I move—

I may say, for the information of the House, that this report from the Select Committee on Standing Rules and Orders was very carefully considered by this body, a very representative body, a body representing the various parties in this House, and the Committee gave its close attention to the matters which appear in this report, and after very full consideration came to the conclusion which is now submitted to the House.

I should say this, Mr. Speaker, that I think the Select Committee is the proper forum for the consideration of this matter. If the House were to embark on a discussion as to the details of the report, it might be a lengthy business, and certainly not a satisfactory business’. This report deals with matters affecting the personnel of our staff; these are matters which have to be thrashed out in Committee, and that has been done and done very fully, and I think under the circumstances the proper course for the House is not to go into these details here in the House, not to reopen matters which have been very fully discussed in Committee, but to adopt the conclusions to which the Committee has come. I therefore move the adoption of the report.

I second.

Let me say, Sir, that the motion which I propose to put before this House is in no sense intended to imply any reflection on the hon. members composing this committee. My proposal will be that the matter should be referred back to the committee for further consideration, and that, Sir, will conform very closely to the expression of view voiced by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister this morning. I shall be obliged only to refer to the circumstances of grievance that are inseparable from the carrying out of the recommendations, and in doing so I shall certainly be careful to use terms which will entirely absolve me from any reflection on the Chair or on the distinguished members in this House who compose the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. I know perfectly well the Select Committee of the House is composed of all the leaders of the parties, including the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and that it is a committee which in my opinion will be disposed to accept my proposal for further consideration of this matter in view of the acute issues raised by at least one of the recommendations before the House today. I therefore move—

I say, Sir, that this debate, according to the rules of the House, provides an opportunity —that cannot be denied to any member of this House—for the discussion of recommendations that emanate from this committee, however important and however far-reaching its recommendations may be.

I am mindful of the fact that that committee’s deliberations are presided over by you. Although I have on frequent occasions perhaps been misunderstood to have disregarded the Chair I have on no occasion intended to do anything of the kind. My whole attitude towards parliamentary institutions and the Chair is to show the proper respect that is due to the authority of the Speaker and the Chair in this House, and I have not the least intention of doing otherwise now. Let me be very careful what I say at this stage. A reference to the report shows that the promotion of Mr. Knoll to the post of Clerk of the Senate has created a vacancy among the clerks at the Table in this House, and that the Select Committee recommends the automatic promotion of Mr. Hugo, already Second Clerk-Assistant at the Table, to the higher appointment of Clerk-Assistant and Accountant. No objection can be raised to this recommendation even among the numerous members of the staff who are as anxious as the members of the staff are entitled to be for promotions in their due turn. But the recommendation goes on to say that the appointment of Mr. C. T. du Toit, Chief Translator, is recommended to fill the vacancy caused’ by Mr. Hugo’s promotion. Now, Sir, that brings about a new principle in the choice of Clerks at the Table. In the past as far as any member of this House has been able to ascertain the rule has been to train men for duties at the Table in the Select Committees, and that seems to be a reasonable way of giving them the necessary knowledge in regard to the rulings from the Chair. Select Committees, I think, even to the minds of the least observant of us, are really miniature parliaments in which all kinds of questions of order are bound to arise. The appointment of Mr. du Toit is in the minds of the men whose promotion is affected a violation of the principle of promotion by seniority and merit. I am not able to avoid a reference to the singular position which Mr. Wyndham has earned for himself both amongst members of this House and amongst the public outside. His devotion to duty over 26 years of service has earned for him a position in which those who know the situation in this House would feel that he is pre-eminently suited for the duties of one of the Clerks at the Table. I am not in Mr. Wyndham’s confidence. I am merely speaking with a vague knowledge of the relative service of the persons concerned, but I understand Mr. Wyndham’s service amounts to 26 years, I may be one year out. The member of the staff who is to be promoted to the Table has had say 15 years’ service, I am not sure of the exact period of months, but that may be near enough, that is 10 years’ shorter service than the service of Mr. Wyndham. Let me say this, that not only in the estimation of those who have long experience of Select Committees does Mr. Wyndham stand preeminently fitted for work at the Table, but recently on a train journey I made to Natal I met two senior counsel who were returning from Select Committee work in Cape Town and who spoke in the highest terms of Mr. Wyndham’s work as being the work of one who by his bearing, by his knowledge, and by his mastery of all the intricate details pertaining to private Bills and hybrid Bills was one of the most efficient men Parliament had today. I am not blind to the fact that Mr. Wyndham in the ordinary course would have received the promotion to the Table which he has worked for, and undoubtedly earned. But I understand there are reasons which have to do with the fact that his age would incidentally result in more than one man leaving the Table within a very short time of his immediate superior, and that might involve awkward complications. Those complications are ten years off, and in the ordinary course of events surely before any distinguished member of this staff is to be passed over for his promotion and consigned for the rest of his time to that post on the Select Committee Clerk staff, which probably entails more wear and tear and more drudgery than any other post in this House, surely before the House is committed to an injustice of that kind and we abandon the principle of promotion by seniority and promotion by merit, the Select Committee should consider whether some other way cannot be found to recognise the devoted and unselfish work that Mr. Wyndham and his assistant Mr. Macfarlane have put in in this House, and to affirm that the ordinary course of promotion is not to be interfered with and what the staff have worked for and earned they should have accorded to them. I understand there is some proposal that certain monetary compensation should be granted in each of these cases. But when a member of the service has an ambition before him, when he has sought to get an appointment which will give him opportunity of rising to a post which will carry with it a pension of a definite amount, then I think we have to consider these matters. Regulations are laid down which govern these matters. Regulations are laid down which govern pensions, and I am advised that even with the temporary monetary compensation that might be given, the fact remains that these officers would have no further prospect of promotion, and at the end of their time they would get considerably less by way of pension, probably £200 less than they would if they were allowed to proceed on what their merits have earned them, to an appointment at the Table, where the pensions are on a better scale. I have dealt with the points I wish to make, and I trust I have not offended against the recognised procedure in any way whatever in endeavouring to state the principles at stake in connection with this matter.

In seconding this motion of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) I am quite prepared to respect the request of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that the matter should not be discussed over the floor of the House. I would add that there are certain undesirable features regarding the new approach made by these appointments.

I think it will be expected that I, as leader of one of the parties and as a member of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, should also express my views in connection with this motion. Let me say at once that I am one who most certainly would never dispute the right, the absolute right, of this House to go into a matter of this nature. The officials who are being appointed are officials of this House, and if there is substantial ground for complaint I think a member has the fullest right to bring it before the House, as has been done now by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). But in any case I must on this occasion oppose the motion because I think it is undesirable to discuss here a matter such as this which affects individuals, which affects appointments. To have a discussion on the individuals and their comparative merits would be highly undesirable. Appointments in the public service cannot be entrusted to a large body, nor can the merits of the applicants, of persons who come under consideration, be discussed by a large body. Consequently appointments are in the first place entrusted to a small commission, the Public Service Commission, which actually is comprised of three members. It is just because we do not wish to discuss in public the merits or lack of merit of various applicants that there must be a large measure of confidence in the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, who make the appointment in the first place. This is a committee representative of all parties of the House, on which the leaders of the House serve, and there may be a difference of opinion—to a certain extent this was the case here, that a relatively small minority differed in their opinion about these particular appointments—but I think that taking all the circumstances into consideration, unless a glaring injustice has been done, and unless you are certain that the matter has not been handled bona fide with a view to the best interests of the House, it is undesirable to discuss the matter in the House. Accordingly, I cannot agree with the motion of the hon. member that the matter should be referred back to the committee. It ought to be regarded as a matter that has been settled. I wish to put one other aspect of the matter, namely, that if the merit or the lack of merit of one or other applicant is brought up for discussion in this House you can well understand what a bad influence it will have in the future, because this might easily have the sequel that applicants for various posts, individuals who wish to come under consideration, may approach one member of Parliament or another, or various members, in order to urge them to bring the matter before the House, and they may try in that way to achieve their purpose. They can approach not only members of Parliament but also members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. Let me say this, that I think the promotions that are being made in this House must be made from the parliamentary staff, because in the public service there are opportunities for promotion high up in the ordinary course of events in accordance with the merits of the person concerned. The chances of promotion are not so bright for members of the parliamentary staff. For that reason I would say that all posts that fall vacant in the parliamentary service, save in very exceptional instances which, certainly as far as I know, have never occurred, should be filled from the staff of Parliament. Nor do I wish to cast any doubt on the right of members of the staff who wish to come under consideration for a particular post to bring their claims in the right way to the notice of the authorities. I have nothing against members of the staff, for instance, writing to the Speaker or to the Clerk to intimate that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, they would like to be borne in mind for a specific appointment, but it must rest at that. No doubt the Speaker and the Clerk, when appointments have to be made, will bring to the notice of the Committee the claims of such members of the staff. I think that in any case that way must be open for the staff, but what certainly should not happen is members of the staff canvassing members of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders with the object of furthering their case. That would be a very improper position. I am not referring to any specific instance where that was done. Least of all am I referring to the person who was named here by the hon. member for Pinetown and for whom he pleaded this morning. It is unknown to me whether any representations were made. I do not wish to say that this was done by members of the staff as a whole. It may be so, and it may not. I only say this, that should a discussion take place in this House on a delicate subject such as this, the road would be open for canvassing by members, and I think that would create a very undesirable position.

I shall not say much in connection with this motion. I assume that it escaped the attention of the Prime Minister, but as a member of the Committee I am very sorry that he did not take the opportunity to explain why it was necessary to make certain of these appointments. We are exceptionally fortunate with the officials we have in the House. They are extremely capable, and we have not the slightest fault to find with the persons who have been appointed. But if the Prime Minister had only explained to members and the country that this was the result of the application of a new idea which has just originated, that as far as the officials at the Table are concerned provision must be made for a gap of about ten years between the retirement of the officials, members would have been in a better position to realise what the position is. Let me say that I did not endorse the idea that I have mentioned here. I accept, however, the recommendation of the majority. I only desire that it should be made clear to this House. I am not referring now to Mr. Hugo, because it was obvious that he should be promoted. In the case of the other appointment, we had extremely competent people who had to be passed over as a result of the application of the new idea and the fact that they were passed over’ has nothing to do with their capabilities or merits. If the Prime Minister had explained this to the House, this discussion would perhaps have been unnecessary, and one feels it should have been done in all fairness towards these officials. The members of this House do not know why they have not been appointed, and the first thought that arises is there must be a reason. I know the Prime Minister will be the first to admit that there is no reason. It was only the result of the new idea that arose, and we must see what the effect will be in the future. We hope it will be fortunate, but in this case it has given rise to a certain amount of friction. I hope that on a later occasion we shall have an opportunity to express our appreciation of the services of the retiring officials. I am referring to Mr. Knoll and Mr. Dempers. I hope that on the last day of the session we shall have an opportunity to express our appreciation of their services.

After what has been said by the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan), which I think represents the general feeling of the House, and with which I wish to associate myself, it may have been held that it was unnecessary to say anything more in support of the Prime Minister’s motion, but I do not think that the impression which the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) gave can quite be allowed to pass. The hon. member made the suggestion that in recommending the appointment of the head of the Translators’ Section as Second Clerk Assistant, we were departing from a recognised principle, and not following the ordinary course of promotions. I think the impression he left was that this is a position which ought to go automatically to the Chief Committee Clerk. I do not, however, think that that principle was ever accepted.

I did not say that.

That was the impression created by the hon. member’s remarks.

With the permission of the hon. Minister, all I said was that the principle of promotion by seniority and merit was not being observed in this case, and I want to indicate that the special training of the clerks in Select Committees has in the past been regarded as fitting them for promotion, but I did not say that because he was Senior Committee clerk he should be promoted.

