Communists. The writing is on the wall.

Are you really serious?

So much for the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg. But I raised a certain point on the part appropriation with regard to our meteorological services, and I was ruled out of order. I believe that this meteorological service section was taken over by the Department of Transport, and I notice that the Graaff-Reinet Woolgrowers on 6th December passed an unopposed motion in these terms—

It goes on further, but I do not want to bore the House by reading the whole motion. The Director of Meteorological Services replied to that motion; it is quite a long reply and again I do not want to bore the House, but I want to read some extracts from his reply—

It goes on to say—

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to this very fine section of men that we had in the meteorological section during the last war. I understand that a large number of them were circularised while they were still up north and they were requested to join the meteorological section in South Africa. A large number of them agreed. That was some months ago. These men are now being demobilised and still they have not heard anything further, and particularly in view of what the director said in his reply to the resolution of the woolgrowers, I think the Minister would be failing in his duty if he did not try to retain some of these highly qualified and highly skilled men who had been trained in the service, because if he allows them to slip through his fingers he will have to retrain men for these particular jobs.

The next point I want to raise is to congratulate the Hon. Minister of Transport on the re-introduction of his air service in South Africa. I had the pleasure a little while ago of travelling in one of the planes between Cape Town and Johannesburg and return. I must say that I had a very pleasant trip. We did strike some air pockets; there was a little bit of bumping, but we cannot blame the Minister for that, although I am sure my hon. friends opposite feel that he should control the air pockets also. But I would like to point out to the Minister some observations that I made on my trip between Cape Town and Johannesburg. On the trip between Johannesburg and Cape Town one route goes via Kimberley and the other route goes via Bloemfontein. On the route via Kimberley the plane stops at Kimberley. We remained there for 20 minutes. I noticed that refreshments were served to all the passengers, but no refreshments were served to the crew. I felt that there was discrimination between the air crew and the staff that he has on the trains. Small as this point is, I bring it to the Minister’s notice, and I feel sure that the Minister will see to it that this matter is rectified. Another point that I noticed was this: There is a screen on the inside of the plane which, when a light is switched on, lights up the letters, “Fasten your safety belt”, “Do not smoke when the plane is rising or landing”. I feel that since we are in the air for a matter of four and a half hours, a number of these screens should be made, giving the approximate position, so that the light can be switched on every half an hour or so, so that the passengers will know where they are. Practically the same route is used going up and down. The route only varies a mile or a mile and a half, and if these screens were used every half an hour to keep the interest of the passengers, I am sure it would be very greatly appreciated.

But they do send notices round to say where you are.

They only send one notice round. You do not know where you are. Then there is another point I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. I noticed that no reading matter could be found at the aerodromes. I want to suggest to him, since there are tearooms at the aerodromes, that in conjunction with the railway stations, he should send reading matter to the aerodromes, so that the passengers using the planes can purchase this reading matter. Then there is another point. Before the war you could send telegrams from the plane. I wanted to send a telegram while I was in the air, and I was informed that the new service had not vet been inaugurated. I feel that the time has arrived when the Minister should give his consideration to this matter. Another point I want to raise is that I was amazed on arrival at Germiston to find that there were private taxis waiting to take the passengers to Johannesburg. I feel that that is wrong. The Minister should have his own taxi service in conjunction with the Railways, and I think he should look into that.

Finally, I have been approached by a large number of people who live between Krugersdorp and Pretoria. A number of them are on farms, and a large number of them are on small holdings. They complain of the inconvenience of the service on that line. They have the Pretoria-Krugersdorp line to serve them on the south, and to the north they have the Pretoria-Rustenburg line. There is a huge population in between there. The Provincial Council in its wisdom some years ago constructed a road and macadamised it, between Pretoria and Krugersdorp, because of the terrific amount of traffic which that road carries. I feel that the time has arrived when the Minister should consider the possibility of a line running possibly on a similar route to the route which the present Pretoria-Krugersdorp road follows.

I really want to direct some remarks against the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard), who, to my mind, announced a most extraordinary mining policy. I am sorry he is not here at the moment. He told us today that gold only becomes an asset when it has first been extracted. Coming from the previous Minister of Mines I am astounded at that statement. He must surely have read in all the reports on mining development that even in your development stages, you have a certain percentage of payability; your development in the modern mine must show a fairly big ore reserve, an ore reserve which is said to contain a certain amount of value, and the price of your share is very often dependent on your reserves of ore, not wholly but very largely. But the hon. member says you must first extract the gold and then it becomes an asset. How can your price then be dependent on your ore reserve? It seems to me it is an extraordinary thing for an ex-Minister of Mines to tell us. I cannot follow him in his argument at all. He talks about gold as a wasting asset, and he disagrees with the committee on mining taxation that because it is a wasting asset there should be no extra high taxation on it. He reckons that the reasons for coming to that conclusion are unsound. Then he compares the production of gold with the production of wheat, and he says that wheat only becomes an asset when once it has been produced. But can you compare wheat with gold? Gold is buried in the ground and there is very little that can destroy gold. The gold remains a permanent asset. But can that be said of wheat? When you think of all the trials and tribulations that a bag of wheat has to go through before it is finally put into the bag and what it has to go through even after it has been put into the bag, you realise at once that there is a big difference. Do hon. members of the Dominion Party fail to see the difference? Is this misunderstanding which always seems to be present feigned or is it due to lack of information? Why introduce these difficulties which should never occur? You cannot compare an almost indestructible metal with wheat. Then the hon. member talks about gold being a wasting asset and he tries to compare it with wasting assets such as diamonds and chrome and other ore. But he overlooks this: the price of diamonds is more or less controlled. But are there fixed prices for chrome or for any of these other metals? There are no world agreements about the price of these metals and there are no world agreements about the prices of agricultural products, but there is a world price for gold. I am very disappointed that our ex-Minister of Mines should argue in that way when he should at least have learned more about mining practice during his term of office as Minister of Mines. He talks about the principle of taxation of wasting assets and compares it with the principle of taxation of diamonds. But surely the system of taxation is entirely different. You cannot compare a cow to a horse.

We know that.

Then you have learned something. The trouble in this country is that some people have so little knowledge of things that they venture to talk about, that it would be better for them to keep quiet.

In that case why don’t you keep quiet.

My hon. friend over there knows more about the subject than I do. Perhaps he will talk when I sit down, then the House can judge for itself just how much he knows about the subject and decide whether his knowledge goes beyond butcheries.

Beyond horse sense.

I feel that this is a matter to which we in South Africa will have to give our serious attention at some time or other. I do not agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) that a wasting asset is one that you have taken out and that you can exchange for something else. To my mind a wasting asset is something that you produce in a certain place and once it has been produced no further production is possible. As far as wheat is concerned you can reap your crop of wheat this year and sow more wheat the following year in the same place. But once you have extracted gold from the ground it cannot be replaced into the ground. In the case of diamonds, having regard especially to the industrial value attached to diamonds, I feel that that is really a wasting asset, and I would not be surprised if at some future date we have a different kind of control, because in the production of the material that you require for the industrial market you pass away from the diamond and you never see it again. Moreover, diamonds are limited to certain areas. You cannot find new mines. The mining areas are limited. There is just this other point, that I wonder whether we should not think of controlling the sale of metals such as uranium which go towards the making of the atomic bomb, and things of that description. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) goes further. He says there should be a land tax on all farmers, just as there is a tax on gold, and he talks about the unimproved value of farms or farms which have not been fully improved. My view has always been, and I think the House will agree, that when you insist on a man doing something and you prescribe certain penalties if he does not do it there is a certain responsibility on the State. If you say to the man that he must do this that or the other, are you going to pay him for his services. In the case of erosion, for example, if you have enabling legislation, is the State going to agree to the individual farmer being taxed if he does not carry out his erosion programme fully? Or are you going to provide him with the means of fighting soil erosion? I want to know whose the responsibility is. Will the State say that it is the fault of this farmer, or that farmer who failed to carry out his duty when it may be the farmer beyond him who is responsible? I would like all these points to be considered. You may come to a farm and you may say that it is not a fully improved farm. There may be irrigation possibilities and you say to the farmer that because he has not fully developed those irrigation possibilities he is going to be penalised. Similarly you may say to the farmer that he has not carried out an extensive programme of fencing and soil erosion schemes and that you are going to penalise him. It is very easy to talk about taxing unimproved value, but the first thing the farmer would like to know is just what that involves. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) spoke about the Fixed Property Profits Tax. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) also referred to this. This Fixed Property Profits Tax is very largely affecting the ex-volunteer today, and to my mind it should be made at least retrospective up to last July, for the simple reason* that this tax was imposed to control inflation. Would we apply that to our ex-volunteer? I do not think we ever intended to go so far as to apply it to the ex-volunteer. People who are in the business tell me that this tax seriously affects the returned soldiers who are thinking of buying a home for themselves, and I hope the Minister will seriously reconsider this tax. Another matter which has occurred to me is this. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) spoke very seriously about soya beans as a food of high nutritive value. I agree with him about the necessity, but what I regret is that although we have great experts in our own country who have worked on this for years and years we do not even know of their existence. They have carried out experiments and they have made tremendous improvements in the growing of soya beans. They have advertised it everywhere amongst the farmers, and then we find that an hon. member comes to this House and tells us that we ought to think of growing soya beans. The idea is good, but I say it is a sad state of affairs that we do not even know about it when we had a person like Dr. Saunders of Potchefstroom who has produced in South Africa in this line something which is not known before. The Agricultural Department has offered seed in small parcels from that institution all over South Africa, and then we are told in this House that someone read a wonderful paper on the subject of soya beans, and what we ourselves have done in this country is promptly forgotten. We have in very large areas of this country been growing monkey nuts for many years. People are using it everywhere as food to assist in our nutritional scheme. The farmers are fully alive to that position. Unfortunately both soya beans and monkey nuts cannot be grown everywhere. They do not suit all parts of the country. I agree that if any information on this subject or any other kindred subject is available in other countries, better than our own, we should get that information, but I would not stand back for the experts of other countries in comparison with our own experts when it comes to solving our problems in this country.

The Controller and Auditor-General drew attention to a matter which in my opinion is of interest, namely, the ledger fees which are charged to the Railways by the Reserve Bank. To put the case briefly, until 1927 the Railways made use of the Reserve Bank in two of the provinces to conduct its affairs and Barclays Bank in the other two provinces. Barclays Bank and the Standard Bank paid the Administration a certain rate of interest on the credit balances remaining in the bank from time to time, and they charged no ledger fees. In 1927 the Reserve Bank took this business over entirely, and from 1927 to 1944 it was carried on without any change. It is true that the Railway Administration did not receive interest on its credit balances in the bank, but it did not pay ledger fees. But in 1944 the Reserve Bank charged the Railway Administration an, amount of £25,000 per year in respect of ledger fees. It charged this amount without prior discussion or without an agreement having been reached beforehand. It did so on its own initiative, and simply made this charge. By way of agreement, the Administration’s account was transferred to the Reserve Bank in 1927, and the terms of that agreement were that no ledger fees would be charged. For 17 years the Reserve Bank made good use of the funds of the Railway Administration without any change in the arrangement, and in 1944 the Reserve Bank came along and said: No, now I am going to charge the Railway Administration £25,000 for ledger fees. It seems as though the Reserve Bank was the only party who had a voice in the matter. They did not consult the Railway Administration at all. I understand the Railway Administration protested. They made representations and did everything in their power to rectify the matter, but the Reserve Bank were firm in their decision that £25,000 per year would be charged for ledger fees. I understand that the Reserve Bank adopt the attitude that the Railway Administration is not a State Department. For the purposes of rebates on Government transport, the Railway Administration is a State Department. When it is serving another State Department, then the Railway Administration is a State Department, but when it suits the Reserve Bank to collect considerable amounts from the Railway Administration, then it is not a State Department. The Railway Administration is a State Department when it grants a 50 per cent. rebate to the Defence Force in respect of that Department’s transport, but when ledger fees have to be charged by the Reserve Bank, then it is not a State Department. One could understand it if the Reserve Bank were working at a loss; then one could understand it, but during the last two years the Reserve Bank has paid a 10 per cent. dividend to its shareholders, and it has transferred £400,000 profit to the Treasury, and yet the Reserve Bank charges the Railway Administration £25,000 in respect of ledger fees. In other words, it is another form of taxing the Railways. It can be nothing else. Now I want to say to the Minister that £25,000 may not be much to a big Administration like the Railways, which budgets for a revenue of £64 million, but it is the principle which in the first instance is wrong. It is the principle in the first instance that for 17 years, when there was a shortage of funds, and when the Reserve Bank was only too glad to receive the benefit of the funds of the Railway Administration and to use them to the best advantage, then it suited the Reserve Bank, but when there was plenty of money in circulation, and when it was difficult for the Reserve Bank to place its money, then it did not suit the Reserve Bank, and now the Reserve Bank is charging the Railway Administration £25,000 per year in respect of ledger fees, and apparently the Railway Administration has no voice in the matter. It is not a reciprocal arrangement where you can say that the Railway Administration regard it as reasonable for extra services rendered by the Reserve Bank. No, nothing of the sort took place. The Railway Administration simply receive an account for £25,000 for ledger fees which are now being charged and which were never charged before, and in connection with which there has never been an agreement. It is simply charged to the Railways, and the Railways must pay it, and if they do not pay it it is simply deducted from its funds in the Reserve Bank. To say the least, it is highhanded, and I think it is unfair. If the Reserve Bank benefited by those funds at times when it could use the resources of the Railways to the best advantage, then at a time like the present, when it cannot place all the funds of the Railways to the best advantage, it must be satisfied with less profit. The £25,000 is only a question of principle. If the Railways allow the precedent to be established that the Reserve Bank can charge a ledger fee, then the Reserve Bank can come along next year and say: We are not only asking £25,000; we now want £250,000, and the year after that it may say: We are now asking £500,000 for ledger fees, and the Railway Administration has no voice in the matter. I feel it is a matter which warrants the Minister’s serious attention. I am glad that the Hon. Minister of Finance is now here to hear what the actual state of affairs is. I feel that it is not a fair arrangement of one State Department towards another. If the Railway Administration were free to go back to the commercial banks, then it would be another matter, but as a result of the agreement between the Railway Administration and the Reserve Bank, the Railway Administration cannot today go back to the commercial banks. I am mentioning it here because I feel it is unfair. We are not satisfied with that arrangement. I will leave the matter there. I will not render any further commentary on the matter, but I trust that with these few words the matter will be settled.

Then I would like to devote a few moments of my time to the road motor services of the Railways. If there is one section of the Railway Administration which I think should enjoy the special attention of the Administration in the coming five or ten years, then it is the road motor services, and I think the Hon. Minister will receive all the support he wants from this side of the House to develop the road motor services just as much as the needs of the country demand. If there is one service which can be given to the country cheaply and reasonably and which, in case it proves a non-paying proposition, can be easily adapted, then it is the road motor services, and while there will be more and more opportunity of obtaining vehicles, we want to urge the Administration very strongly to extend the road motor services as much as it is humanly possible. If there was one means the Government had of developing the country, of developing the transport facilities in the country, then it was the road motor services; not only to develop the country, but it is pre-eminently a means of feeding the ’ country. The road motor buses which travel into the Bosveld and into the far distant parts of the country carry back each time, you can almost say, a bus-load of food to the towns. The small producer can find a market through the bus service for what he produces on a small scale. We want to urge the Administration very strongly that every possible means should be used to extend the road motor services, and we are aware of the fact that there is a great shortage in the various departmental offices. The personnel in the road motor service offices are asked to come and investigate new services, to look into matters in order to be able to grant new services, but as a result of the great shortage of personnel in some departments it sometimes takes six or twelve months before the application for a new service is dealt with, for the personnel are not there to investigate it. We would like to see the Administration devote its attention to the matter and to ensure that the personnel is supplemented and that road motor services are extended wherever possible. While I am on the subject of personnel, I would like to lend my support to my colleague who has just spoken of the European workers, and draw the attention of the House to the fact that during the war years no Railway workers were employed who were eligible for military service. It is for that reason that the number of Railway workers in the service has dropped from 15,000 to 12,000. That is the reason. It is not that there were not people. The people were there but for political reasons they were excluded. If a man came along and applied for work as a railway worker or for another post, he was asked whether he was eligible for military service. If he was eligible, he could not be taken on. They were kept out of the service for political reasons and for that reason the number of European Railway workers has dropped. The kafir or coloured man was not asked whether he was eligible for military service. Kafirs and coloureds who were eligible for military service were absorbed in the Railway service, but not the Europeans.

That was also right.

Why was it not made applicable to coloureds and natives?

What are you going to do with Russia then?

The hon. member should not talk so much about Russia. For years we have felt aggrieved at the treatment meted out to this section of the population, the section who were not in favour of the war, who through political conviction were not in favour of the war. They were purposely excluded from the civil service. And members on the other side say that it is quite right.

Perfectly right.

But coloureds and natives were not excluded, only Afrikaners.

They are not Afrikaners.

Then I observe that in his Budget speech the Minister said that only about one-third of the railway personnel have so far been demobilised who were on military service. It is hardly credible. Up to the end of 1945 only 5,000 were demobilised out of almost 15,000. The Minister’s reply was that personnel who were overseas could not be demobilised. One can understand that. But hundreds of railway officials are walking around here in military uniforms. Why can they not be demobilised? According to the Minister’s figures only one-third of them have been demobilised. I could hardly believe it, and the other day I remarked upon it. The Minister passed it over. He said that you could not demobilise people who were across the water. But we are talking of the people in this country and who have not been demobilised.

Another matter mentioned by my colleague, and to which I lend my support, is the fact that the Minister discriminates among railway workers. Railway workers must at a given age possess a certain amount of learning in order to receive certain promotion. It is not promotion according to capability to a higher post. The railway workers are in a dead alley and there they must remain. We trust that the commission which the Minister has appointed will make recommendations which will be of help to these people and afford them opportunities, and we trust the recommendations will be accepted. When I was still in the service I took on numbers of people in the service who ultimately rose to secretary to the Minister, to station-masters, to clerks in head office, many capable and clever men. Numbers of them today hold key positions, and they were taken on in the service as railway workers. They render good service. As a matter of fact the man who learns his work in the service and not at school is always a good railway man, if not the best railway man. It has still to be proved in the course of time that the schools produce better railway men than the men who, by experience, have climbed in life from the bottom to the top of the ladder. I hope that they will do it. We have men in the service who have risen from the lowest rung of the ladder to the highest. It has always been like this. In the old days we had assistant general managers, we had men who served in England as luggage porters and carriers and who held the highest posts in this country with satisfaction. But we have reached a stage in our history when a railway worker suddenly finds himself in a cul-de-sac and is kept there. I suspect that it is because the railway workers are mostly Afrikaners. It is a tactful and clever move to keep the men there without promotion, however capable they may be. They have helped the Minister through the difficult years of war, they have acted in high positions and carried on the work while other men were at the front. But they do not receive recognition.

The old story again.

But nevertheless a true story. Another question I asked recently and want to ask again, is when the usual excursion facilities on the railways will be restored to the public. It is pre-eminently the poor man’s chance of enjoying a vacation. It is what the State gives to the poor man in assisting him to enjoy a vacation. Is that true or not? It is the family man’s privilege. The Blue Train has been restored for the‘rich man, the fast services have been restored for the rich man, the air services have been restored for the rich man, but the poor man’s facilities have not been restored.

And still the old story.

What is the Minister going to do to restore facilities in the country for the poor people? Look how far he has gone out of his way to guarantee fast services for the rich I wonder how many minutes trains are held up at stations and crossings between here and Johannesburg to allow the Blue Train to go through. I wonder how many minutes trains travelling from Johannesburg to Durban were held up at stations and crossings to allow the test train through which they were running at the time, and what the costs are to the Administration in running the fast trains—the direct costs are relatively small, but what are the indirect costs? But what has the Minister done for the poor man? The whole budget is a rich man’s budget, the general budget as well as the railway budget, which is a senior official’s budget. While the Railway Administration should have done something for the personnel, eventually it only did something for its senior officials. They have been liberally helped, and they have feathered their nests nicely. I do not say that the senior officials should not be well remunerated. I am in favour of their being well remunerated, but we say that the Minister appoints more people in senior posts than the service justifies. They fall over one another, they cannot accommodate them all, and they know it and it gnaws at their consciences. For the one shilling you give to the poor man, you give £1 to the senior official. You are making the service top-heavy, and you will have shortages. You have it already in times of prosperity. The General Manager said in his annual report, and in this connection I want to put a question for the third time, that whereas the General Manager and the Deputy General Manager and two Assistant General Managers retired from the service more or less simultaneously, the one Assistant General Manager had not yet reached the retiring age. I asked why he left the service before his time. He was one of the super men who was promoted over another man who was his senior. Why did he leave the service before his time? I have already asked this question twice, and am asking it again now. Why does the Minister not reply to the question and save the time of the House? He surely owes me this courtesy. He can simply say that he will not answer it, or, as he often does, give a reply which will not even satisfy a schoolroom. I put this question again: What was the reason for Mr. Chittenden leaving the service before his time? And when he replies, will he say how long, during the time he was Assistant General Manager, he was at his post?