Then I would like to point out that on the last occasion when we appointed a Second Clerk Assistant in the person of the gentleman whose appointment as First Clerk Assistant has now been recommended, we did appoint a man in exactly the same position as that held by Mr. du Toit, and the last appointment was therefore on all fours with the appointment now recommended. That last appointment was not filled by the appointment of the Senior Committee Clerk, but also by the appointment of the head of the Translators’ Section. On the question of seniority I think it is also right for hon. members to know that although the gentleman who was referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown has been a good deal longer in the service of the House, he and the gentleman who has been recommended by the Committee, are on the same notch of the same scale at present. As far as that is concerned the difference therefore is not very great. I do not wish to go into the matter of merit.

Who is the senior of the two?

I say they are on the same notch of the same scale, but the gentleman to whom the hon. member for Pinetown referred has had longer service. I do not wish to enter into the question of relative merit, except to say that there can be no inference drawn from the recommendation of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders that there is any lack of appreciation of the very notable services which the Chief Committee Clerk has rendered in his position.

Hear, hear.

Reference has been made to the question of spacing in the ages in respect of the Clerks of the Table. That undoubtedly is a matter which had an influence on the recommendation of the Committee. The recommendation was influenced by the fact that it is desirable that the ages of the three Clerks should be spaced in order to avoid the very great inconvenience which arises when two of these Clerks retire almost simultaneously. It is only by having spacing of that kind that adequate provision can be made for the training of someone by way of the post of Second Clerk Assistant through the post of First Clerk Assistant to become Clerk of the House. The Committee was undoubtedly influenced by that consideration, but in being influenced by that consideration the Committee had no other thought before it than to serve the best interests of the House, and I hope the House will be prepared to accept the assurance we give that that has been the only consideration influencing us, that we have in all sincerity tried to serve the interests of the House.

Amendment put and negatived.

Original motion put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was engaged in presenting a picture and in pointing out the background that the Indians developed in the Transvaal as well as in the other provinces. I pause for a moment to indicate how the white man is largely responsible for that development. The Indians traded on our kindheartedness and they ingratiated themselves and that to such a degree that not only did they get the businesses into their hands but it even went so far that legislation had to be adopted to prevent the mixing of Afrikaners with Indians. But I see something more in the background, of this picture, and it is the effect the Indians have on the native population; and when I see this I am so surprised over the attitude of the native representatives, not one of whom is in the House at present. They have made a bad impression in connection with this matter. Take the last conference of Indians in Cape Town, which was opened with an address by one of the representatives of the natives.

What did they want there?

The hon. member’s question is quite correct—what were they looking for there? I think those members are completely neglecting their duty to keep an eye on the detrimental effects the Indians have bn the natives. But while I am speaking about the Indians I also see in the background that in the Transvaal there was a big danger in connection with the gold mines, not so much in connection with the Indians but in connection with the Chinese who were imported. Here I should like to turn to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He said the other day that he would go to the constituency of any member on this side of the House who voted for the Bill, and consequently I ask him to tell us about the people who rode round with petitions, and if he wishes me to mention names I shall do so. I mention the name of Rooi Paul du Plooy, and I ask the hon. member on whose instructions he rode round to get Afrikaners to sign that the Chinese should be brought in? This is in the background of my picture. That hon. member lived in the republic, where he was a prominent man, and I would ask him on whose instructions Rooi Paul du Plooy was entitled to take names.

On whose instructions was it?

Inevitably I have also something in mind that I wish to say to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), and I wish he would listen. He has frequently said in the House that the Voortrekkers were descended from the weaker class of people.

He did not.

He said that again yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) made the statement that I said that the Voortrekkers came from a “swak” or weak class of people. I said nothing of the kind. I said that all the immigrants to South Africa had come from the working classes, who had come here for their bread. It is absolutely untrue to say that I ever in my life at any time said that they came of a weak class.

Were the Huguenots working people?

The hon. member must accept the explanation of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

Yes, I shall accept that; but I would say nevertheless that I am proud of the people from whom I have sprung, as proud as any man in the world. They were as distinguished as any. This is the case in general, and it grieves one somewhat when it it stated here that they came from the working class.

What is wrong with that?

I shall go further. I accepted the member’s explanation, but I abide by my opinion that the Huguenots were noble and distinguished people. I go further, and I come to the Bill that is before the House, and then I should like to dwell on the amendment proposed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. As a Calvinist, I come inevitably to the thought that when the Saviour was on earth He called on one to proclaim the Gospel, but the first man said: No, wait, I must bury my father; and the second said that he had to ask his people. Here we have a recurrence of the idea: Wait a little and postpone; it is not serious yet; it is not a big matter. I received a telegram from the Indians, just as other members have received it, and in that telegram it is stated that we should not worry ourselves about the position of the Indians, and they say that they agree with the Nationalist Party that the whole measure should be combated. No member on the other side has yet rejected it. What have the Indians to do with the Nationalist Party? No, there is a mistake. Now I want to go back and remind the Leader of the Opposition of what was stated in 1927. We find it in Hansard, Volume 2, column 1083. He wished to extend the coloured vote. First I was prepared to cast doubt on it, but it seems to me that this is what the Leader of the Opposition intended, because the Indians had resolved that they are going to support the Nationalist Party. It appears to me that the Leader of the Opposition intended what is stated here in Hansard, that the natives in the north must get the franchise.

This is what your own leader stated.

The member reminds me of what I previously stated, when you throw a stone into a bush and hear a bark, then you know it was a hit. The Leader of the Opposition said this. It is recorded in Hansard. He has apparently forgotten that he said this, and if he is so weak that he should forget it so quickly, it is time that the Opposition should have another leader.

Read it out, we want to hear it.

Yes, I can read it out—

But you spoke about the native.

Has the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) heard that? He wanted to give the franchise to the coloureds, and especially to the coloured women. What will the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) say now when we go with these things to the platteland and tell the voters: Here is legislation before the House that we should accept; and hon. members on the opposite benches are fully entitled to point out if there are mistakes in this legislation? But they must not come here and simply say that we should procrastinate any further. Since the days of the Voortrekkers the Indians have come into this country as parasites, and as parasites they have injected their poison into our national life. If we are going to proscrastinate any further, what is going to happen then? I should like to explain a little. I think that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) will rise presently to speak, and I should like him to explain what I am now going to read out—

I hope the hon. member will reply as to what the meaning of this is. I see in that background the telegrams from the Indians. This has come true. There is something between the lines. I do not know whether it is necessary that I should dwell on this matter any further. I want specially to make an appeal to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom):

Do you agree with the Minister of Finance?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) will have his chance. If he wants to chirp he can chirp as much as he likes when I sit down. But I say these things are facts for which I stand. These reproaches that have been hurled at the Prime Minister’s head are figments of the imagination, designed to delay this legislation and to give the Indians an opportunity to develop still further. It seems to me these things have come too quickly, here we find that the Indians have supported the party on the other side. I regard the second telegram as an ultimatum, because they say here that a quarter of a million Indians cannot possibly be a threat to two million Europeans. We have always protected the Indian in the past and have always treated him properly. What right have they to be so cheeky? I only want to say this. Here the Prime Minister has come with important legislation before the House, and if hon. members opposite wish to say that they find fault with this or that clause and suggest improvements I am prepared to listen to them. What has happened in the past? We have exposed our purity as a European civilisation to danger as a result of this penetration. Have we to wait longer before we take action? Does my hon. friend opposite wish us to wait? This legislation is now stigmatised as the biggest gogga in the world. No, I make an appeal to my hon. friends to extend their earnest consideration to the matter. Let us for once be big. I am certain there are many hon. members on the other side who feel the same as I do. I am also a Calvinist and I feel like them. The Calvinist conception is simply that there should be a separation of the various colours. I readily admit that. I do not run away from that, but I say that we must not postpone this legislation. The Prime Minister must take action today so that we can put a stop to the outwitting of these people on the platteland by the Indians. We see it today in Natal and we can see it in the Transvaal, and I wish to direct a warning to members in the Free State. Let us keep the truth level. Langenhoven said that if you keep the truth level it is indeed the truth, but if do not hold it level it is a lie. This is a white man’s country, and we want it to remain a white man’s country, and if my hon. friends on the other side are right when they say that we must remain a white man’s country let us accept this legislation and establish separation. These Indians have been born in this country. Let us use our commonsense in this case and make a separation between those Asiatics and the European.

I am sure that not one of us has the least doubt that the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) spoke in all sincerity here in this House, but it is nevertheless remarkable that in all his arguments he used here he consistently and totally condemned this Bill. The hon. member condemned the Bill because of the miscegenation which it allows and the consequences thereof, and he condemned the Bill by implication and by reference to the native representatives who sit in this House. He consistently condemned the Bill, but the tragedy is that the hon. member who condemns it had to use other arguments in order to justify his contention, and I am sorry about that. It is very difficult at this stage to say much that is new on this matter which has been discussed here for so many days now. Nevertheless, I imagine —and I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree with us—that this Bill will have evil repercussions, and not one of us who takes our national problem seriously can close his eyes to the consequences of this Bill. I will probably be able to mention little that is new in dealing with this Bill. I do not want to have high expectations, but it seems to me, when I sum up the position, as if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has compromised himself in this matter, and I am not using that term in any bad sense. I think that he is finding himself in the position where he can no longer listen to the appeals made chiefly by the Opposition. I do not want to do him an injustice, but that appears to me to be the position. For that reason, I am afraid that we cannot expect very much from the Prime Minister or any modification of his standpoint in this most serious question. I nevertheless want to emphasise a few aspects of this matter, and I want to make one revolutionary suggestion in the course of my speech. Before I go any further, however, I would like to emphasise this point on which I sympathise with the Prime Minister, namely that in this Bill and in the attitude I adopt towards the Bill no insult to the Indian population is intended. I am going to oppose the Bill in spirit, not so much as far as all its aspects are concerned, but I want to emphasise that it should be postponed and be brought before the people for consideration. Whatever views we hold in connection with the Bill, they do not intend any insult to the Indian population in South Africa nor to the people of India. I have had opportunity in my life as a student overseas to come into contact with these people, and I found kindred spirits among them, but that is no effective solution of our national problem. Whilst I have some knowledge, therefore, of individuals, and whilst I as an individual—and I think most of the members on this side of the House—am most heartily in sympathy with the striving of the Indian people in India towards independence and the disposing of their own destiny, we do not wish to derogate from their dignity. We also respect their culture. I also respect the initiative, in so far as it is sound, of prominent Indians in South Africa. I am in a position to know of their enterprise, but that is no justification for us, with the knowledge and the appreciation we have of these things, to remain silent or to see that the wrong steps are taken which will not only confuse the present time, but which will also endanger the future. I want to say further that the position as I see it requires immediate attention, and where I am going to vote for the postponement of this measure for further consideration, it is because this question has had serious attention for two generations now, and such serious attention that in the beginning of this century, in the year 1904, a large conference was held in Pretoria, where it was urged that this question should be tackled without delay. I read the resolution taken on that occasion—

The idea, therefore, of postponing it for a short time should not meet with any objection, even although we admit that it is an urgent problem. But then I would like to say that while appreciating the standpoint of the Indian people, we most certainly associate ourselves with the standpoint of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, a standpoint endorsed by the whole House, that this matter is inherently a domestic matter, and future international relations can only be confused by the attitude adopted by the Government of India, at any rate in the very recent past, and our domestic problems will also be aggravated as a result of the statements made on behalf of the Indian population in South Africa. We recognise two different points of view on this profound question. It is a difference of the value of the principles of the matter compared with its practical implications. It appears to me as if there are two aspects of the problem. The first is the right of a small nation with problems which no major nation has ever faced and problems which the Afrikaner people have had to contend with—I am now referring to the Afrikaner people in the first instance, and I do not mean only Afrikaans-speaking persons— problems in respect of which we have achieved much. On the one hand the question is: What should weigh more heavily— the question of self-preservation and the implications connected therewith; or should we, on the other hand, support the argument used by hon. members that, owing to our standpoint as a Christian people, we should concede to certain demands made by a foreign element, by foreign groups, or rather heterogeneous groups. In discussing the interests of a heterogeneous group and the implications connected therewith, owing to the presence of a large number of natives, we realise that this is not a new problem. South Africa has had to contend with it since the beginning. It is a question of the survival of the European population and a question of the preservation of its civilisation and its religion, and I want to reiterate that in discussing the principle of self-preservation and whereas we see a danger for the preservation of that principle in this new legislation, we could with justification appear before the world tribunal and appeal to the conscience of the world to prove that as an educated and civilised people, we have not failed to fulfil our duties in the past towards the non-European groups. Our policy was based on separation, but in spite of that basis, it was characterised by a broad and deep feeling of sympathy and a literal compliance with the principles of guardianship, and it was characterised by sympathy and sacrifice to the benefit of the non-European elements in South Africa. No nation in the world ever had to contend with the same problems; no nation in the world could appear before the tribunal of the world with the same clear conscience as the Afrikaner people in respect of its attitude towards the undercivilised, and it does not behove the world, therefore, in these days of anxiety to hurl reproaches at us. In view of our record in the past we can make a bold claim for solving our problems ourselves. I took notice with appreciation this morning of a new point in the history of the Afrikaners. I refer to the work which has been done in the past for the uplifting of Europeans as well as non-Europeans, and if any reproaches are made we can reply to all such reproaches; but what I want to refer to is this, that the Afrikaner and especially the church of the Afrikaner has always gone out of its way, as far as education is concerned, to uplift the non-European. If we want to find evidence of our relations with the non-Europeans and the proper exercise of our guardianship then there is an abundance of proof and we can look the world squarely in the face, and for that reason we are entitled to deal with this matter independently without any interference from outside and without any hurry, in the wisdom of or with the example of the wisdom with which our forefathers tackled these problems. It is for these reasons that I feel particularly concerned about the attitude of the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance, and I am sorry that he is not here now, but I am going to mention a few aspects which will come to his notice, if not in any other way then through Hansard. But I expect him as an educated and responsible person to give me a reply as an educated and responsible person. I regret his action in Johannesburg in the first place where he took up an attitude which from the nature of the case is foreign to the character of the Afrikaner and is foreign to the traditions of the nation as a whole. I do not want to say that the whole of Johannesburg is foreign to us, but inside the walls of the University there is a certain group which follow a course which is surely foreign to the traditions of South Africa. Under such influences, the Minister of Finance expressed certain remarks which I deprecate because I think that he acted under the influence of the moment and because I believe that if he had had time to consider, he would not have made those remarks with the implications attached to them, and I am sorry that in those remarks he showed a certain degree of contempt for the stock from which he himself was bred.

He was reported incorrectly.

I say once again that where the Minister of Finance spoke in such circumstances and in such an atmosphere of the Herrenvolk attitude of those who differ from him, he did an injustice in a way to those who differ from him, and particularly to the race from which he was bred. I take it that the Minister of Finance will probably know which words he used. In our minds there can possibly be some doubt as to the implications of his remarks concerning the Herrenvolk idea, but he has no justification whatsoever for using that language under the circumstances in which we are living in South Africa today. I can tell you this: that the Minister of Finance is, together with myself, heir to spiritual treasures which are precious and which have proved their value, but to his sorrow and also mine, he is heir together with me but not testator, and that is the big difference. I am not suggesting that he is indifferent about the matter, but while I and other heirs bequeath something, it is to us a much more precious thing than it could possibly be to him. I realise that it causes the Minister of Finance a certain measure of concern to hold the views which he has expressed. It has certain implications for him; it has implications for his party; but it has still greater implications for South Africa, and when he meets with opposition to his standpoint he should not regard it as unreasonable. As far as I myself am concerned and the party which I represent, I desire to maintain a standard in this struggle at which such self-respect is not harmed in any way. But the standpoint adopted by the Minister of Finance places him in a position which is in conflict with our whole conception, and for that reason he must expect that in future he will be opposed in every place where he is given the opportunity of expressing those views held by him. I was gratified to note that only a few members on his side of the House were in agreement with him. He received the loudest applause from the crossbenches where the native representatives sit. But he took up an attitude in which he regards us as a danger, and he should expect therefore that we will regard that danger in a serious light and that we will also regard his attitude as a serious matter. I would like to give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to reply and I have therefore written down a number of implications of his statements which I want to read with leave of the House. I am making certain deductions from his speech. If I have misinterpreted his meaning, I shall be glad to be corrected by him. The first implication in his speech is the removal of the communal franchise for non-Europeans. The second is not only the removal of the communal franchise, but the substitution of an individual franchise on an equal basis with Europeans. Thirdly, the equality of all races in the provincial system, the granting of full municipal franchise. By implication racial strife, a fierce racial struggle in South Africa, must follow which will be settled either by force or by intervention. His standpoint implies further economic repercussions which will have detrimental results in the first instance for the Europeans, but also for the natives, and if I had to draw the logical conclusion from his standpoint, then I see only the downfall of his and my people on that basis. This standpoint which we hold is not only our standpoint. I have noticed for a number of years now that there are also English-speaking people who hold these views. For many years in the English-speaking world, both in England and in America, this problem has assumed a more acute form, because an inherent tendency towards separation existed and because there is an instinctive feeling that it could be detrimental to the national character of the people, whether only a small number or on a large scale. But where the minority take up the attitude of the Minister of Finance, and by implication the conclusions from the Bill, we are entitled to appeal not only to the tribunal of the world but to people who have a sense of responsibility towards the future of the world. I am particularly sorry that the Prime Minister does not avail himself of the opportunity he has today to bring Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people together. For thirty years he made an appeal to the European people of South Africa from time to time to unite. I maintain that since 1915 there has not been such a golden opportunity as this one for uniting the European people once more. With due regard and appreciation of the services rendered to South Africa by the Prime Minister, I want to state that he has never had such a golden opportunity to render a service to South Africa as is being afforded to him on this occasion and it will probably be one of the last, to achieve the unity of the European population in South Africa. I think that it is a particularly good opportunity and I hope that the Prime Minister will feel that this opportunity is worth some sacrifice on his part and that he will not in haste allow this opportunity to pass. Various arguments have been used with regard to the demands or rights on account of which we have to agree to the implications of the principles of this Bill. I find it very difficult to discover a solution amongst the many arguments which have weight. I have asked myself the question: When is a nation obliged to concede to the so-called demands of a minority group or of a heterogeneous element or of a less civilised group; when is a nation obliged to concede to the demands which are put, and I want to express my own views in this regard. There can never be any obligation on the part of any nation, morally or otherwise, to grant any rights when it cannot ensure its own right of existence. There can be no reason for granting rights by which the right to existence of the main race will be endangered and particularly the race which had borne civilisation for a long time, which did only good in the past and which desires to carry civilisation into the future and for that reason no demands can be made as a result of which the existence of the race will be endangered if it acceded to those demands. I am rather amazed, therefore, when I listen to the arguments coming from the cross-benches. I assume that the intentions are honourable but it is a shortsighted action and when it is urged that we should grant the franchise to the heterogeneous element, then I ask the Prime Minister and all the front-benchers on that side of the House: Since when have we had this agitation for the granting of the franchise? It is since yesterday that pressure is being applied to South Africa to grant a general franchise. It is something which has existed since only yesterday. Even in England where there is probably the widest franchise, it has not yet stood the test of time. It has only been in force for between thirty and forty years. It is not for one generation as yet that the system has stood the test of time. There is no justification for insisting that a nation should grant the franchise which will endanger its future and more particularly a right which has not yet stood the test of experience. The self-preservation of a people and its religion and its racial features, its destiny—that is what should be safeguarded by a nation before it creates circumstances which will endanger its position. I repeat, therefore, that there is no demand which morally or otherwise is justified. There can be no justification for granting powers and rights and privileges before those who are granted the privileges will take steps together with us not only to ensure the continued existence of the European civilisation, but will undertake to contribute towards that end. Then and only then will I be prepared to regard it as a demand or rather as a moral claim that we should be asked to grant the franchise to those who have not yet proved their ability to exercise those rights properly. I have given attention to the possibilities of doing two things over which there is a difference of opinion in this House. Firstly, the maintenance of the principle and secondly the granting or conceding of rights to civilised peoples. I want to admit that as a result of the steps taken by the European people in South Africa, there is a pleasing advancement in civilisation. I do not want to say to what extent such advancement is superficial or to what extent it is genuine but as far as the external manifestations of civilisation are concerned, there is an advancement. And now I would like to say that I believe that South Africa has taken over a legislative system which has worked excellently in the mother country or countries, but which is not the most suitable for South Africa. From the one country we took over Parliament as such; we took it over from a homogeneous country. The other country from which we took over the provincial system is not composed of a homogeneous people, but I think it was obvious that in drafting the constitution it could not exist for all time. If we intend to uphold two things, viz. the rights of our people and our national existence, fundamental changes must eventually be introduced. And now I feel that I am justified in presenting the case that the Parliamentary system, which served for a homogeneous people, cannot in the long run serve South Africa. I therefore feel that with the elapse of 37 years the time has now come to review the matter. If we seek to bestow rights, let us in the first place secure the right to a continued existence of our own Europeans through a legislative institution which will secure its future, which will preserve the sovereignty of the people and which will satisfy the demands in connection with the right of existence of our people and the maintenance of our religion, our civilisation and our traditions. That is one demand. It is essential. Then secondly, as regards executive matters and effective administration, we should maintain the Sovereignty of the Legislative Assembly and control by Europeans. To me it is a painful matter that the provincial councils have been singled out for the administration of national education and that it is that selfsame body which is regarded as the body from which the various groups are constituted also in the sphere of religion and a philosophy of life. What future would national education have if such a merger of ideologies and feelings were to take place in future. If our national existence is to be secured, care should be taken in the first place that our educational system should also have a sound future, but in the provincial council it is actually being exposed to the influences of that merger, and thereby it is being endangered. Of course, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can reply that it has existed in the Cape Province. But that is no reason for its continued existence. We should have an institution in South Africa under the Parliamentary system where these groups can be brought into contact with one another, and I want to dwell on that for a moment. That is an important matter for the future of South Africa. It does not mean extortion or a negation of rights. I am of the opinion that along such lines the interests of South Africa can be served for generations to come. But it requires time to consider them and I would therefore direct an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister. He has probably considered this matter. These thoughts have not originated with me; I obtained them from a kindred spirit of his, but I feel that we are in danger of rushing along a road where we may be able to climb to greater heights, but where we may also fall into the abyss. I have just a few minutes more. I would ask the Prime Minister not to dispose of this matter in haste, because our national development is at stake. What does one year matter, what would ten years matter in the life of a nation? Do not thrust this upon us in a hurry. Wisdom demands deliberation and consideration, not haste. No good has ever come from haste. I range myself on the side of the Prime Minister when he says that this is essentially a national affair, but I begin to have my doubts when I observe how hurriedly the matter is being disposed of. If this is a matter about which he is convinced, this haste is not befitting. It creates suspicion in the outside world that other considerations may be at stake, and I would like the Prime Minister to consider it from that aspect. World opinion may say: A conference is being held in New York; has this anything to do with it? Discussions are taking place in India; has it something to do with that? Discussions will shortly be taking place in England; the Prime Minister is being expected there; could it have anything to do with that? It would then not be an essentially domestic affair, because other considerations will be in the balance. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to yield to the temptation of giving the world an opportunity to doubt our sincerity and our convictions. It is not fair towards the public that this matter should be dealt with by means of the party machine. We are prepared to contribute to the best of our ability, but we should be given the opportunity. I would like to reiterate the points. A drama is being enacted. Perhaps there is a bit of comedy, too, in which case it would be a tragi-comedy. But I think this matter is too serious to allow of comic interludes. Although the Bill has adopted the principle of segregation, which we all support, you have the extra element that the same Bill has a number of shortcomings and gaps through which the principle could altogether be undermined and reduced to a farce. If your intentions are honest, why not make provision to avoid such possible loopholes? This is a matter of vital importance to coming generations, and in dealing with an extraneous element we should act with great circumspection in admitting them to our legislative body. They are being admitted to the provincial system which was instituted for our national education and in order to serve the public; regardless of its local nature, it should in the first place be designed to foster our national character and views among our youth I appeal to the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp), who is known as an educationalist. He has promised to support this Bill. I can hardly believe that he has considered the educational aspect. The Bill also provides the principle of uplifting, but that is being applied to one province only and not to the others. I do not want to go into that because it has already been dealt with. We already have the phenomenon that the Prime Minister and the Deputy-Prime Minister are opposing each other in the House on fundamental principles. When you have that happening it is a sign of danger when the co-operation is continued. I am accusing neither the one nor the other, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister must feel that when his right hand, in this case the Minister of Finance, declares his views so openly, he, the Prime Minister, should convince the people that he does not agree with the Minister of Finance. We expect that of him. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister once again to avail himself of this opportunity not to jeopardise the future of South Africa through hasty action, but to create the proper conditions for an internal peace which will prevail for many generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the obvious necessity for this Bill. I think it would be intolerable to allow the situation to develop. We have a situation in Durban particularly where the friction and antagonism between the Indians and Europeans has reached such a stage that it is a situation which is not good, not only for the welfare of this country, but for the welfare of any country. It is essential, therefore, that steps should be taken to remove the causes of that situation. The questions dealt with in this Bill set out to remove what perhaps is the most prominent cause, and I believe that there is no fairer way of dealing with this question than the way it is proposed to follow by means of the Bill. The Bill was criticised on certain grounds, firstly that it represents segregation; that may or may not be true, and I do not propose to argue that question, except to say that I believe it is a fundamental human instinct that men desire to live with other men who share the same culture and who have the same outlook on and habits of life. This Bill does no more than that, in that it makes it possible for that instinct to assert itself in our complex society. And the Prime Minister himself has said that this is no new principle, it is a principle which has been accepted in this country and has become part of the complex pattern of this country. Another ground upon which this Bill is criticised is that it takes away certain rights of Indians in the northern provinces. I quite frankly question the validity of that contention, because, after all, the basic right of all rights is the right of citizenship, and in this Bill that basic right will be conferred upon those people, by the passing of this Bill into law. It seems to me, therefore, that for the first time in the history of South Africa, at least so far as the northern provinces are concerned, we are accepting the Indian population as a permanent part of the population of this country. It has been argued here that hitherto the Indian community has only been a temporary part of the population, and this is a point of view which I accept, because the Cape Town Agreement which has been quoted so often in this House provides as probably one of its main conditions that the principle of the removal of the Indians from this country and their repatriation to India….