Then I come back to the case of Mr. “X”. It is the third sitting that we are dealing with this man, and if the Minister had given the information the first time we asked for it, he would never have heard me mention the case again. But first of all the Minister was silent about the matter, then he tried to side-step the question, then again he tried to insult me, and then he tried to ridicule me, and last year he advanced a vague explanation that he had appointed a commission, and this commission said that “X” was temperamentally unsuited to receive promotion or to hold a certain post. When, the other day, I indicated the hollowness of that excuse, he eventually got to the root of the matter, and it is very interesting. Then he gave the answer which we wanted in the first place. For two years he side-tracked me and beat about the bush. He said that the Security Council would not promote the man to the post. Since when have the Security Council any right to refuse a man his promotion? What statutory authority do the Security Council possess? Who are the members of the Security Council? Will the Minister tell us who the members are, and under what regulations they have any right to refuse a man his promotion? How many officials’ promotions have been held back by this body? Is this body his head of the Gestapo, which we have accused him of and which he has always denied? It is the first time that he has mentioned the name of the committee in this House. We knew that there was such a secret body in the Railway service, but they worked in the dark and nobody knew precisely what they were. For two years we have not been able to penetrate the root of the matter, but we shall continue to thrash the matter out. I will only quote one case by way of example and in order to bring the case to finality, so that we can indicate the injustice which has taken place in the Railway service, and how one Railway official after the other has been wronged for political reasons. It was the Minister’s political body, it was the instrument he used against his officials, the Security Council. It prevented people receiving the promotion they were entitled to. That Security Council had, after all, to listen to somebody. They sit in Johannesburg, the head of the Gestapo. They have to act on advice which they receive from somebody, and we want to know who furnished them with the advice that the man could not be appointed. I want to read a letter which is a confidential document, but which I am obliged to read out. The letter comes from the office of the British Admiralty, from a Commander in the British Navy. I am prepared to give his name. But I will read the letter—

It is a Commander of the Royal Navy who wrote this letter—

This is a letter I have in my possession from a Commander of the Royal Navy. Now you will perhaps say that the Administration was not aware of it and that the Gestapo did not know about it, but this same commander appeared before the Gestapo and gave the evidence summed up in this letter before them, and he told them a lot more than it contained in the letter. Is the injustice not evident? Is it not a case of sheer injustice? This is a man who has devoted his life to the service of the State, and without being granted a hearing, on the strength of gossiping and scandalmongering, the man’s rightful promotion was denied him and he is branded in the service. Can you see why the personnel feel they have a grievance? Where is the highly extolled spirit of fair play? Where is the Administration’s honesty towards its personnel? I will not deal with the other documents which I have here. I am not keen on disclosing them. First of all I want to ask the Minister for an explanation. The immediate senior of the official, the official above his senior, the one above him and the official just above those two officials all recommended him for the post because he performed his work efficiently. The Commander in the British Navy said that the man had rendered remarkable service, but the Gestapo went ahead and transferred him from Walvis Bay to Aliwal North, and from there they relegated him in rank and sent him to Bloemhof, and then the Minister used a commission of senior officials in the service to explain things away and to say that the man was temperamentally unsuited for the higher post. Is this not a disgrace? And the Minister comes here and evades the question; but during the recent recess he suddenly gave him promotion. The Minister was cornered and gave him promotion, and then he said the other day that the station at which the man is now is not so important; Cookhouse is not as important as Aliwal North. Does the Minister think that he is dealing with children in the House? Why did you not send him from Aliwal North to Cookhouse, or from Walvis Bay to Cookhouse if he was temperamentally unsuited? The Minister has tried during the recess to get out of the difficulty, and he is trying to explain away his misdeed with all sorts of excuses. Why is he not honest and man enough to say that he committed this injustice and that he will rectify it? I told him that if he righted the wrong he would not hear any more from me on the subject. But he will continue to hear from me until the wrong has been righted, and I hope that the injustice will gnaw at his conscience until it is righted. Can you see why Spoorbond must be destroyed? This man went to the personnel societies but they also branded him as an O.B., and the personnel societies would not take his case up. Then the Minister comes and says that if members of the personnel go to politicians they must also look to the politicians for the redress of their grievances. Where else could the man go? He went to the Administration, to all the heads, he appealed to the Railway Board, he asked the Railway Board to see him, but they said that they did not want to see him; he asked for an interview with the General Manager, but he said he did not want to see him. They all turned him away; nobody would see him and right his grievance. Where could he go to? After we had put the case before the House the Minister tried to get out of the position as best he could. At the end of the previous sitting he gave the man promotion. The House was still in session, and it still resounded with the man’s grievances, when he was appointed at Cookhouse. I waited until his appointment at Cookhouse had been confirmed to see whether he performed his work satisfactorily before I spoke, but to indicate the hollowness of the Administration’s case, I want to say that the post to which he has been promoted is Walvis Bay, his own post which has now been raised in rank. For two years he occupied the post successfully. Then the post was raised. For nine months he acted in the higher post without there being any criticism of his work. There was no complaint against the man, no objection to his work, no grievance of any nature in connection with his work, but he was sent away from there and sent to Aliwal North. Everybody there was satisfied with his services. I have here a whole pile of letters of recommendation and appreciation from the public of Aliwal North for the good work which he did, the Chamber of Commerce, the Farmers’ Association, the head of police, the public in general, predikants; everybody says that they were very satisfied with the man’s services. But the Minister’s Gestapo would not promote him. I ask again what statutory right the Security Council has to hold back a man’s promotion? Then I would ask how many people in the service without their knowledge were punished and held back in this way? I said the other day that the Administration under the present Minister has become a political machine. There we have the logwheel of the political machine. There you have it. Only political favourites are promoted, but those who differ politically are held back by this body. Here you have a clear instance. I will leave it at the one case for the present. I selected this case. He was selected by his immediate chief, the harbour official, by the district inspector, by the superintendent, by the system manager and the general manager, as the most suitable man for the post, and after his appointment he served his usual probationary period. He served for longer than this, and performed his work successfully. He was recommended by his immediate chief for promotion, and by all his higher chiefs, but the Gestapo said “No”. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to make any observations on the speech of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). I think the Hon. Minister of Transport will be able to deal adequately with it. I would rather concentrate in the few minutes at my disposal upon the ordinary Government Budget, and in the first place to congratulate the Minister of Finance not only upon the present Budget, but upon his fine record of service during the six years of stress through which this country has passed. I do not regard the Budget at present before us as a peace Budget at all. I regard it as a transition Budget and for that reason I think criticism in this House based upon the fact that the war has ended and that we are now at peace is entirely wrong. The war period did not conclude with the cessation of hostilities and in this country, as indeed in the whole world, we are passing through one of the most difficult periods in the history of mankind. Therefore I say, in all earnestness, that for the fulfilment of our obligations, and the carrying out of the responsibilities laid upon us as a result of this war, a period of sacrifice and special effort is still before us. We have to make every effort to bring this country into that position where it shall take its full place amongst those who struggle for a better life for all sections of the community. That cannot be achieved unless things that are comparatively trifling are removed from our immediate view, and we see things as they really are in South Africa. The Government is but at the beginning of the major portion of its plans for reconstruction. It is true there is nothing spectacular at the moment in respect of the advance towards social security, but even if the movement is slow it is sure, and legislation carried through this House this session will have a permanent bearing upon the future of South Africa, in relation to the manner of living of every section of its inhabitants. While we listen to criticism from hon. members of different parties in the House in respect of the position of the workers, I want to say that, from this side of the House we continually urge and prompt the Government in regard to the necessity for an increase in the tempo of the movement towards a better condition of affairs. We have heard from the other side of the House speeches which include an application for reduced taxation, and almost in the same breath a request to the Government for measures which will considerably increase its expenditure. It is the right of the Opposition to criticise, but at the same time when that criticism comes from the Opposition benches it is only right some indication should be given where the money is to be found. We notice in the amendments moved by the Nationalist Party and by the Labour Party that the passing of this Budget should be subject to the Government passing legislation in regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Compensation Act, including an improvement in the compensation. I think the country will be well aware that in the Government party consideration is continually being given to the conditions of all sections of the workers, and particularly during the last few months to this very question of miners’ phthisis legislation and that the Government has undertaken to place before this House during the present session a Bill dealing with the very matter mentioned in the amendments put before this House. As far as we are concerned on this side of the House, that Bill will be passed this session. We are just as anxious as hon. members opposite that the maximum benefit possible should be granted to those who work underground, to those who are engaged in the extraction of the precious metal which forms the economic basis of South Africa.

Something has been said in this debate in regard to the position of the Govérnment concerning private enterprise. I agree that private enterprise is beneficial, subject to the necessary safeguards which shall ensure that the national welfare shall remain paramount. It is for the Government to say there shall be no check to the development of our natural resources because of the lack of attractive dividends arising therefrom. If a proposition is not sufficiently attractive for private enterprise, it may still be attractive in the interests of the people of South Africa, even if it only returns a small dividend, or even if it is worked without a dividend at all, because in the employment of the people connected with that particular industry—and it has, of course, always to be borne in mind whether there is a market for its products—money will be circulated which will indirectly return a profit to the Government. So while I share the view that private enterprise is very valuable in the development of the country, the Government should see no national resources are left undeveloped because of there being no promise of attractive dividends. For, after all, while we plead for social security, we know that its fundamental basis must always be full employment for the people at a wage which will permit a satisfactory basis of living. Without that full employment, or without some prospect at any rate of a goodly measure of employment, social security or social insurance must inevitably fail. Here we join hands with the hon. members of the Labour Party. We are anxious that social insurance shall become an accomplished fact at the earliest opportunity. I say we join hands with them. There is no difference of opinion. We speak with the same voice. But it may be we on this side go further. We are anxious that social security or social insurance shall extend to all sections of the community so that we, as a great family of peoples in South Africa, shall enjoy the utmost that this country can give. I want to say further that our need at the present day is to present a solid front to our national problems, and not to be divided on petty issues or a different presentation of the same subject. We need to be realistic as well as to have our ideals before us as our ultimate objective, and to cultivate a due sense of proportion, realising our responsibility to every section of the community. This can only be obtained as a result of the union of progressive forces in South Africa. When I speak of progressive forces, I want to say that in my opinion we are divided in this House between the principles of the United Party and the principles of the Nationalist Party. My hon. friends will agree that when the members of the Labour Party ask for improvements in the conditions of the workers, as though we on this side of the House were doing nothing, they must be short-sighted or hard of hearing. Rather should they combine with us and endeavour to secure the maximum benefit at the earliest practicable moment. Otherwise, when the progressive forces in South Africa are divided into groups, you have the unfortunate position of one group bidding against another with little sense of proportion or responsibility. The party having authority would suggest an improvement, and those without responsibility would always go one better. That does not make for the best results, and we would like to see those who think alike work together and speak with one voice. The United Party, which I have the privilege of being a member of, is composed of several sections. We have sufficient members to form two Labour Parties or groups. Why should we not have three sections, so that together we might work for the welfare of the people? We are not isolationists, we do not believe in the herrenvolk conception, we do not support the principle of a republic; we work within the Commonwealth and regard our connection with it as in the best interests of South Africa and as an indication that we consider South Africa first when we take up that attitude. I do say, and I say it with all earnestness, that with the difficult problems before the country we should stand together as representing the forces of progress. We find that co-operation, readily accorded during the war period, diminishing during the period of transition, although the national interest still demands co-operation. Admitted weaknesses in the control and distribution system are being magnified often because of the principle of control and the desire to return to the free operation of private enterprise, but, until the national interests, and particularly those of the poorer sections, can better be served by reversion, control should continue and the Government should stand firm on this point. A storm of adverse circumstances and of criticism will and does descend on the Government, but Parliament will declare that its confidence remains firm in the man who has stood on the bridge during six years of unprecedented stress and strain. South Africa has accepted its share of the post-war difficulties and will bear them with courage and determination.