It is explicitly a voluntary scheme.

That may or may not be so. But I want to go so far as to say that I appreciate very much what was said by the Minister of Finance on this question. The Minister of Finance made out a very good case. But my difficulty is to reconcile this policy with the fact that only six years afterwards this country, together with India, agreed on a colonisation scheme. To me it seems that this is the final seal of approval to this question that hitherto the Indians were regarded as only a temporary part of the population. However, the important part is that they are now regarded as a permanent part of the population, and from that point of view we come now to the criticisms in regard to this question of their being a permanent part, emanating from the Opposition, and the logical conclusion that a franchise should now be granted to them.

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

Before the luncheon interval interjections were made in regard to the principle of voluntary segregation. In that respect I do want to associate myself with the Minister of Finance in regard to the point he made that it was desirable to try and bring about segregation on a voluntary basis. If we examine the history of this problem, and particularly in regard to Durban, it becomes abundantly clear despite all the efforts that have been made, that we are left with no alternative than to force this position on a compulsory basis. In fact, the predecessor to the present Minister of the Interior appointed a committee in Durban known as the Lawrence Committee—it consisted of three Europeans and three Indians—and after this committee had functioned for some time the Minister made this statement in the House—

Then, after that, as we all know there was the Pretoria Agreement, another and a final attempt to put the problem on the basis of an agreement. The Natal Indian Judicial Commission says that—

May I quote one further report of the Natal Judicial Commission in regard to the Pretoria Agreement—

I do not want to go into the merits or demerits of the Pretoria Agreement, except to say that the failure of the Pretoria Agreement led up to this Bill which is now before the House. If there is one important event that has taken place, it has been that the element in the Natal Indian Congress which even at the last minute was prepared to come to some agreement has gone, and it has been replaced by another element which is demanding absolute equality, and it is on that basis that I say the Government cannot possibly hope to achieve, in any way whatever, an agreement on a voluntary basis. For that reason we find ourselves where we have to continue with this Bill.

Now I want to deal with another criticism which has been levelled in this House, and that criticism is from an entirely different angle. That criticism has been that we should not confer the right of citizenship upon these Indian people. I want to ask those who hold that view two simple questions. Do they accept the principle that there should be no taxation without representation; and, secondly, for how long would they say we should continue to deny that principle? I believe there can be no doubt that the method by which this Bill proposes to deal with this franchise, namely by offering the group franchise, is the only logical way to deal with it. This has been challenged by some members who would rather see the franchise on the common roll. If, as has been stated, there are dangers in connection with the communal roll how much greater is not the danger in regard to the common roll? I may not be tempted to think the common roll might sound the death knell of European civilisation. But I am confident the arrangement if made in regard to a common roll, at least so far as Natal is concerned, would eventually disenfranchise the vast majority of the European people in that province. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) quoted certain statistics in regard to the fertility rate of Indians against the background of the European figures in an attempt to prove there was no danger in the franchise on a common roll. There is, of course, a fallacy in that argument, because we might as well say as there are only five Europeans per acre in Germany therefore there is no overcrowding in the concentration camps. One cannot examine the question of the increase in Indian population in Natal and compare it with the European increase on the Union basis. I think one can clearly see as far as Durban is concerned, where the Indian population at the moment is over 100,000, that in 1995, i.e., perhaps not in my own lifetime, but in my children’s lifetime, we shall see a population of something like 300,000, and I do think that the House, in arriving at a decision, must take into account the question of increasing population.

Another irresponsible criticism we find here is that Natal brought these people to the country, and therefore Natal must pay for their mistake. I do put it to the House, when 35 years ago Union was brought about Natal came into the Union not only with all her assets, but all her liabilities to be put into a common pool, and I say that Natal also shared the assets of the other provinces and the liabilities of the other provinces, and I may perhaps dispose further of that criticism by again referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) in his contribution to the debate; he disposed of that fallacy. I maintain Natal has loyally kept to her part of the bargain of Union, and I also claim that the Indian problem must be regarded as a national problem, and in that respect the House must discharge all its obligations in regard to that problem. This Bill, let us frankly admit, is no solution of the Indian problem at all. It is only the basis on which a solution can be found. After all, I regard as the most important feature of the Indian problem the economic aspect. In fact, the Prime Minister has reminded us that due attention must be paid to the needs of the Indian population in regard to matters such as health, housing, employment and social welfare. Until these matters have been properly dealt with, this problem will not be solved.

This brings me, of course, Mr. Speaker, to the criticisms of the Minister of Finance, particularly in regard to the criticism he levelled against the European community in Natal, and not least the Durban City Council. The substance of his criticism, in fact, was that the City Council had not carried out the main provisions of the uplift clause of the Cape Town Agreement. This is a small point, but nevertheless I feel that I ought to mention it.

What do you say is a small point?

I am coming to it, it is this: that the Union Government entered into an agreement with the Indian Government, known as the Cape Town Agreement, and one of the provisions of that agreement was that it would undertake to discharge certain obligations. Neither the Provincial Administration of Natal, nor any of the local authorities, were informed of the Union Government’s undertaking, and, what is more, they were not told what they were, and to me it is surprising to find that the local authorities in Natal and the Provincial Administration should be criticised for not carrying out the uplift provisions. I am not alone in that viewpoint, and I just want to quote the report of the Natal Indian Judicial Commission wherein the position briefly is that that contention is upheld particularly in regard to education by that Commission.

But in regard to the City Council of Durban, what are the real facts in regard to its attitude towards the Indian problem? First let me say that when I think of the Indian problem I am not thinking of the problem in regard to that class of Indian with which we are dealing in this Bill. The Minister of Finance quoted the present Minister of the Interior as saying that if the Durban City Council had shown a sense of responsibility and tackled the housing problem as it affected Indians, there would have been no Indian problem in Durban today. I want to disagree sharply with the Minister of Finance. In 1932 the City of Durban had no Indian problem. It was only after that, that as a result of the Commission presided over by the Minister of Finance, the Natal Provincial Administration passed an Ordinance which on 1st August, 1932, increased the existing size of the territory of Durban, some 13 square miles, by an additional 55 square miles. That acquisition of territory brought with it certain other problems, and the main problem that it brought was that whereas in the past the Indian population of Durban was only 18,500 before 1st August, 1932, now the population was 94,000. But the point is this: although we extended the boundaries, the fact remains we placed an additional responsibility on the City of Durban.

That was their own fault.

Well, the hon. member says it was their own fault. Let me say that the Chairman of the Commission, the present Minister of Finance, said in his report that these people were very backward and were living in deplorable conditions.

They still are.

It was on the grounds of public health that these added areas were incorporated in Durban. Therefore, any contention that it is the fault of the Durban City Council is absurd. Nevertheless, since 1932, after a period of ten years, the City Council of Durban has endeavoured to tackle this housing problem, and in fact the Chairman of the Commission indicated in their recommendation that if the Municipality of Durban in the first ten years were to spend £500,000 on capital works in the new areas, it was considered that that would be a fair and reasonable expenditure. But the facts are that in these ten years the City Council spent three times that amount. But what I find in rather sharp contrast to the statement of the Minister of the Interior is the statement made by his predecessor when he introduced the Pegging Act and said—

That commission was appointed. It became history that the Indian members of the committee saw fit to resign, and surely it is an accepted cardinal principle that no man should be prejudged before he has been tried. To say that the City Council has failed in its obligations when this commission was not in a position to hear the City Council, is wrong. The Council, by the action of the representatives, was denied the right of defending itself against the calumnies that Were heaped upon it.

Why were they not heard?

I do not know the reason.

Do you say there was no housing problem before 1932?

There was, but that problem was in regard to all sections of the community, not only to Indians. As a matter of fact I want to deal with some of these points.

Let us take this housing problem. I may say first that the problems confronting the Durban City Council are four in number. They comprise the question of segregation, availability of material, artisans and finance. Let us deal with segregation. I just want to add this point that whatever scheme the Municipality has tried to put up has been boycotted by the Natal Indian Congress as representing segregation. In 1937 the Municipality spent £20,000 on sub-economic houses, and then had considerable difficulty in finding tenants. Later they spent £27,000 on another scheme, and later again £25,000, and on all these occasions they had difficulty in finding tenants because the Congress boycotted all these schemes with the nett result that sometimes it took twelve months to find tenants to occupy the houses, and it is in that respect that the Natal Indian Judicial Commission pointed out that there is, of course, one circumstance which differentiates the Indian problem from that of any other racial group, namely, the well-known Indian attitude towards segregation; and they continued to say that housing schemes for Indians had been frustrated because Indians have suspected an ulterior motive, even where those suspicions were proved to be without foundation. I think these facts alone show quite clearly that far from the City Council not discharging its duties and responsibilities, it has had to contend with very serious problems. But what is more important is this, and I want to remind the House that as long as the provincial barriers are closed and the Indian problem is regarded as a Natal problem, it cannot be solved by Natal alone. The House must recognise the fact that it is a national responsibility, and all the implications of such responsibility must be borne by the Government.

Are you in favour of provincial barriers being removed?

Yes. In other words, if we examine on the one hand the fact that it is a national responsibility and that there is a crying need for houses, and if on the other hand we realise that in Durban 82 per cent. of the ratepayers are Europeans, we must realise that it is an impossibility for the ratepayers there to bear the financial burdens which will be incurred by putting up housing schemes to meet the needs of the sub-economic group. In fact, the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) made it perfectly clear that if the Municipality of Durban had to provide adequate housing on a sub-economic basis, the cost to the ratepayers would be £300,000 per annum, and it is my submission that they cannot bear that burden. Let us go a little further in regard to uplift measures. Take education. Since 1910 until last year the education vote increased up to £320,000. I think this year the education vote for Indians in Natal will be nearer £370,000, and I have reason to believe that if we have to meet the requirements of all the Indians in Natal, the Provincial Administration would need not £370,000 but £740,000.

Does not the Government subsidise it?

That includes it. I do not know how much the Government subsidy is. It is important that if we are to provide for all the educational needs we will need an amount twice as much. Take the hospital position. We are having considerable difficulty financially in building our present hospitals. If we were to meet the needs of all the Indian population, we would require at least another £200,000. So if the local authorities and Provincial Administration of Natal were to meet the cost of uplift in regard to housing, hospitals and education, I think it is plain that if this problem is to be tackled at all, Natal alone cannot carry the financial burden. I want to say that one must realise that the vast majority of the Indian population, who are not concerned with the Bill, are the sub-economic people, and it is on that point that quite frankly I want to criticise the Indian leaders in this country and in India. In my opinion they are more concerned with the political and property rights of a small number of wealthy and privileged Indians, and I believe that if they were to direct their energies towards the needs of the people as a whole; and do not run off to the Government of India in their own selfish interests, they would be making a far better contribution towards the solution of the problem. May I just say also that in regard to these facts I have put before the House, I believe that it will be impossible for Natal by herself and without any further financial assistance, to carry this burden of economic adjustment and social services which is the concomitant of the provisions of the Bill, bearing in mind that the problem must be tackled on a national basis, more particularly when the provincial barriers are closed; and as the other provinces are refusing to open their barriers I believe that this country and the Minister of Finance particularly, must face up to the financial needs of Natal to meet these conditions, in order to carry out the provisions of the uplift clauses.

May I just finally say that as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, in sponsoring this Bill, I believe the people of Natal can safely leave this matter in his hands, for I believe that never before in the history of South Africa has the Prime Minister stood so high in the esteem of the people of Natal. I can give him the assurance that in sponsoring this measure the Prime Minister has the unstinted support of the great majority, if not all, of the people in the country.

I am very pleased to hear that at last a certain section in this House are prepared to agree with the statements we have been making from these benches for years. I am also pleased to hear that we are likely to get some support from a direction which did not give us support in the past. The hon. member who was in some doubt, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) has stressed abundantly that this problem of the Indians in Natal is a financial problem. I told the House that ten years ago, and said that it was essentially a greater problem financially than in any other respect, and that it was impossible for Natal and for Durban in particular to bear the financial obligations imposed upon the city in connection with the problem, and I am very pleased that at last we are getting some support. The House is beginning to realise that this is a national problem. My time is very limited, and I am anxious to put forward a point of view I have so often stressed before in this House. I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister in introducing the Bill. I would like to say to the Indian community that they have forced the Prime Minister to introduce a Bill of this nature. The Prime Minister and the people of Natal have endeavoured for many years to persuade a section of the Indian community to behave and to discontinue with this policy of penetrating into European areas in an attempt to bring about a solution voluntarily, but the Indians have taken absolutely no notice, with the result that we have this Bill, which the Prime Minister has been forced to introduce, although I am sure it is the last thing he really wanted to do. I say again, that there ought to be no necessity for such legislation. For years we tried to make the Indians understand the damage they were doing to their own case in Natal, and to explain to them that they would bring the problem to a crisis, until today amongst the European community, they have driven away all their friends. But the tragedy of it is that a small section of the Indian community is responsible for this state of affairs. No government in South Africa could have afforded to shelve this problem any longer. It is fifty years overdue already, and if no action is taken now it will be a thousand times more difficult to deal with the problem in another few years. The problem has been there for ninety-two years, but it takes the majority of members of the Labour Party and of the United Party almost a century to realise that there is danger in the country. It seems as if they are not capable of understanding any problem unless they have considered it for ninety-two years. I am glad that at least they have realised that it is a problem, and that it must be solved. That is what we have tried to do for fifty years in Durban. We wanted settlement on a voluntary basis, and pleaded with the Indians again and again to co-operate. Now we are accused of passing this Bill as a ghetto measure. The Indians are telling us that we are turning South Africa upside down. This could all have been avoided. They have even lost the friendship of the Minister of Finance. Who is to blame? Are the Europeans in Natal to blame?

Did you listen to the speech of the Minister of Finance?

Yes, very carefully. We now have this Bill, and I do not think there are many members of this House who will oppose the Bill as a whole, in principle. There are clauses in it which are not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is something which I hope the Indians will cooperate to make workable, in a realisation that at last the European population in South Africa, and especially in Natal, are anxious to get rid of this racial problem, and to work together as citizens of the Union. I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) clearly illustrated to the House the attempts made by the City Council and the Government in all goodwill towards the Indians, to bring about co-operation. There was the Lawrence Committee. It proved a failure, and this went on until it was necessary to introduce the present Bill, and I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Bill, when amendments have been moved and accepted.

Your party do not want it passed. You want to have it put off.

We do not want to destroy the Bill. We do not want it sent to a Select Committee or some other committee to appease the Indians once more, because the Indians cannot tell us anything more at a Select Committee. There is nothing the Indians can advance which will be acceptable to the House to improve the Bill. My time is very short, but I do want to say this, that I am glad to hear that the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) is prepared to support what we have advocated. Many members criticised Natal and call this a Natal problem. Why are they not sincere and honest, and say that they are prepared to help Natal by opening the boundaries of the Transvaal so that they can take over half the problem? [Laughter.] They all laugh at that. It is the same as when years ago I suggested voluntary repatriation We got some support, but members like the native representatives and others will persist in telling the Indians that what we are doing is forcibly sending them back to India.

Oh, no.

I put up a scheme of voluntary repatriation, a more generous sort of scheme than that which has been in existence in recent years, but instead of assisting to persuade the Indians to leave South Africa, they say that it is an insult to the Indians. I say we must make it worth while for them to go, and never mind the cost. Now, hon. members are coming round to that idea. There are evidently a number of them who approve of it, and see nothing in it to which objection could be taken either by the Indians or by anyone else. I would make it so attractive that they would come and ask us to be allowed to go to some other part. What does the cost matter if you have a contented people settled in some other part? [Laughter.] We have spent hundreds of millions on the war, and we can spend a large amount of money if we can get an agreement on those lines. Hon. members laugh, but they know as well as I do what the position is, only they will not face up to it. They want to pass on to posterity what they are afraid to face up to themselves.

[Inaudible.]

I suggest in the first place we might get rid of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who left England for England’s good. That would be conferring a service on the Europeans of this country. The hon. member for Hospital and others encouraged Indians to penetrate into the European areas, and when the damage is done they will leave them in the lurch. The Prime Minister mentioned the other day in moving the second reading of the Bill—

Is the hon. member reading the Prime Minister’s speech?

Yes, I am reading a portion of the Prime Minister’s speech. I would like to suggest if I may, in conclusion, to the Prime Minister that we have to go a long way to settle this Indian problem. It is going to be a very costly settlement. I would appeal to the Prime Minister immediately to appoint a Minister of Indian Affairs to deal with Indian affairs only and nothing more. They are a growing population of quarter of a million. It is recognised that this is the greatest problem that faces South Africa, and you require a special Minister to deal with it. The Minister of the Interior is dealing with it now, but he has hundreds of other jobs. I appeal to the Prime Minister to make this appointment as a gesture to the Indian community under this Bill. Such a Minister will deal solely and entirely with Indian affairs. I believe he would have his work cut out to cope with a position of that kind. They are a community who require a lot of attention, and I feel sure it would be appreciated. I hope the Prime Minister will give that some consideration, so that we can say to the Indian community: Here you have someone to look after your interests, and your interests only. We could then dispense with the Board set up under this Bill, and this new Minister would see about the further areas to be allotted to the Indian community. I am sure this would be appreciated by the Indians themselves, by the Indian Government and by the British Government, and would, moreover, be a further demonstration of the goodwill of the European population towards the Indian community. I hope the Indian community will accept this Bill and try to make it work, and be prepared to join with the Government in bringing about a solution of the problem that will result in the Indian and European communities being brought together once again, and the racial strife that exists being removed once and for all.

Practically all the members on the other side, at any rate a great majority of them, have spoken against the Bill. They all find fault with it, but their argument is that they cannot vote for the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition because the amendment asks for a postponement, and in the interim the mischief may be spread. I should like to direct attention to the fact that this is a distorted representation of the amendment. May I just read out the latter portion of it—

It is a distortion when members opposite maintain that the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition only asks for a postponement and that the matter may degenerate further. They seek to find justification in that for their action in voting for the Bill. But this is a perversion of the facts and they cannot rid themselves of their responsibility, because this amendment explicitly requests that the Pegging Act should be further extended, and that according to circumstances the defects in the Act should be remedied. Consequently they cannot justify their position by misrepresenting the motion as they have so frequently tried to do. I am not going to confine myself to how the Indians came here and in what circumstances the problem arose. We have to deal with this problem, and we must look it squarely in the face. We do this with a full realisation of the difficulties connected with that. We realise that when we wish to have legislation affecting the Indians in South Africa we have to deal with India, a country with a large population, one of the great countries which is perhaps nearest to South Africa. We know that we can establish a considerable trade with that country, especially in connection with bags and similar articles. But because we know how important India is, and that it is a great country with which we shall have to deal in future, that is all the more reason we wish to postpone the introduction of this Bill. We desire to solve the problem in such a way that it will give satisfaction not only in this country but also in that country with which we have to reckon in the future. I feel convinced that the procedure which we have hitherto followed gives us no reason to believe that we shall secure satisfaction in that country, which is a great country and which is not far distant from us. The Prime Minister tackled this as purely a party matter, with the result that all free individuals in this House are opposed to the Bill. When I speak of free persons I mean people who do not stand under the party discipline of the Prime Minister. Take the attitude of the Opposition, of the Dominion Party, of the Labour Party, and even of the native representatives—people who do not fall under his party discipline—they are opposed to this Bill, and then I do not even mention the Prime Minister’s own party. We have dissension there right from the Minister of Finance to the backbenchers. This is a Bill which has awakened dissatisfaction not only in this House and in our country, but also overseas, which is testified to by the various telegrams we have received from the Indian Congress.

At 3.10 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 1st April.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Private Members’ business.