Groups will exercise pressure for reasons which seem to them justified, but the Government must be resolute and act with courage. During the war period we advanced steadily in the area of social welfare. Our social security measures are expanding. They are being proceeded with, though tardily. The field of relief has been enlarged in principle to include all sections of the community, and that means a great advance in policy and in extending the hand to those most in need. The foundation is being laid today for a social welfare structure representative of all voluntary agencies throughout the Union.

The economic position of railway servants has been substantially secured, and that of the public service is in process thereof. I think if one were to get a full list of what is being done and what has been done by the Minister of Transport in co-operation with the federal council of railway organisations, we should find a tremendous measure of social insurance is already in existence amongst our railway workers. More consideration is being given to the claimant needs of non-Europeans, but we still lag behind in this requirement.

Under our party system we must have parties, and the United Party is the only combination representative of all sections of the people. I repeat that in its ranks should be gathered all the progressive forces in South Africa. By constructive criticism— and we do criticise our Government—we may achieve much more at the earliest possible time. The splitting of these forces will only lead to weakness in the face of the only real opposition we have in this House, that is, opposition on the main issues facing South Africa. I know that the Government—I was going to say I trust that the Government— will continue to foster the national interest before sectional advantage by the maintenance of its principles, and that under its great leader it will, without doubt, enjoy the support and confidence of the great majority of the electorate. So we stand together despite differences on minor issues, loyal to the carrying out of the electoral mandate given not only to the members of the United Party but to the members of the Labour Party and the members of the Dominion Party. We stand behind the Government for the carrying out of those principles, to do our duty to the ex-volunteer and ensure as far as we are able a better condition of living for all sections of the community.

When the Minister of Finance introduced the Part Appropriation Bill we heard a whole series of speeches on it, after we had 50 or 60 speeches on the motion of no-confidence. I suppose we have had another 40 or 50 speeches in this debate. It seems to me that by means of these long-winded speeches ’we are gradually throttling democracy. Plans should be evolved to put a stop to this state of affairs. I feel that we would improve matters if we could eliminate Hansard to a certain extent. I notice that approximately £28,000 per annum is being spent on Hansard. One of the journals of the Ossewabrandwag calculated that it costs the country £187 for every hour Parliament sits. If, therefore, a debate such as this lasts approximately 60 hours, it costs the country 60 times £187, apart from the £28,000 to Hansard. These three debates only would then cost the country as much. Surely something could be done to expedite this matter a little. The question which I really got up to talk about in the first instance is this. I think that the time has arrived—and I am sorry to see that the Minister has not yet seen fit to do so— entirely to abolish the Fixed Property Profits Tax. I do not think that the revenue which it is estimated will be received in the following year, namely, £450,000, will compensate the country for the moral damage which results from this tax. So much money is being paid under the counter, and so many human souls are being condemned under this law, that I think we are paying a very expensive price for the soul of our nation. I do not think this tax has done much to check inflation, and I feel that the sooner we get rid of it the better it will be for the welfare of South Africa as a whole. I am almost certain that the abolition of this tax will help to stabilise and to reduce the price of land.

Another matter I should like to touch upon is the White Paper dealing with agricultural reconstruction. It goes a long way in connection with questions such as the combating of soil erosion, over-grazing, the over-cultivation of land, etc. It discusses the question of the reduction in the value of our land. I feel that the steps which are being taken will perhaps make a considerable contribution towards the improvement of the position in the next few years, but today the position is that while on the one hand we are combating soil erosion, etc., on the other hand we are doing nothing to prevent it going further. Various reasons are given in the White Paper. Inter alia, it is mentioned that to a large extent it is ascribable to the subdivision of farms. Last year I also discussed this subject, but apparently nothing was done. I want to suggest that a commission be appointed to investigate the question of the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. If such an investigation is instituted, we will ascertain how far this matter has gone and to what extent it contributes to a reduction in the production of this country. It is a fact that there are hundreds and thousands of farmers who are only able to make a meagre living or almost no living at all on their holdings. The land has been subdivided into holdings which are too small, and the farmers have no alternative but to over-graze and to over-cultivate. The result is that while on the one hand we are taking steps to combat erosion or to improve the position, on the other hand it is becoming increasingly worse. If we do not do something to combat soil erosion at the source, the time will arrive when this country will have to spend thousands of pounds additionally to solve the problem. Another reason why the position is so serious is the shortage of land. The price is uneconomic, and there is little land available in the Union for occupation. In that connection, I want to point out to the Government that in the districts of Vryburg and Kuruman alone, 500,000 morgen of land has been lying idle for seven or eight years. This land was bought by the Native Trust, but it is not being used, because the natives for whom it was bought and who are going to look after it refuse to take occupation. I know that the Native Trust Act provides that the Trust may not sell or lease this land unless it makes provision by buying land elsewhere for the natives. The Trust will find it somewhat difficult to buy land in other areas. On the other hand, I feel that we dare not adopt such a “dog in the manger” policy. There we have an area of half a million morgen of land which could be beneficially occupied by thousands of Europeans who are without land, and some sort of plan should be made to put that land under cultivation. If there are no natives who are prepared to cultivate it, it should be given to Europeans. I would suggest that if the State wants to buy land for natives, our Government should approach the Imperial Government in order to buy two million or five million morgen of land for the natives in the Protectorate, which is only a distance of 50 or 60 miles away. That land could be developed for them, and we would at the same time be carrying out the segregation policy of the previous Government. But, as the position is at present, this land lies idle as a cause of annoyance. The land is unproductive and all that happens is that wild animals breed there.

Another matter to which I want to draw attention in connection with my constituency is the development of transport. As hon. members will know the railway line bypasses the district in the east. It is a big district of something like 17,000 square miles. It is situated to the west of the railway line and there are some parts which are as many as 240 or 250 miles from the railway line. It is true that the Minister of Transport has made provision on a considerable scale for bus services. We are naturally grateful for it, but the position is that those buses are not yet able to cope with all the traffic in that area. In the first place there is the question of roads. The roads in those parts are very sandy. The work was delayed for years owing to the lack of material and it was almost impossible to proceed with the construction of roads. The Minister of Transport has told us on a previous occasion that he is not going to develop the railways in that area but that he is going to give us road motor services. We would welcome road motor services but we want to tell him that if he provides road motor services, he should also make available funds so as to permit of the construction of roads on which the road motor services can operate. His reply will be that under the Railway Act he is only entitled to spend money on improvements to the railways, but the time has arrived when the Minister of Transport should take the necessary power not only to construct railway lines but also roads to serve the motor bus services. The Railway Department’s only contribution to the maintenance of these roads is an amount which is equivalent to the licences payable in the district. The big district of Vryburg gets something like £1,500 per annum from the Railway Administration as a contribution to the maintenance of roads. The bus routes in the district cover more than 1,500 miles; in other words, the Railway Department contributes approximately £1 per mile per annum towards the maintenance of roads. I think the Minister has travelled through those parts and he must have some sort of idea of the condition of the roads. It is impossible for the local authority to take care of it. We fall under a Divisional Council and we have no provincial coffers or State coffers at our disposal. I feel that the time has arrived for the Minister to take power to pay a fixed contribution towards the maintenance of roads. I think Vryburg is the only district in the Union where the bus services constitute a paying proposition, apart from the fact that they contribute a great deal towards the feeding of the railways. The traffic which is handled by the buses could be doubled if only we had a more convenient means of transport. They will also have to convey cattle to the market. Today it may be necessary for the farmer to drive his slaughter stock for a distance of 200 miles, and it will readily be understood what that means, especially since the animals have to be driven on a road which is fenced in and since there are no facilities along the road, except where the man is given private assistance. The position is becoming increasingly difficult and the Minister will sooner or later have to make available road motor services for the transport of cattle. We convey thousands of head of cattle to the Johannesburg market. During the past few months when there was a scarcity of slaughter stock we practically kept the Johannesburg market supplied. We were fortunate enough to have a little rain and during the past three or four months we sent at least twenty thousand head of cattle to the Johannesburg market, and we shall be able to send much more in the future if we are not handicapped by a lack of transport facilities. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. The time has arrived to consider whether he cannot make a contribution to the maintenance of roads. It would mean a saving because if the roads are not constructed and maintained the Minister will have to build a railway line. Take the Kuruman district. There the position is even worse. In that district there are all sorts of minerals and metals which have to be transported. If a branch line is constructed from Vryburg to Kuruman and by degrees through the Kalahari to South-West Africa, it will contribute a great deal to the development of that deserted part of the Union. I ask the Minister kindly to give his attention to this matter, and I hope that he will promise in his reply that he will at least consider the advisability of introducing legislation in this connection.