I am sure this House regrets the absence of the Minister of Agriculture owing to ill health, and wishes him a speedy recovery. When this debate was adjourned I was endeavouring to show our pre-war setup in regard to food policy, and I indicated that this set-up was really a producers’ setup and not for the purpose of carrying out a long-term nutritional scheme. It was to put the producers of the country in a better position, and the problem at that time was not the problem we are trying to face today. Their concern was over-production, as it was called, a surplus, and from that developed what is known as scarcity policy, which was described by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan), in which the consumers of the country were, through premiums made to subsidise exports and low prices, or in some way a comparatively scarce market was maintained, to the extent that rebates were given for cattle consumption but not for human consumption, and no real reserves of stock were contemplated. It was more a policy of from year to year depending upon production. Then, as indicated by the Opposition, that developed. In one case you had a total refusal of production, as in the case of margarine. You had the exports under subsidy I have referred to, and you had the heavy duties on the importation of food. In practice it did not work against the consumers as a whole, particularly the European consumers, because at all times there appeared to be an excess of supply over the demand. But there is no doubt even in those years there was a very low standard of purchasing power, particularly among the non-European population, and therefore it was not really excessive supply, but underconsumption. Then came the war, and immediate steps were taken to create further boards, again not with the idea of protecting the interests of the consuming public but because certain producers’ markets were closed for export. Other boards were appointed to help the financial position overall. Even then no food policy was contemplated on the lines indicated by the motion. We know in the case of the Maize Board in the first two years of war they were faced as they thought with a surplus, and they exported over 13,000,000 bags of maize in the first two years of war under a heavy consumers’ subsidy. In the case of the Citrus and Deciduous Boards, they developed a policy which became a destructive policy, to get rid of their surplus. The Wheat Board was able to carry on with the available supplies, and the only charge one can lay there is that it did not build up reserves. But there again that was not the problem that was given to those boards to solve. The real problem we are facing today is only of a few years’ duration. It was brought about by unprecedented droughts and crop failures on such a scale that this country was faced with an all-in shortage of supply, and at that time, and previously even, we had established a Cabinet food committee, presumably to try and connect up with the consumer interests in this country, to see they were protected. The boards themselves have an entirely different problem. Whereas before they were faced with trying to hold up internal prices they were now faced with a different set of conditions, with holding down producer prices, and we have the case of the Maize Board holding down the producer price as against what it would have been on the basis of demand and supply. One cannot generalise, but they did hold down their prices, but the boards themselves were not composed to try to elucidate the problems that arose from then onwards. They were producer boards on a producer basis, but they were not in a position to solve the producers’ problems and to solve them properly. When this Parliament met I think South Africa was facing a food crisis of unparalleled severity. The drought was exceptional. We were threatened with an absolutely total loss of the maize crop, and generally the position was very bad indeed. It was bad because there had been no reserves on which the country could draw. It is no exaggeration to say that if conditions had remained the same, and if certain actions had not been taken by the Government, we would have had thousands of deaths from starvation. The weather changed and there was definitely activity from the Government side on the food problem. I think in this respect the greatest credit is due to the Cabinet Food Committee, because they were able to purchase tremendous quantities of imports which I think would not otherwise have been available to the country, and the Prime Minister himself, due to his personal influence, was able to obtain tremendous quantities of wheat which will help to alleviate the very difficult position in this country. Then again from the Treasury point of view we had a different set-up. Here imports into the country are being subsidised heavily as against the idea that the consumer in this country subsidises exports. I feel that the country as a whole must take warning from what happened in previous years. I feel that we should take heed of the position in which this country is placed through circumstances, as a result of the inability to consider the machinery which existed from the national point of view. The consumer problem was not just an annoying problem from the agricultural point of view, but it was a national problem, and that is where I support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in her demand for a Ministry of Food. There must be a different approach to the problem, and although the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) argued that the establishment of a Ministry of Food would mean less co-ordination, I do not think you can get less co-ordination than we have at the present moment in the approach to this problem. Let me give the House an example. You have the Department of Social Welfare and its food relief scheme working through their department, and you have the provincial authorities taking care of the European and coloured school children feeding scheme, and I think the Native Affairs Department taking care of the native school feeding scheme. Surely that is not a co-ordinated food scheme. I feel that with a Ministry of Food very much more co-ordination can be obtained, and the consumers’ interests would be regarded as a matter of national concern. Generally speaking, the world food position is acute, but it is a problem not of this year, but it will be a problem for years to come. In England they have not disbanded the Ministry of Food. It was established as a war-time Ministry, but the war is now over and they have not disbanded it. In other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, they have continued with it.

They have not got a food Ministry in Australia.

In New Zealand they have. I feel that in this country where we are faced with such a great agricultural problem, where our production is going down every year, and where we have such a serious problem of soil erosion, there must be more than sufficient work for a Minister of Agriculture to attend to on those lines, instead of having to worry at all times of the day about problems such as the distribution of food. I know that the Minister himself when he was first appointed as Minister of Agriculture, stated that 95 per cent. of his time was taken up with these problems, and that he could only devote the remaining 5 per cent. of his time to the problem of production. I feel that up to now the Government has dealt with the problem by means of half measures and palliatives. In the circumstances it has done remarkably well in my opinion, and I have no complaint as far as the results which have been achieved in the last three months are concerned, with regard to obtaining supplies for the country. I think in that respect every effort was made to meet the immediate crisis which faced us, but there is very much more to do and very much more to be done in the future. I feel that a Ministry of Food would provide a full-time job for one Minister, and such a Minister of Food could devote all his energies to the problem of malnutrition in this country. If ever a problem has needed the full-time efforts of a Minister, the feeding of the people of South Africa in the future will need the full-time efforts and the conscientious efforts of one Minister.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) has referred sympathetically to the absence under medical advice of my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture. I am sure he expressed the feelings of all members of the House. In the absence of my colleague, I am rising to intervene quite briefly in this debate. I do so in order to state in general terms the Government’s point of view on the motion moved by the hon. member for Cane Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) without going into details, as only the Minister of Agriculture would be able to do. I hope it will not be taken amiss of me if I do not refer to the, amendment moved by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw)….

Why not?

…. except in so far as it overlaps the motion. The amendment raises quite a number of detailed questions with which I am hardly in a position to deal, and which I think can be raised more appropriately when the Minister of Agriculture is here, if need be when his votes are discussed in Committee of Supply. The taxation question that is raised in the amendment has been dealt with by me on another occasion. I propose, therefore, to confine myself to the request for a Ministry of Food, the immediate establishment of a Ministry of Food, by the hon. member for Cape Eastern. The hon. member, as always, put forward her plea very ably and very forcibly. Unfortunately, I was not here to listen to her speech. I have had to read it, but to a considerable extent I remain unconvinced by that speech. As I read this speech of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, I had to ask myself what exactly is this Ministry of Food going to do which is not being done already, or which could not be done under the existing set-up, and that, it seems to me, is the test which should be applied to this motion. The hon. member indicated three immediate duties of a Ministry of Food, the first being to make a comprehensive survey, of the food needs of all "people. Well, of course, that is being done by the Nutritional Council.

Oh, no.

It may be said that it is not done sufficiently comprehensively. It may not be done in the way in which the hon. member desires, but there is no reason why it should not be done by the Nutritional Council in the way in which she desires. There is no need to set up a Ministry of Food for that purpose.

Then we come to the second point, namely, that the Ministry of Food has to elaborate plans to make available the supplies of food necessary to satisfy those needs. That, of course, is really the most important point, and I will rather deal with that after I have referred to the third point.

The third point raised is the question of subsidisation. There again, as the hon. member admitted in her speech, something is being done. She, of course, contended that we are not doing enough along the lines of subsidisation. During the new financial year we are, in fact, going to do a very great deal as far as the amount of expenditure is concerned. We are going to spend a great deal more than the Planning Council contemplated. But, of course, that is an abnormal position, and the point which the hon. member would make naturally is that normally we do not do enough. I would, however, urge that this question of the extent to which we pursue a policy of subsidisation is, after all, a question of general Government policy, and I cannot see why the establishment of a Ministry of Food will have as an effect an increase in the amount of subsidisation. May I just make three subsidiary remarks in that connection? The first is this: When we talk of food subsidisation, we should not think merely in terms of the subsidies which there are today in respect of such articles as bread or butter. We should not forget the indirect methods of subsidisation for the benefit of the consumer. We should not forget, for instance, the school feeding scheme, now already an institution of considerable magnitude as far as both European and native schoolchildren are concerned.

What is the cost?

My colleague asks how much it costs. I am afraid I cannot answer that offhand. The scheme, as far as native schoolchildren are concerned, is costing about £750,000 this year. I cannot give the figure in respect of European children, because the cost is borne in the first instance by the provinces, subject to a subsidy of 50 per cent. by the Treasury, but I should imagine that it would also be in the neighbourhood of £1 million. We should also not forget the system of food depots, developed partly under the Department of Social Welfare, and partly under the Food Controller, although now wholly under the Food Controller for administrative purposes. We should also not overlook the action being taken on an experimental basis in regard to communal restaurants. These are all methods of indirect food subsidisation which, if added to these other matters to which the hon. member referred, do represent a substantial contribution to that particular province. But there is another point which I think we should not forget when we talk about food subsidisation and that is this. I think I am correct in saying that the majority of the people in this country live on food grown by themselves. The Government cannot supply subsidised food to them. They must produce their food and food subsidisation is therefore only a help in respect of the minority of the consumers of this country. I want to make another subsidiary point which is perhaps of some special importance for the Minister of Finance and that is this. One must not overlook the possibility of food subsidisation especially in a country like South Africa coming to be employed primarily in the interests of the producers and only secondarily in the interests of the consumers. There is just a danger that when you adopt fully and wholeheartedly a policy of food subsidisation you are leaving the Treasury defenceless against some of our pressure groups.

But now let me come to the second immediate task which the hon. member wished to assign to the Ministry of Food. This is the most important of its tasks. It is, in effect, an increase of the available supplies. Of course, that matter is of particular importance during a period of drought-created shortages like the present. I hope, however, that in our approach to this motion we are not going to be influenced unduly by passing circumstances. The hon. member herself, I think, emphasised the necessity of looking at this matter from the long-range point of view. Quite apart from the question of the drought—we leave that aside—I think we must admit with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, that there is a substantial gap between the real food needs of the people and the available supplies. But again I ask myself: How would we have been better off in respect of those available supplies if we had had a Ministry of Food? We might have had more supplies as the result of one of two things, one being importation and the other increased production. Would we have imported more food if we had had a Ministry of Food than we are in fact doing?

We might have imported less.

My hon. friend says that we might have imported less. Some people seem to think that the control boards in some way block the importation of food, but certainly in the altered circumstances to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has been referring, the questions of import and export are very definitely matters of policy for the Government as a whole, and I am quite sure that the decisions which have been come to in that regard would not have been any different from what they were in fact, if there had been a Ministry of Food, But then there is another aspect. There is the possibility of food supplies having been greater by way of increased local production if we had had a Ministry of Food. That immediately raises the question of whether it is to be a function of the Ministry of Food to stimulate the production of food. If it is so, and if, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern contemplates, the Ministry of Food is to be entirely separate from the Ministry of Agriculture, then overlapping of functions would inevitably arise. The hon. member for Cape Eastern has stressed the importance of co-ordination. She wants the Ministry of Food as a co-ordinating factor, but I am afraid its establishment would create a new problem of co-ordination. Today, the Minister of Agriculture does the co-ordination between production and consumption, but under her scheme we would then have a new organ to co-ordinate the functions of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. That just shows how difficult it is really to separate production and consumption. Of course I would immediately admit that the Union’s food production industry does admit of further expansion, that it should be expanded from both the nutritional and the economic points of view. But do not let us forget that unless the stimulation of food production is to be at the cost of our soil stability then it must go hand in hand with conservation farming methods. That is one of the points on which the agricultural White Paper issued by the Government lays emphasis and rightly lays emphasis. Taking the long-range point of view, we must be careful of the possibility of our stimulating food production at the cost of our soil security for the future. The last state might very well be worse than the first, and that being so, surely the development of our food producing potential is not just a matter for a Ministry of Food. It is also a matter and primarily a matter for a Ministry of Agriculture.