I have not got up to criticise, but to get information from the Minister. Lately I have come into frequent contact with people of the air force and they have told me that they feel that the aerodromes in our country are not quite suitable, particularly those which are used for planes from outside South Africa; and I want to ask the Minister whether it would not be advisable to consult highly qualified technical people before constructing any new airfields. They have gained experience in flying from America to England and to other parts of the world, and they should be consulted whenever aerodromes are constructed. There are, for instance, the larger planes which will now be used. I want to ask the Minister whether he could not get into touch with these people in order that there may be no difference between his administration and the air force administration. Then I also want to ask the Minister what progress has been made with regard to the agreement between America and South Africa on the air route from America to South Africa. I was told that the air route at present terminates at Leopoldville and that up to that point American aircraft are used, but as soon as they land there the traffic has to be transferred to another plane so that there is a break in the service from America to South Africa. Has the time not come for the good relationship between America and South Africa to be further promoted by making possible a direct service from America to South Africa? Then they could fly further from Leopoldville without any switchover. Now I also want to ask the Minister what kind of aircraft he is going to use. There is, for instance, the Constellation. I understand that the Minister has purchased five in America. Are they not actually better than the York aircraft? I do not mean for purposes in our country but for long distance flights, for instance, between the Union and England and between the Union and America, if it does become possible to institute such a service. I understand that the Constellation requires only one landing for taking in fuel on long distances like that. It will be a good thing to have planes which can fly over these long distances and only have to take in petrol once. The Constellation can carry forty-four persons, whereas the York can only carry thirteen. I was assured that there is no comparison between these two machines. The Yorks have not been sold to South Africa, it is true, but I understand that they have been leased to us and that South Africa has to pay for the parts that are required, and I feel that within one year or so the Yorks will be a greater expense to us than if we had bought our own aircraft as, for example, the Constellation. I want the Minister to tell us what the difference between these two types is. I also understand, however, that the aircraft supplied by America are not always equipped with the latest devices available. I would be glad if the Minister would go into this matter and give us an explanation, and if he would see to it that the aircraft we have bought are equipped with all the latest devices. I understand that the five we have bought are not equipped with all the latest improvements. Then there is also the Skymaster, an aircraft which can also carry 44 passengers and which we have already seen in South Africa. It is also an excellent aircraft, and people I have spoken to feel that the Skymaster will be more suitable for our local services than the York. I do hope that the Minister will not have the one desire to trade with England, but that he will secure for South Africa the best aircraft in the world. We know what trouble we had in the past when Advocate Pirow, Minister of Transport at that time, ordered the Junker aircraft, and the strong criticism which was expressed because they were German aircraft; but we also remember the most outstanding services rendered by these aircraft, and when our troops were taken to the North, I understand the Italians could not even shoot them down. They gave great satisfaction, but at the time there was very much criticism. I hope that the Minister will allow nothing to stand in the way of his getting the best aircraft for us. I will be glad, therefore, if the Minister would tell us why we cannot use more Skymasters and Constellations. Then I also want to say something about the salaries in our airways. We have some of the best technical men and we have already lost many of them owing to the salaries paid. In discussing the airways I feel that we should be careful not to lose our best technical men. Compared with America, for instance, our salaries are very poor. The four highest salaries in South Africa are £1,400. They are people who fly overseas, long distances. The local salaries are very much lower, and I feel that the whole matter should be taken into review. America pays 12,000 dollars per annum to its men who fly overseas. Compare that with the £1,400 that we pay. How can we expect to keep these people? Then America pays in respect of local services 9,000 dollars, and at this moment the American pilots are asking for still more than 5,000 dollars, that is, already more than double the salary paid to our men, and before we lose any more of our men I want to ask the Minister to take the salary scale into review in order that we may keep these men. I hope that the Minister will make a statement in this connection.

I just want to bring a small matter to the attention of the Minister, and that is in connection with national roads. I hope that the construction of national roads will be proceeded with and that he will take into consideration the construction of a road from Rouxville via Wepener, Hobhouse, Ladybrand to Ficksburg. Such a road will pass through one of the most beautiful parts of the Free State and will be one of the most beautiful parts for tourists. It will connect with the road to Bethlehem. But not only will it be of interest to tourists but it will also promote the development of those parts which are the most productive parts of he Free State. One gets some lovely views from this road and it will also provide a connection between East London and Durban and Johannesburg and even to Port Elizabeth. Once there is plenty of petrol again, motor cars will throng the roads once more and in view of the Minister’s intentions with regard to road motor services, it will also suit his purpose if a national road is constructed through these parts. The five-year scheme comprises 5,400 miles of national road. Of that distance, two-fifths has already been gravelled and 1,800 miles have been macadamised. The work will therefore be completed within a measurable space of time and new works will then have to be undertaken and I want to mention this route in due time. At present the National Road Board is mainly dependent upon the tax on petrol and if we continue in this fashion, it will be a very long time before the national roads are completed. For that reason I hope that other resources will be made available in order that speedier progress can be made with the national roads, but money should be made available to the Board so that the work can be completed sooner and a further programme of construction of national roads should be drawn up. We know that machinery has been an obstacle but machinery is now beginning to become available again. Then I also want to plead this case with the Minister, that the railway bus tariffs should be brought into line with the tariffs of the railways. It will immediately be said that that would cause a large loss, but the point is that the farmers on the railway lines are very much privileged and are able to achieve speedy development owing to their economical tariffs, whereas the farmers who have to use the railway bus services are handicapped. Take for instance the tariff of a railway bus over a distance of forty miles for the transport of coal. The transport charges are more than the cost of the coal. I trust that the Minister will see his way clear to put the railway bus tariffs on an equal basis with the tariffs of the railways.

I would just like to say a few words in connection with the Road Transportation Board. We know that the Road Transportation Board was established in order to protect the Railways; in other words, because the Railways belong to the State, no illegitimate competition was to be allowed. The example which was quoted at the time was petrol, on which the tariff was very high and which at that time was being transported by lorries and wagons to the detriment of the Railways. The Road Transportation Board was subsequently expanded. Offices were established at Oudtshoorn and in Cape Town and other centres, and the country was divided into zones. But what surprises me is that the Minister, who is a business man and who believes in personal initiative and in competition in business in order to attain the best service, should have completely altered the Board. The Road Transportation Board is now nothing but a control board for the control of each town and district as regards transportation matters. That is what it has virtually become. I am thinking in particular of registration and such matters. I assume of course that they simply have to carry out the policy which has been laid down and I am also assuming that it meets with the Minister’s approval. The position is now that they determine how many transportation exemptions are to be granted in any particular district. We know that if you want to convey passengers you require an exemption certificate for which you have to pay, and that you also require an exemption certificate when you want to transport goods. The position is now that they decide how many transportation exemptions are to be granted in respect of every town or district. They may for instance decide that not more than 20 lorries may ply in the district of Paarl and no matter what you do you will not get one single further exemption, even though the number is inadequate. They are now going a step further and are fixing the cartage to be paid. In other words, it has lost its proper function and has now become a control board. Heaven knows, we have enough control boards and I do not want transportation to come under a control board. I believe the Minister has appointed a commission to investigate the matter and I should like to know whether they have brought out a report and what has been decided in regard to the Road Transportation Board. Take the position in the city. The buses are exempted. If someone else wants to put on a bus they say: “We will not allow that.” In that way the tramways company can do what it likes. I believe they even had the audacity, when a committee represented to them that they should differentiate on the buses between coloureds and natives on the one hand and Europeans on the other, to say that the fares of coloureds and natives are worth just as much as those of Europeans. It is quite legitimate to prohibit coloureds and natives from riding on certain buses. A test case was held at Port Elizabeth, but this tramways company simply says it is aware of the fact that no other company can compete because the Control Board will not grant a permit. In other words, the tramways company is deciding the colour policy for the Cape with the assistance of the Road Transportation Board. Such control was never intended, that is to say, that they should operate in such a manner in the districts. Would the Minister, as a business man, allow the number of shops to be fixed within the area of a Control Board? No, he believes in competition, because otherwise you do not get service. They tried something after that style in other countries, and they found that you do not get service when you establish monopolies. I believe the Bellville company—there is only one company, since the others cannot obtain the right to convey passengers to Bellville—recently sold its rights; that is to say, just the right to convey passengers from Bellville to the city, and that right was sold at £16,000. What right has any board to prohibit someone else from competing? What right is there for a monopoly to be established with the assistance of the Road Transportation Board, for which thousands of pounds are paid? What is the state of affairs when a tramways company has the monopoly to convey passengers ovér the streets within the boundary of the city? I do not object to exemptions, but then one should not have such restrictions. I find it extraordinary that the Minister, as a business man, should act in this manner. One might just as well determine that there shall not be more than six shops in a town, or just one butcher.

They are already doing that as far as butcheries are concerned.

I have very strong feelings in regard to this matter; not because an injustice has been done me, but because it is wrong in principle, and I think the Minister will be the first to admit it. That is why I would like him to tell me what they propose doing, and what their policy is, and whether they are going to continue with those restrictions. You have the position in respect of vehicles, of taxis. The Control Board does not give attention to these vehicles. Some of them are in such a state that a self-respecting person would not get inside them, but they have been granted exemption, and no one else can get an exemption unless he acquires that person’s exemption. I feel that the Minister should not agree to that. Then I would also like to say a few words in regard to the destruction of the country roads by lorries. I realise that if the Railways were to maintain the roads, they would have to raise their tariffs, otherwise it would not pay them. In the Free State and Transvaal you have the Provincial Councils in charge of the roads. There they may co-operate with the Railways in the construction and maintenance of roads, but in the Cape Province each district has its own Divisional Council, which has to maintain its roads from funds acquired from the Provincial Council in the form of subsidies or rates levied on the value of the farms. That is not fair. Here you do not have a central body maintaining the roads, but the Divisional Council, the farmers in the district. I can give instances of roads being constructed, and the man on a remote farm has to pay high rates in respect of the road because it adjoins his farm; and then you have the buses coming along and destroying the roads. What is the Government paying towards road maintenance? Perhaps £60 for a 50-mile stretch of road per year as maintenance. Now you have various Divisional Councils in connection with a road, and the burden is altogether unfair on some Divisional Councils. Take the road from Worcester to Robertson; that has now been macadamised, but take on the other hand the road from Montagu to Barrydale. There you have the road passing through two districts. Barrydale may have the advantage, but Swellendam and Montagu have to maintain the road. I feel I have the right to ask the Minister at least to investigate every case thoroughly, and to make a reasonable contribution towards their upkeep. Of course, if roads can be macadamised with assistance from the Government, that would be the best course. It is in the interests of the State that it should contribute, because when a bus breaks down on a bad road it may cost hundreds of pounds. I know of one case where the dues collected by the bus on the journey amounted to 7s. 6d., and the bus sustained £200 damage as a result of a breakdown due to the bad road. If the Government were to macadamise the roads, it would effect a big saving on the upkeep of the buses. In the long run, it is going to pay the Government better to maintain the roads than to repair its buses. I therefore want to ask him to investigate the matter thoroughly, and to ascertain whether it would not be possible to pay a larger subsidy to the Divisional Councils than at present. I would like him to understand that the people in those parts are thankful to have a bus service. They are cut off from the railways. They are in an area which lies between two railway lines about 50 or 60 miles apart. Those people are really entitled to the bus service, because that is all the Government can give them. The Administration declines to construct more railway lines up-country, and perhaps there is something to be said for that policy, but in those cases where the Government refuses to construct railway lines I feel that bus services should be provided. I know it is a big sacrifice. The position in those districts is that during the season the Railway buses transported 20,000 tons of peaches. They were at it night and day, including Sundays, transporting the fruit to the factories. The farmers are thankful for the assistance the Railway Administration has given them, and for making things easier for them. We are grateful for what has been done, but we feel that the road should be macadamised. It is an important road between two towns, and I know that the Provincial Council is assisting, but I think the Government should contribute towards the cost of macadamising the road because it will result in a saving to them on tyres and the cost of maintaining their vehicles, and I think the Minister should consider the matter. I do not want him to refuse the request and to say that he cannot do so; that he cannot afford more than he is paying. He will find that the contribution he is making towards the maintenance of the road amounts to £50 or £60 per annum. Then I would like to say a few words to the Minister of Finance. I do not want to discuss his Budget because I think enough has been said in regard to that. I would like him to do something for the pensioners in connection with housing. Only today I received a letter from a widow. I take it she receives a pension, although she does not say so. She writes about the beautiful economic houses which are being built for the coloureds. She says it is perhaps necessary for them to have those houses, but she asks whether something cannot be done about building even half-a-dozen sub-economic houses for old persons in the town. This woman lives in a room. That is all she can afford. She cannot rent more than one room and she has to use that room as a dining room and bedroom. These old people are often sickly and it is not always pleasant for their relatives to take them in.