There is another aspect of the matter also to which I want to refer just in passing, and that is this: Undoubtedly there is great scope for education and propaganda in this matter of stimulation of production and I think the hon. member for Cape Eastern will admit that that is not the least true as far as the non-European elements of our population are concerned in the rural areas and also in the urban areas. There is room for greater food production in a small way by large numbers of people. There is room for education and propaganda in regard to this particular question. This is a matter again in which the Nutritional Council is taking a hand. I believe it is spending £14,000 on such propaganda this year, but both in regard to that matter and in regard to the more general question of the stimulation of food production to which I have referred, we must face the facts that the full results can only be achieved in process of time. We cannot expect miracles in the way of stepping up food production. But while that is so, one must also point out that in the matter of the increase of food production, we have not in these last few years really done so badly, after all, in bridging that gap between food needs and the available food supplies today. Let us pay our tribute to the farmers for having made that possible. Let us compare the position from the point of view of the consumers in this country in 1945 with the position in 1939. I take 1945 because the present year is a drought year, and I think it would be unfair to take it for purposes of comparison. During that six-year period the consumption of fruit has been trebled. The consumption of sugar, butter, cheese, eggs, fish has been doubled in South Africa. There have been substantial increases also in the consumption of maize, wheat, milk, meat and dried fruit. Do not let us create the impression that we have not in fact been making progress in the stimulation of production, or that the farmers have failed in the demands that have been made upon them.

Are those production figures or consumption figures?

These are consumption figures. In part, the increase is due to the fact that there has been less exportation, but in considerable part it is due to increased production. I find it difficult to see, having regard to our immediate problems, what a Ministry of Food would do that is not being done today. A Ministry of Food would certainly not have avoided the present shortages or the shortages that we are facing; these shortages are due to an adverse season and also to world difficulties. The hon. member for Orange Grove has referred appreciatively to the way in which the Government has dealt with these difficulties, and I think he agrees with me— in fact, he said so—that it would not have been otherwise if we had had a Ministry of Food. I would say also that a Ministry of Food would not find it any easier than the Government has hitherto found it to overcome difficulties in devising a rationing system appropriate to South Africa, the difficulties of manpower and the difficulties which arise from the heterogeneity of our population. I also doubt very much, if we had a Ministry of Food, whether it would have found it possible to do without the services of the Control Boards. In the matter of distribution, I believe it would have utilised the Control Boards just as the Controller of Food under the Minister of Agriculture had utilised them, and so I would say that from this point of view from the immediate point of view, I see no real advantage in a Ministry of Food, other than a psychological advantage. I do not deny the importance of that psychological advantage. I believe, from that point of view, that the establishment of a Ministry of Food might have made it easier to break down prejudices against the Control Boards, in so far as these prejudices have been based on a misunderstanding of their rationing functions. It might also have broken down the feeling that consumers’ interests are being subordinated to producers’ interests, and I think I am right in saying that that is really the most important consideration in the mind of the hon. member for Cape Eastern. That is why she is so emphatic that food control and agriculture should be separate, not merely technically as at present, but absolutely. She said that the interests of the consumers should transcend all sectional interests. She also said that she is afraid of the conflict between agriculture and the rest of the community, but I doubt very much if such a separation as she proposes would really avert that danger of conflict between agriculture and the rest of the community. I am very much afraid that it might accentuate that conflict. But the general policy of the. Government in this connection has been to bring the producer and the consumer together. The hon. member for Orange Grove has said that the tendency was to go too far into the producers’ direction; that can be corrected, of course, without havirg a Ministry of Food. No doubt we shall hear more about that when we are considering the amendments to the Marketing Act. But that has been our general policy, and we have travelled some distance along that road. I think we should be careful about any reversal of that process. I wonder whether we really at this stage expect our primary producers to be prepared to relinquish all say in the products which they produce after they leave their farms. Would that not inevitably lead to that dissension which the hon. member for Cape Eastern fears? Would it not accentuate the danger?

If they can have guaranteed prices, why should it?

Oh, I see; does the hon. member wish to guarantee them fixed prices? On what basis? However, I am afraid I cannot pursue that rather new vista which opens up. The hon. member has referred to the Planning Council in regard to this matter. I want also to do so. The Planning Council at one stage suggested that we should have a department’ of distribution or a department of home and overseas trade. At one time it also spoke in terms of a department of food. Hon. members will have noted that in the Government’s White Paper dealing with agricultural policy there is included an annexure giving a combined report on the reconstruction of agriculture and the future of farming as between the representatives of the Agricultural Department and the Social and Economic Planning Council. I feel it is worth while referring to what is said there on this particular point—

The main point there is that the Planning Council which originally was thinking on the lines of the hon. member for Cape Eastern, does now appreciate the fact that there are other aspects to this matter. The Government, I contend, must take account of these other aspects of the matter. In so far as the short-term aspect of this matter is concerned, my reply would therefore be that I cannot see how the coming into being of a Ministry of Food would have made the position any different from what it is or would in the immediate future make the position any different from what it would be, and in so far as the long-range aspects of the matter are concerned, which the hon. member for Cape Eastern mainly emphasised and stressed, I would contend, more especially in the light of what I have just read here, that this is certainly a matter which requires a good deal more consideration than has so far been given to it. For these reasons then I find myself unable to agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, that we should take immediate steps for the establishment of a Ministry of Food.

I am afraid that changing the horse’s name in this case won’t help much. It is the policy that the Government carries out that is at fault. This horse, after all, won’t pull the cart. The best thing will be to outspan this horse and to put a horse in its place that will pull the cart, and that is why the Nationalist Party should take over the Government and feed the people properly. I want to come back to the remarks the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) passed when he said that control boards were set up by producers. Of course that is so. Why should the farmer not look after his own interests and set up a board to protect his interests? In the past he had nothing to protect him. The control boards, though perhaps they did not come up to expectations in some instances, have been a boon to the farmer. There is no doubt about it that the Agricultural Union and the organised farmers of South Africa are not going to say good-bye to control boards. So if my friend who represents commercial interests thinks he will get rid of them he is wrong. His whole idea is that the farmer must produce cheap food so that the middle man can make profits.

He didn’t say that.

The member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is also out to hold down the price to the farmer, so as to give cheap food to the native. But the native farmer also produces food, and she is also keeping down his prices. That is, I believe, why she walked out of the Mealie Control Board, because prices are too high. During the war the farmer sacrificed a lot. My hon. friend over there said that this is a producers’ set-up. It is that, but during the war the farmer gave up a lot, because if he had an open market and no control board, he would have made a lot of money, profiteering at the expense of others. The Government realised that, and the farmers accepted the principle of control boards subject to guarantees, namely, that the boards should continue after the war to protect the interests of farmers and so stop soil erosion. The Prime Minister spoke about erosion. I can assure you that big areas in this country have been eroded. If the farmer had a stabilised price over a period of years, erosion would not be so bad. But now he is guaranteed no price for his product. The Agricultural Unions are now trying to give him that security of a fixed price.

You have had a control board for nearly ten years.

My friend knows what his own attitude is. I say that the farmers produced at the cheapest possible prices during the war, and during that period there was practically no profit in farming, if you compare their prices with that of other articles. If you take the index figures of agricultural products, you will find that in practically every other instance the index figures will be much lower than the rise in the figures for other commodities. Take wool. The index figure was 100 and it is 120 now, but the manufactured article lose much more. A suit of clothes costing £5 now costs £18. The wool farmer agreed to a lower price provided that it went over a period of years. The farmer has come to the point now where he must look after his interests no matter what other people say. We have never been out to exploit others. If we have a cost plus figure for our products, where we can put something back into the farms and put something away instead of taking everything possible out of the farms, we will be satisfied, and we have the right to that. We have said quite clearly that if the Government has a scheme to stop erosion on a large scale, it will cost much money, but if we get fixed prices, it will stop erosion. If the Government stores water we can double our population. I agree that that must be done. The trouble in the past was that we had no system of distribution and perhaps where the control boards failed is that we tackled distribution before we should have. We should first have provided machinery for distribution, but we did not. Take meat. We started controlling meat without such machinery, and everyone was dissatisfied. The principle is good, but the method is wrong. If in the beginning the Government had provided cold storage to store meat When stock was fat and plentiful in order to carry it Over a period of months, this scheme would have been a great success, but we had it thrown at us without a proper scheme being thought out. I suggest the Government can still make a great success of that scheme if they will supply these facilities. You cannot control unless you store. That is accepted by all other agricultural countries like Australia and New Zealand and the Argentine, and in these countries you have control on a 100 per cent. basis. You cannot control in a slipshod way, in one area and not in another, and that is where our control failed. You must control and store 100 per cent. Therefore although I have often criticised control boards, I still say that they are the salvation of the farmer, and the farmer realises that, and he realises that his best client is the consumer. He is not out to exploit that client, but you always have propaganda made that the farmer exploits the consumer, and the latter believes it. We say that if we are foolish enough to make the consumer pay more than he can afford, we are cutting our own throats. We are out to create a system by which we can profit, but we do not want to profiteer whilst others have to die. Our sole salvation is to allow everyone to live and that is what the farmer wants. We want to give the middleman a certain profit which he needs, but he should not profiteer both at the expense of the farmer and of the consumer. We realise the middleman must be there. In Australia where they control wheat 100 per cent. they have storage for the wheat. The farmer is, supplied with storage in elevators, and when they want to export they can carry out the different contracts at any time. But what do we do with the miller? In Australia they allow him a certain profit for the work he does. They give him 3s. 3d. a bag for milling and handling, but here it works out at 8s. Who is the profiteer, the middleman or the farmer?

Or the co-operative society which owns the mill.

That is something we can discuss, but it does not alter the principle we are dealing with. You find people speaking about the high price of wheat. If you take 200 lb. of wheat at 36s. you will find a very large gap between what the farmer gets and the consumer pays. If you take it that 200 lb. of meal bakes 112 loaves of bread, which are sold at 6½d. each, you can see the difference between what the farmer gets and what the consumer pays. This margin is too big. In the Western Province you find farmers who owing to climatic conditions have one good season followed by two bad ones. It is essential that they should have a fair average price for the wheat, so that their lands do not get eroded. At Wellington you will find that ground is absolutely washed away and impoverished. That is because production costs are so high that nothing can be put back into the ground. The farmer cannot do contour ploughing and is merely forced to continue his present methods.

Your commission does not support that.

I am not talking about commissions, but about common sense, things everyone knows, and if you had common sense you would realise it. I am here to state the views of the producer and to protect him, and to show that he must be protected if you want to live. All your health schemes are just pretty words if you do not pay the farmer a decent price on which to live, and then South Africa will be turned into a desert like Egypt. Prosperity makes a country. This country is prosperous now and we must try to keep it prosperous. If you take the history of Palestine you will see that 600 B.C. the Jews did a tremendous amount of soil conservation work. After the Arabs came there, it became poor, and the works were washed away and Palestine became almost a desert. I want to give credit to the Jews today for their conservation works in Palestine. They know that the whole happiness of the world lies in food. We see what trouble the world is in today because there is no food. Why not help the farmer to produce? In Great Britain the Government have inaugurated that policy and have laid down minimum prices over a number of years. We ask for no more. We do not want to profiteer. We only want stability for some years. We want to know that we shall not have to sell below cost. Farm bonds amount to £100 million. Is that due to laziness or to circumstances? Once a man has high bonds he overtaxes his soil and erosion follows. Those are matters we have to face if we want to keep the farmer on the ground and have a healthy people. Food is essential. In America they subsidise erosion schemes to the extent of £75 million per annum. We feel it is essential to do something here, and unless you do so the country will go dry and the farmer disappear. The water table has already gone down. The soil in the earth is just like your hand. If you cut your arteries it dies. I repeat that these people who always talk about cheaper prices for food and abolishing control are doing harm to the country. They will ruin the farmer and ruin themselves. The whole world realises today that they depend on agriculture.