But there is a special housing scheme for old persons.

It is no use if you cannot get the municipality to do something. Large numbers of natives are moving about up-country. Every day one hears about women being murdered, and you have these poor old people in one room; that is the only place they have and they live in dread. They often have to pay high rentals, and it would be much appreciated if the State could get the municipalities to build houses for these old people to live in. Surely it is not reasonable to expect that a European should live in one room. Even a little cottage of two rooms would mean much to them. Many of them just live from day to day. Many of them have had to sacrifice privileges which they enjoyed while they were in employment. I think it will eventually pay the Government to look after these people. In fixing the pension you should at least consider the rent which these people have to pay. The amount they receive is so small that they cannot afford to rent decent places. I would like the Minister to give his special attention to this matter, and where you have a scheme which is to be undertaken by municipalities the Government should insist that they make special provision for old persons. These people cannot afford the usual sub-economic houses. These are usually houses consisting of two or three rooms. Houses are being built for poor people under the sub-economic housing scheme, but you cannot accommodate people there who cannot afford to pay a high rental. I am appealing to the Minister to open his heart to these old persons. If you come into touch with them every day as I do, then you realise what they have to endure.

There are two matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport. In the first place, it would be a good thing if he availed himself of the opportunity of making a statement at this stage regarding the intentions of his Department in connection with the reclaimed harbour area in Cape Town. What are the future plans of the Government? Then there is another matter related to this and I would be glad if he would also give his attention to that, and that is the entrance to Cape Town from the suburbs. In view of the possibility that petrol will again be obtainable and of the increase in the number of motor cars, the hopeless position with regard to the entrance to Cape Town from the suburbs which existed before the war, becomes still more hopeless. It is a serious position and it is becoming worse daily. There are two entrances to Cape Town to which I will refer. If this does not fall directly under the Minister, I will be glad if he would make use of this opportunity in order to inform the people of Cape Town in that regard. Before the war there was a scheme to improve the entrance to Cape Town by widening Bureau Street and to extend the street right through. I would like to hear from the Minister what happened to that scheme and how far it has advanced. The Minister will see for himself how the traffic through the only entrance to Cape Town along Parliament Street or Plein Street is becoming impossible and will become still more impossible. That is one entrance. I understood that before the war the municipality bought up certain buildings which they are now the owners of and which only have to be demolished. If that is so, we would be glad if the Minister of Transport will give his attention to this matter because as Parliament, we are interested in a proper access to this part of the city. The other access is along Voortrekker Road to Cape Town. Some time ago a report appeared in the Press of an interview with the Minister in which he said that there was a scheme firstly, to construct a railway line from Cape Town, a separate line, and to connect it up at Bellville where there would then be a marshalling yard where the trains for the ships will be loaded. I would like to hear from the Minister how far the construction of a new railway line from Cape Town to Bellville has progressed. Connected with this question is the new reclaimed harbour of Cape Town. The question is whether a part of the reclaimed harbour area can be used as an exit for the city. Related to that is also the scheme to construct a large wide road from Cape Town along the sea front in the direction of Bellville. Could the Minister tell us how far that scheme has advanced and whether a part of the reclaimed harbour area will be used to provide an easy exit from Cape Town and a wide road from Cape Town to Bellville. There are many schemes for the improvement of Cape Town’s exit roads, and it will be a very good thing if the Minister made use of this opportunity to inform the public of Cape Town in regard to this matter. I would like to emphasise that the exit road to Bellville is most important. If the Minister saw how the exit along Voortrekker Road is being blocked, he will agree with us. If he could only make a statement on the exit to Bellville, it will be appreciated. Now I want to say a few words with regard to the airways contract. I am sorry that the Minister has rather delayed the promotion of the airways contract with America. Last year when I raised the matter he told us that although a contract had been concluded with Britain, he also intended entering into negotiations with America regarding an airways contract with them. I do not know whether the facts at my disposal are correct, but it appears to me as if the matter has not advanced any further. It will be a good thing if the Minister could tell us what the position is. The dissatisfaction amongst the public with regard to obtaining passages on the airways as well as on the ships is enormous. The people are dissatisfied because they cannot obtain any passage and they also say that preference is given. I do not want to press the point as I do not know enough about this matter, but people say that strange things are happening, that people are obtaining passages on the airways and on ships who should not get them. The Minister can tell us whether that is so or not. But what is true is that eight months after the war we still find that traffic to overseas countries is still in a very poor state, not only as regards our air transport—that could have been better by now—but what could definitely have been better is ocean traffic. If a company like the Union Castle is again interested in South Africa and if a company like the Union Castle is once more to get facilities and the goodwill which it had before the war, then it was, in any case, the duty of that company to provide us with a better service after the war than it has been offering us so far. The excuse has been made that there is a lack of ships and that they have lost ships, but there are other parts of the world which have received a much better service after the war from other companies, and I do not hesitate in saying that no company of any other country received such good treatment as the Union Castle Company received from South Africa, and if they intend relying on those facilities once again, it is their duty to provide us with better facilities. I would like to express this criticism of the Minister that since the end of the war he has not done enough to create facilities for people desiring to go overseas. There is a large number of foreigners in South Africa and we cannot even accommodate them. There is not such a large number of troops that have to go back—although there is the R.A.F.—so that that cannot be the trouble. The trouble is the large number of foreigners who want to get away from South Africa and go back to their own countries. In view of the food shortage in this country, it is the duty of the Government to provide these facilities to the people who want to go back to their own countries, and it is my criticism of the Minister that he has not done enough to create facilities for these people to obtain passages.

I think the House will recall how particularly last year we urged the Ministers concerned not to sell the redundant war material, when it is sold, to the big tenderers. I take it that our requests had a reasonable effect, but not enough, and I do want to bring especially one instance to the attention of the hon. Minister. In the Government Gazette of 15th February last, tenders were invited for the purchase of 700 sets of components originally intended for the manufacture of armoured motor vehicles. Tenders were invited, and as far as I can ascertain, the highest tender was not accepted. According to the information I have here, of the 700 sets, 608 were allocated to a motor firm in Pretoria at a price of £127 each. I know of another tender which amounted to £160, and for some reason or other this tenderer did not get one of those sets. Then the tenderer who had quoted £160 wanted to take over some of the sets from the other firm. The firm replied to him; yes, you can have them, they now cost £250 each. This firm paid £127 for it and now wanted a profit of practically 100 per cent. from another motor firm. Here we have an instance where a profit of £129 is made on one set. This firm bought approximately 600 of these sets, and that means that on this single transaction it made a profit of £73,800. I really think that this is a most unfair business, and I think the hon. the Minister should particularly give his attention to the large quantities which are sold so that the small tenderers may also be taken into consideration. Then I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment with regard to the transfer duties which are still partly in operation. The Minister of Finance has now suspended the extra transfer duties of £1,000 to £2,000 and granted relief in respect of amounts above £2,000. Instead of 2 per cent. it is now 1 per cent. I think he could go still further. He could at least have granted relief on amounts from £2,000 to £3,000. That is, after all, the price of the house in which the person with an average income lives. The average house costs between £2,000 and £3,000. The same applies in the case of fixed property transactions. It is only a very small farmer who today buys land which costs £3,000, and even where the price is £4,000, and I think the Minister is placing an unnecessarily heavy burden upon the small farmer or the small man. Then I also think that the Minister has not acted very wisely with regard to the changes he has effected in the scale of the excess profits duty on fixed property. We are living at a time today when the price of property is abnormally high. I think it will be sound policy if the Minister tries to reduce the values, and I think if the Minister abolished this tax completely it would have the effect of bringing property prices down, and accordingly I think that the Minister has not done his duty in this respect. The Budget has been discussed fairly fully, and therefore I do not want to criticise it any further.

There are one or two points which I feel are of sufficient importance to be raised here. The one is the question of the price of South African liquor and wines. I raised it a few years ago on another occasion, and the hon. the Minister of Finance was then so good as to promise that he would refer the matter to the Price Controller. That was more than two years ago. He fulfilled his promise. The matter was referred to the Price Controller, but the prices are still exactly the same, and I would just like to point out what is happening. During the war, as we know, there was an amazing demand for South African wines and South African liquor. People could not obtain the overseas products here, and the demand for South African wines and liquor was enormous, and I know for a fact that in respect of an ordinary wine—to mention a well-known type, namely Witzenberg, which is sold in the hotels in the Transvaal and also in Natal—the profit was 500 per cent., five times the price the hotel had to pay for it. A report was made and it was brought to the notice of the Minister concerned, but unfortunately it apparently is not a matter which can be controlled by the Price Controller. For some reason or other it is one of those things with which he cannot interfere, and that is why I am raising it here. If the Price Controller cannot take action to ensure that the public is not exploited— that is not quite the right word—then I feel that it should be referred to the Minister of Justice or the Department of Justice. Why I mention the Department of Justice is because the liquor licences or the liquor licensing boards come under the Minister of Justice, and I imagine it should be possible to give instructions to the liquor licensing boards that they should see to it that such undue profits are not made. Take another well-known South African drink, namely Van der Hum, which is used as a liqueur. In that case the profit amounts to even as much as 1,000 per cent. For a small liqueur glass they charge 1s. 6d. at these hotels, and one finds that in places such as Margate in Natal, where there is only one hotel, one simply has to pay the price charged by the hotel. I was under the impression that the reason why South African wines and liquor were so expensive was because the beer breweries controlled the hotels in the country and that they were keeping the price of South African wines so high in order thereby to compel the public to buy beer, but I understand that that is not actually what is behind this. But be the reason what it may, the fact remains that unduly high prices are being charged for South African wines and liquor. May I avail myself of this opportunity of paying a compliment to the South African Railways. There one finds South African wines and liquor at reasonable prices. And that is where one immediately notices the difference. When on the railways one pays 2s. 6d. for a bottle of Witzenberg, for instance, and within a few yards of the station one has to pay 7s. 6d. a bottle in the Carlton Hotel in Johannesburg, then one realises that something is radically wrong. While I am speaking of hotels I want to say a few words about the issuing of licences to hotels. Now that the war is over there have been many applications for new hotel and bottle-store and other licences. Many of these applications are granted and many are refused. But the point I really want to raise is this. If a person is granted his licence, then if must be considered from this aspect that the man is receiving from the State as a present a valuable asset which he could the very next day sell, as in some cases, for £10,000. He practically receives a gift of £10,000 from the State without having utilised the licence. I just want to say that recently there has been much abuse of the practice of using the names of returned soldiers in this connection. The names of these people are used in order to influence the licensing board to grant the licence. The names of returned soldiers who have come back wounded have been used. In some cases the licences have been granted, but the returned soldiers did not receive the benefit of these licences. The partners are the people behind the scheme. Other people and not the returned soldiers reap the benefit. The man would perhaps receive a few thousand pounds and he then disappears from the scene, and in the meantime he received a valuable asset from the State. What I want to know from the Minister is this; is it not possible to call for applications by means of tenders. If the liquor licensing board comes to the conclusion that in some or other area another bottle store or hotel licence should be granted I feel that such licence should be offered to the public by way of tender. The board may still in any case approve of the person and make sure that he is of good conduct. But why should the State give a valuable asset such as this as a present to some or other person who applies for it merely by chance. A licence was recently granted at Diep River. In this case, too, the man sold it within a very short time. A partnership was entered into for £10,000, and the partner got the licence simply because he happened to apply. I feel that this is a matter which for once deserves the attention of the Minister of Finance. At Heidelberg once the condition was made by the applicant that he would give £5,000 to the hospital if the licence was granted to him. The licence was granted, but the hospital did not get the money. I believe the Treasury intervened subsequently and demanded the amount. But where such a valuable asset is granted I feel that tenders should be called for, and then the board should still approve of the person to whom the licence is granted. Why should people in this case receive such a valuable asset merely by way of application? Then I also want to say a few words to the Minister of Transport and that is in connection with the transport of manure. In the past we have been faced with the difficulty that it was impossible for the Minister to grant all the requests received for the transport of kraal manure. There are fortunately today still parts of the country where there are considerable supplies of kraal manure. Farmers are now being encouraged to produce but what is the position? Here we find that in the past the necessary buses could not be made available whereas we know now that there are sufficient buses if the Minister of Transport would only take these buses over from the Department of Defence. Then I just want to refer to this further point. Where usually only one bus is used the farmers put four or five trailers behind the bus and I want to suggest that this method be employed. It would relieve the position considerably. Then there is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and that is in connection with air transport, the relief which the position has now received. We find that there is an amazing demand and I take it that very shortly we will have many more aircraft to supply the need and that the people will make full use of the opportunity. I want to suggest one way in which the journeys of passengers could be made more interesting. I want to suggest that there should be an indicator in the aircraft on which can be shown for the information of the passengers, the areas over which they are flying. When people are travelling by air, they have no idea of their whereabouts. They see rivers and towns below them but they do not know where they are and it is such an easy thing to remedy. A small pamphlet is put at the disposal of passengers. The pilot knows where he is, and I want to make the following suggesttion. The passengers should be given a small book in which the various places are indicated by a number for each place. From time to time, as they are passing over the various places, the number of the particular place could be shown on the indicator and then one could know precisely where you were. If No. 7, for instance, was Beaufort West, then one would know immediately when the number appeared on the indicator that you were flying over Beaufort West. That would make the air journey much more interesting and one would know what you were seeing. When one travels by rail, one sees the name of the station but when you are in the air you cannot see where you are. I think this is a matter which should receive the attention of the Minister. Then there is one other matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister. I do not know why one should have to depart particularly from the Carlton Hotel when one travels from Johannesburg. Why could the passengers not be picked up at the railway station. Why should one particular hotel be chosen? The result is that this hotel gets the benefit because one has to leave for the airport early in the morning and consequently one spends the night at the Carlton Hotel. The station is very central and I cannot see why the Administration cannot make the motor vehicle available to it depart from the railway station. I think it would be a more equitable arrangement if he could arrange it that way. We have heard so much and we will naturally hear much more during this Session about soil erosion. It has already been brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport but I would like seriously to appeal to him for the Railway Administration to give its attention to this matter. We have seen once again how the Railways have been the cause of unfortunate instances of soil erosion. The Administration has its storm channels and then the water is diverted and it runs from these channels of the Railways on to the farmers’ lands. The Railways is the great culprit. They are mainly responsible for soil erosion if they do not see to it that the water is properly diverted. That is more or less all I wish to say in connection with these few points.

I consider it my duty to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) most heartily for having stepped into the breach with us who feel very strongly about the mixed travelling on trains. He told us here of the things which were happening on our trains. I see that the Minister is amused. Most probably he does not travel by train two or three times a day as we do. He accepts the word of the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) who travels every day in a de luxe motor-car to Woolworths, where his business is. He does not consider those who have to use the train and who have to travel under these conditions every day. If there ever was a Minister who should listen to us in regard to this question of mixed travelling then it is this Minister. If he does not do that he would become the most unpopular Minister the country has ever had, especially amongst his own people in the Cape Peninsula. I have here a whole bunch of letters from his own supporters addressed to me after I had raised the matter. I have here quite a number of letters from women who have had the most unpleasant experiences and then the Minister comes along and says that the matter is not so serious that it is “grossly exaggerated!” I wish he would go and travel on these trains. The Minister has the right to improve the position. He is empowered by law to do so. But the Minister is still trying to sidestep the House in connection with this matter. He does not want to improve the situation. We have tried in every way to talk nicely to him. We have told him what the legal position is. Now he wants to go and obtain legal advice. That is not necessary, but he can do so. All he has to do is to ’ indicate which coaches are intended for Europeans and which for non-Eupropeans. We have to deal here with reality and I predict that the Railways will still suffer very heavily if no improvement is made. Here is a typical letter written to me by a woman. I do not know this lady, but she writes to me—

And then the Minister says “grossly exaggerated!” “I know they have certain rights but why should the Europeans be treated as if they do not count?” I have other letters here. I can read numerous letters to the Minister, and they all more or less tell the same story. Here is one from another person at Fish Hoek. He says that he is not a supporter of this side of the House but that the Minister did not want to remedy the situation. He wants us to proceed with the matter. We do not object to these people travelling decently in first-class carriages but I repeat that this is a matter which should receive the Minister’s immediate attention. He is going to get a most unpleasant situation here in Cape Town. Times are normal at present but when the holidays come, then we find here in the Cape Peninsula and even on the trains to The Strand, Somerset West and Wellington that much unpleasantness sometimes arises. The Minister can prevent that and I ask him from the bottom of my heart to give his attention to the matter once more. And since he has the right to indicate that other property such as benches are reserved for Europeans and for non-Europeans separately he can do the same with the trains without having to wait for legal advice. I also have a letter here from a coloured person who agrees with me. He says: “Allow us to have our own carriages.” He also says that they on the other hand, do not want to travel with the natives. I say that this matter is becoming more serious every day. Why must we have a position here in Cape Town which is not tolerated in the Transvaal. There they have trains for the natives and why cannot we have separation here. But I have another letter here which shows how serious the position is becoming. A coloured man reserved his accommodation in a first-class compartment together with two other men. His name was Christoffels. The son went to see his father off and he noticed that one of the persons whose accommodation was reserved in the compartment was a coloured man. His whole family was there. He first of all went to consult the ticket examiner, who told him that he could not do anything about it. Then he went to the Railway police constable. He also said he could not do anything and this man was compelled to travel with the coloured man all the way to Pretoria. If the Minister would only carry out the law definitely then these unpleasant incidents would not happen. It is not a question of non possumus. It is a question of the Minister not wanting to act. The manner in which the Minister replied to me is proof that he does not realise the seriousness of the situation and that he does not want to realise it. The hon. member for Sunnyside emphasised this matter in the same way as I, and many of the members on the opposite side have told me that they are in complete agreement with me. What is worse, I am being approached every day by the public in Cape Town who tell us that we should not let this matter rest but carry it further. I am only doing my duty.

Then there is another matter. I am interested in apprentices. A disclosure has been made which has perturbed me. Last year there were in connection with the Railways 3,643 candidates and 215 of them qualified, 171 were employed and 1,147 of them were, owing to their age, not accepted. This is one of the things which we on this side of the House have been pleading for continually, namely, that the age limit should be removed and that we should change also the Apprenticeship Act so that it will not be so restrictive. We want a person who has the ability to be allowed to become an apprentice and subsequently an artisan even though they may be over the age limit. Here we see that there were 3,643 candidates and that 171 were accepted and then the Minister still goes and appoints 145 imported artisans. Why did the Minister import so many artisans. We have the men here. We have the material and these are the figures furnished by the Minister himself. Why does he import artisans? And do they satisfy the requirements in respect of bilingualism if they have to serve the public once they do come into contact with the public? Or can we not get men like them in this country at all? This is an important matter and this side of the House trusts that the Minister will give a reply to this very important question.

I would like to bring a few matters to the attention of several Ministers. One is in connection with the trains on branch lines. It seems to me as if the carriages are old carriages which they do not want to use on the main lines any more. As the Minister knows, we have not the same facilities on the branch lines which are available on the main lines. From Victoria West to Calvinia and from Klaver to Cape Town there is no dining saloon on the train, and then we get these carriages which are most inconvenient. During the war sleeping bunk lights were removed and the other lights were very poor. Has the time not come for more facilities to be provided to the travelling public once more?

I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here. I want to draw his attention to sub-economic housing in the smaller municipalities in the rural areas. We have municipalities and village management boards which represent small towns, and if they want to build houses for the people under this scheme then they are not able in view of their small revenue to pay the interest and redemption. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister, and to ask him whether he does not see his way clear to assist these people not only by means of an interest subsidy but to assist them also as far as the redemption is concerned. The position regarding public health is getting more serious every day. Tuberculosis and venereal diseases are increasing, and however much these municipalities may desire to make their contributions to the health of the people they are not able without the assistance of the State to pay the redemption within the prescribed period, unless they impose abnormally high taxes on the properties in these small municipalities.

Then there is the shortage of nurses. We saw recently that at Nelspoort there were empty beds, while at the same time there was a long waiting list of patients, for the simple reason that there was a shortage of nurses. I want to appeal to the Minister. His predecessor, the present Minister of Demobilisation, made an appeal on the radio in October, 1943, to the daughters of South Africa. He said 17,000 nurses were required and he asked them to offer their services. He said that the salary would be right and that the training facilities would be there, and until this day no single training facility has been provided in addition to what existed previously in order to train these nurses. Since the health of the people is a matter for the Government we should not rely upon the Provincial Administration to train nurses. We cannot afford with our small population to be in a position where people suffering from tuberculosis cannot be admitted to the hospitals owing to a lack of nurses. I want to make this request to the Minister of Health to make provision for an adequate number of nurses to care for the sick in our country.

In all the years I have been in Parliament I do not think I have ever experienced such a development as we have had over the Budget this year. With the exception of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, who replied to the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) today, not a single Minister has really been called upon to reply to any criticism offered in this debate. During these many years the last day of the Budget has usually been taken up, much to the regret of many members, by Ministers who have felt called upon to reply to criticisms directed against them during the Budget debate. I think it is correct to say that this Session is absolutely unique because, with the exception of the Prime Minister, not a single Minister has been called upon to reply to any criticism affecting his department. That in itself may, I think, be taken as an indication of the successful manner in which the Government of this country has been carried on in the last twelve months.

I do not wish to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), except to say I am sorry the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is not in her seat. I am quite unrepentant of all I said. But I know the Minister is going into the subject. I myself am convinced that the only solution is to provide separate coaches clearly marked, on the suburban lines.

I want to refer to the Budget, and I am sorry the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is not here. He made a criticism, very similar to criticism which has been passed during the last few years. He made statements which I think on calm reflection could never be sustained and which he must realise are quite incorrect. Unfortunately, the hon. member for George indulges in the habit of making charges against the Minister of Finance; he gets more and more vehement in the course of his speech, and one can usually follow the line of action that he is going to take. This particular year he started off by showing, and giving instances, of how far more money could have been saved and how many more taxes could have been reduced. He arrived at a total of many more millions. His colleague, the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) got up and added several additional millions.

He did it in a different way.

As the Minister reminds me, it was done in a different way. And I am confident most members of this Housé could suggest methods of relieving taxation, usually to suit their own particular point of view. But the hon. Minister has in this Budget made a substantial effort to relieve taxation and the burdens borne by certain sections of the people. It is an extraordinary thing that though criticism has been levelled by hon. members, they must admit, as indeed they did admit in what one might term cross-examination, that the bulk of the Minister’s tax remissions were justified and quite fair. The hon. member for George made this statement—and he did it because it was a question of relieving taxation—that if South Africa had not entered the war our national debt would have remained practically the same as it was in 1940. I think that was the clear statement he made. He said there had been no justification for increasing the national debt, and he gave instances, in which he was supported by the hon. member for Fauresmith, by quoting the cases of Ireland and Portugal. I am not going over their position again, because the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) covered that yesterday when he showed quite clearly the difference between their position and ours. But what I would ask hon. members opposite—and I do not wish to rake up all the matters from 1939 onwards— have they forgotten the position of this country in 1939? Have they forgotten that this country was pledged the year before to an immediate expenditure of £6,000,000 in connection with our defence in order to buy certain preliminary equipment that was required? That pledge was entered into by the previous Government. And what is more, when war was declared, and when the then Prime Minister went into the question what further munitions were required—I can tell the House this now it is over—and immediate orders were placed amounting to £30,000,000, not for the purpose of entering into an offensive against the enemy but in order to protect our own shores and to get the necessary munitions and equipment for our defence requirements. Some hon. members may recall the speech which I refer to with a certain amount of pride—I was on the committee that investigated that matter— when I remarked, what did we have in the country at that particular time? We had guns without shells, airmen without aircraft, men without equipment and no anti-aircraft guns at all. And if at that particular time Japan had come into the war, and heaven knows there was every prospect of their doing so, we can imagine what might have happened. This country remembers what happened at Pearl Harbour, and you can visualise what would have happened at Cape Town, Durban and East London if we had not been able to get equipment, guns and munitions for the defence of these shores. Whether we had declared neutrality or not that would have been needed. If we had proclaimed our neutrality, there is one thing that any Government with a sense of responsibility would have done at once, and that is obtain the necessary munitions of war to defend our shores.

There is no objection to that.

But the hon. member for George said that if this country had not gone to war our national debt would have remained the same. I say that far from our national debt remaining the same it must have increased enormously in order that we might obtain the equipment necessary to defend ourselves the equipment essential to defend our shores and to equip our army and the available manpower of the country. We had the manpower.

Actually our defence scheme would have required more than £30,000,000.

How would we have got it?

We raised £250,000,000 from revenue by increased taxation, due to the fact that our revenue was enlarged by the manufacture of munitions and stores required by our Allies and by ourselves, and as the result of the money brought into the country in this way. We made enormous quantities of munitions. [Interruptions.] The hon. member knows perfectly well we made this additional revenue. The funds required were raised by taxation.

I should like to draw attention to another matter in connection with this. Hon. members opposite seem to think it was only a question of money. I can remember the time very clearly, and it was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring), when it was vital to the interests of this country to keep our gold mines going. It was vital in the interests of revenue and of gold production that we should obtain certain plant and machinery from the United States. At that time the United States had practically closed down their gold mining industry, and it was only due to the urgent representations made by our Prime Minister and, I think I am right in saying, by a special mission that was sent over to America, that we were enabled to get that additional machinery and plant. We pointed out it was essential for us to have that plant. What is more, America only agreed to supply us with the necessary munitions of war because we were then in the war. America would never have supplied us otherwise. Nor would Britain have been able to supply us with all the munitions we required if we had remained neutral.

Did America supply Britain with munitions before she was in the war?

America supplied Britain with munitions under Lease-Lend, but America turned down Ireland’s request. But it is no good harping on those things. I pointed out the financial position of this country was immensely enhanced by the efforts made by all sections. You may make certain criticisms in regard to this Budget, but I want to say this that all sections of the country, even the lowest paid sections, have contributed very largely to the success that is now reflected in the Budget. Sometimes there are unkind criticisms from my friends on the Labour benches. But they know perfectly well, too, that we are determined to see that the services given to the lower paid sections of the community are improved. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) knows that too, because he helped build up the policy in the past. Although I have differed from him at times he knows perfectly well that we are determined to go ahead in this respect. It may all take a very long time, but we are determined to do justice to those sections of the community which certainly need assistance. It does take time, as the hon. member knows.

The hon. member talked about our reckless spending. He said there was “no thought for the ordinary taxpayer”, and he grieved for the “forgotten farmer”. Heavens, how he is forgotten! When I see what sums of money are now being repaid by the farmers, and the profits they are making, the prices they are receiving for their produce and when we hear of the excess profits the farmers of this country are paying taxes on, I do not think they are doing so badly. There was no thought for the food scarcity. Is that a fair charge to make against the Government? If there is one thing which has been giving the Government a sick headache it has been the scarcity of food and the difficulty of obtaining food. But now it is said that no thought has been given to the food scarcity. We are criticised because the Government has taken steps to give food not to the wealthy classes, but to the poorer section, the natives.

A very much belated effort.

The charge was that we gave no thought to the food position, and when the hon. member says it is much belated, I have the right to ask hon. members some questions about that. There is no man in this House who has raised the question of food shortages as often as I have.

And are you satisfied now?

We are not satisfied. We also made our contrary representations to the Government.

Then why grouse when we do it?

I do not say that, but I say that you have no right to complain that we gave it no thought. When the women asked for rationing the reply from that side was that there was no need to have rationing because there were ample supplies, and it would be against the interests of the farmers, and that by rationing we would take away the need for having certain foodstuffs. What has been the position. When we left the controls in the hands of the farmers as we were asked to do, when members on this side of the House had been urging for years that margarine factories should be erected, so as to help to supply the poorer sections of the people, where did the opposition come from?

From your side.

It also came from the farmers on that side.

And what about the farmers on your side?

I agree, but your side also objected. The towns have realised this necessity, and if it had been left in the hands of the business people of this country, you would have had margarine. Hon. members talk about this party taking no interest in the lower paid sections. The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) gave instances of how the remission of taxation for the lower income groups has been neglected, and he quotes as an example the income tax of those getting £700 or less per annum. What is the position of those people when compared to 1939? He has given the figures. The last published figures that I could find show that in 1939 out of a total normal supertax of £3,175,000, 39,000 people were below £700 and paid £228,000 out of the total of £3 million. That 39,000 had grown by 1943-’44 to 114,919 people who get less than £700 and they paid £1,210,000 out of a total of £11,581,000. That was two years ago. Now the Minister has announced that by the remission that he has made in the savings levy of this personal tax, he has relieved 130,000 families from direct taxation. And then the hon. member says we have done nothing. He may say that it is insufficient, but to say that we have done nothing is a gross exaggeration, and it is entirely unwarranted and unfair. The trouble is that in dealing with these matters hon. members very often let their eloquence run away with their thoughts. That is so of the hon. member for George. He puts me in mind of the old Latin tag “sua mortifera est facundia” which means “a man of many words but little wisdom”. I think that sums up the hon. member for George very well. He is eloquent. One listens to him. One is carried away, but as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has pointed out when he got down to dissect the speech, there is not very much in it. Let me say this. I think I rather agree with some of the remarks made by hon. members like the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and some of the members of the Labour Party that it is a very difficult matter to give any direct benefit to the lower income groups in the way of remission from direct taxation. Very few of them pay direct taxes. Most of their taxation is indirect. But what I want to say is that this year we have taken £10 million with which to buy wheat and maize for the lower income groups. That money is to be used to make up the difference between the cost of importation and the cost of the present price of maize to the consumer. The present price is in the region of 19s. 6d. a bag. Intrinsically it is worth 8s. or 9s. The greatest relief one can give to the poorer people is to see by way of subsidy that the cost to them is not increased. I think credit for it should be given to the Government that on the estimates put before the House, a sum of £4½ million is provided for the payment of wheat subsidies to keep down the cost of the necessary food to the people. In Britain food subsidies amounted to £225 million, going up to £300 million. Just before I sit down may I tell you some of the advantages the people derived from that subsidy. A 4 lb. loaf of bread in Britain today costs 9d, but without the subsidy it would be 1s. 1d. The price of milk is 5d. a pint, and the Exchequer gives ½d. a pint subsidy to the consumer making the price 4½d. to him. All the way through it has been the aim of the Exchequer in Britain to keep down the cost of foodstuffs, and therefore the cost of living, and in doing’ that they manage to keep down the cost of living by some 12 per cent., and I would like to see, when the Minister goes further into this matter, that there will be no need to publish such figures in the Budget for the importation of food. I hope in due course the Minister will give full consideration to the problem of whether it is not possible to give further subsidies to the lower income groups and to give them the relief which it is otherwise quite impossible to do.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. ’Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and Standing Order No. 102 (2), and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 18th March.