We speak about the export of maize. I agree that in the past we made serious mistakes. We exported maize to Holland and Denmark at 6s. a bag, and they produce dairy products for sale to Britain on the sweat of the people in South Africa. That policy is wrong. We should walk our produce to market. America does that and we should do it. We should not export huge quantities of foodstuffs while thousands of people in this country starve. When we exported maize at 6s. many people starved here. The Government should have seen to that. They should control the price and keep the stuff in the country. It is not only people who will be fed. Indirectly if you feed your stock you also feed your people. In this country we are just starting to breed high-class cattle. In the past we had scrub. We can use 12 million bags just for stock. This old policy is something of the past, and we cannot go back to it. Maize is one of the most essential products in the world, as we now realise. When I was in Australia they told me that if they had the maize we exported to Britain, they would not change places with any other country.

Margarine was referred to. I realise that under present circumstances margarine could perhaps be manufactured here, but only under present circumstances. Once the country is normal and has had good rains and there is a proper marketing system and the farmer knows he will get a fixed price, we will produce butter economically enough to feed the whole population, and even to export. We do not want margarine to kill an industry. Many millions have been invested in the dairy industry. Why should such an industry be allowed to go down? I think that when these people speak like that they do not realise that they are bringing down the farmer’s product. Margarine is there to force down the price of the farmer’s product and in normal times we will not really need margarine. There is nothing in the world better as a balanced ration than milk. If the hon. member for Cape Eastern knows anything about natives, she should know that they drink much milk and that it is a balanced ration. But she always wants to interfere in our domestic affairs, and to tell us how to do things. She should go back to her native territories. We all realise that the native is an asset to the country, but we ask her to go back to the native areas and to preach to her natives to produce and to adopt better methods, and to have agricultural schools. If they are not taught to work and taught the value of producing agricultural produce, they will not be an asset. We will assist her, but do not let her tell the white population in this country, the farmers, what they must get for their produce. Then we will fight her. I hope I have made my case for the farmer. I once more want to say that the farmer is not out to exploit, that he is satisfied with the cost plus price, just as the commercial people ought to be, so that he can put away something to develop the land and preserve it for future generations, but he does not wish to exploit the consumer who is his best friend. I hope there will be a better understanding in future. We as farmers stand by our rights to get a fair price for our produce.

The hon. member who has just sat down made the significant admission that the farmers have no right to deal with distribution.

I did not say that.

He told us that it was a mistake for the producers, for the boards, to rush into distribution without experience.

I said only in the beginning.

That was a point which has been raised many times in this House. As early as 1942 we raised the question of price control and a food control, and in consequence of the agitation in the House the Government saw fit to appoint a price controller. But when the price controller was appointed he told the Government that it was no use having control of the price of luxury articles when primary products were not controlled, and he was right. Subsequently the farmers and the Department of Agriculture under the predecessor of the present Minister, resolutely refused to have price control for primary products, and that was the mistake he made. That refusal caused the breakdown of the whole of our distribution system, because farmers insisted in stepping into the business about which they knew nothing, the business of distribution. It was handled by amateurs and caused chaos. Their meat scheme broke down because there was no control at the consumers’ end. Every control broke down because consumers were not consulted. The hon. member is under the impression that the consumers as such want to keep the farmer down. Nothing of the kind. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) never mentioned the price of food, but only said that there must be sufficient food for the people in the country.

How will you get it?

She left the price alone. But what we do want to see is that the people of this country, particularly the poorer people, earn sufficient so as to buy food so that they can pay decent prices to the producers.

Develop your industries and you can do it.

That is being done. We have no objection to the producing farmer obtaining his price. He mistook the meaning of the hon. member who spoke before me. I would like to see the farmer secured, the same as anyone else, even to the extent of being guaranteed a minimum price, by a long-range policy, so that they will increase production. This difficulty we are in today is not a matter of months. Consumption is going up enormously, and I doubt very much whether we will ever be able to produce sufficient food in this country to feed an increasing population, unless you bring all the producers into our economy. There the hon. member who so ably represents the interests of the natives might perhaps have brought forward a suggestion to turn the natives into producers as well. We have the fact that the Government bought 500,000 morgen of land in Bechuanaland for the native farmers, with the idea of bringing back the native peasant class on to the land, who in the past were big producers. I remember the days when every native territory produced sufficient food for its own requirements and had surpluses. But what has the Government done in connection With the production of the natives in Bechuanaland, where there are 500,000 morgen lying idle? For the last six years many farms in Bechuanaland, improved farms with housing and water, have not been occupied by these natives, though that particular land would lend itself to a great deal of production. When I was in the House 26 years ago representing that part of the world, I remember the farmers’ opposition to the emancipation of the natives, to the idea that they should become producers as well, and the farming community took up the same selfish attitude as the hon. member takes up now in regard to the manufacture of margarine. They said: We do not want the natives to produce. They did not assist them.

Did the Agricultural Union ever take up that attitude?

I think so. The farmers always want to under-produce to keep the prices up.

That is not so.

That is my view. We have been battling for these last twenty years over this shortage of production. The solution of providing more food lies in the co-operation of the whole of the community, and I particularly want to appeal to members opposite to see that their native workers are looked after in this respect. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) says her objections are not to the price farmers obtain for food, but that the ruling price is prohibitive, the earning power of these people is not sufficient, and the farmers who employ native and other labour are the worst offenders so far as wages are concerned.

You do not know what you are speaking about.

So there is room for improvement there. This has little to do with the motion, I admit. Hon. members must remember that I for one objected years and years ago to the food of the people being made the football of politics, and, further, that speculation that was so rife in the people’s food must stop, and it should disappear for ever. I agree that the producer should have the full benefit of his production.

You do agree with that?

Yes, I have said that before in the House, but I say this merely to establish my belief in the Control Boards, and that they have to continue. But some alteration has to be made, because the point I want you to remember is that the Control Boards under the Marketing Act are well established merely as a regulatory factor, and in that capacity they should act and not interfere with the mode of distribution, because that is where they evidently went wrong. I can understand the Boards having a great deal to say in the distribution of primary products, but when it comes to processed foods that control must stop and they must not interfere. What do we find? The dairy farmers will have all the say in regard to processed foods. What is margarine other than processed food? It is a new industry, and it should never come under the control of the Dairy Board. It should come under the control of the Minister of Economic Development, because it is an industry in itself. But let me disabuse the mind of the hon. member about dairy farmers suffering. The Minister of Finance told us today what we are spending on milk. It will take years before cur milk scheme for schools will be able to work on a proper ration basis, because there is not sufficient milk. Many years will elapse before we produce sufficient milk for the condensing factories; for many years there is no fear of margarine replacing butter. No, it is just that selfish fear of a few interested parties

It is a matter of self-preservation; how can it be selfish?

Let me get back to the subject of the debate, the establishment of a Ministry of Food. I have been an advocate of this because I was convinced by experience and after the work I did travelling through the country taking evidence, more particularly in regard to distribution, that that would be a solution. But when I suggested a Ministry of Food, the intention was not to appoint a new Minister. All we wanted was a division of food control under another Minister than the Minister of Agriculture, because we say his primary object is food production, and heaven knows he has enough leeway to make up to stimulate production, and he should not have anything at all to do with the distribution side. There should be a separate division for administering the distributive side, and it should come under the control of the Minister of Health. So I am not convinced by the remarks of the Minister of Finance. I believe that when these experts arrive here, they will endorse the verdict of the members of this House who have handled food distribution in the past. I believe when these men know the complexities of the country and its productive power, they will come to one conclusion, and that is on the lines of the recommendations we have submitted from time to time to our Government, to separate distribution from production. We will benefit greatly by that. There is something very interesting which has been said today. The hon. member opposite is anxious to protect his farmer friends who, he says, have not made any money. They, according to him, have been starving during the war. But a good many have paid E.P.D., and we find that our farmers are better off than they have been. Do not let a member tell us that the farmers are not profiteering; they are profiteering.

You say that the poor farmer is profiteering?

Yes, some of them, those who pay E.P.D., and if you pay E.P.D. you are profiteering.

How many pay E.P.D.?

I hope you are one of them.

I am not one of them.

It does not matter how many there are. Today they have high prices that are far above the world level, and prices are going up everywhere. Other countries can supply us with food cheaper than we can produce it.

You bring maize in at a much higher price than you pay us.

Why the price of sugar is low is because it is the only commodity not controlled by the Agricultural Department, because it is under the control of the Minister of Economic Development and the people are getting sugar at a reasonable price. It is a fortunate thing for the consumers that the price of sugar has not been controlled by the food controller.

I did not say anything about sugar. I was talking about maize.

I want to tell you something about vegetables. Today we import canned beetroot in 2 lb. cans, the cost after paying 2¼d. a lb. duty is 9s. 6d. per dozen tins landed. The same size tins from local producers—and I might say it is an inferior article—costs 12s. 6d.

Tell us something about maize and wheat.

The position in regard to maize and wheat has been so well explained that there is nothing more for me to add. Not only can imported vegetables be sold much more cheaply than we are paying for the local product, but dried fruit, Californian prunes, are landed and sold in the country, after paying a heavy protective duty, at a lower figure than the South African farmer receives. I merely want to tell the hon. member that his argument that the farmer is not getting the prices he should is an absolutely wrong one. I think the position is just this, that we found in the first instance that our price control and our distribution control broke down because the Minister of Agriculture refused to bring primary products under the control of the price control, and because of the mistake the Government made in not having a system of rationing introduced at the consumer’s end. I am not afraid of our position. I think that the recuperative powers of this country are very good; they are great. And before long we will do away with these shortages, but it requires united effort, and if you get that united effort I am sure this food shortage we are experiencing will soon be overcome. But one thing I do want to say, until the control and distribution of that food comes under some other administration than the Department of Agriculture, so long will nothing happen. We have had enough food in this country, but the distribution has gone wrong because waste was allowed to go on and today this waste is continuing. Eliminate waste and institute proper control, which probably would be achieved under a Division of Food, and everyone will be satisfied. Before I sit down I want to refer to a remark that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) made in his address in connection with the export of food under this “Thank you Britain” Fund with which the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) and I have been associated. The hon. member for Beaufort West stated we were going to export £2,000,000 worth of food. Utterly wrong. What we did was to export from this country £100,000 worth of foodstuffs, but those were not foodstuffs in short supply here, they were canned fruit, jams and other things we had available.

We have a shortage of both those things.

No, there never has been.

You are telling me.

There never has been a shortage of plum puddings. You can get as much dried prunes as you can consume. The goods exported by this fund were not in short supply here, and the exports did not affect our position in any way. We knew at the time we had no meat and no butter to send. But we do want to help these people if we can, and help them without denying ourselves anything. I want to remind the hon. member for Beaufort West there was a fund before this fund was started. A fund was started here to send food to Holland, to his kinsmen, and everybody liberally subscribed to that, and these people were helped. But of course anything sent to Britain would not appeal to the hon. member. I had a letter today which is rather impressive. We received hundreds of letters from people in Great Britain who got their Christmas puddings or tinned fruit, and this is an extract from one letter—

What does this mean, this food we sent to Great Britain to which exception has been taken, these few extra things we were able to give people who suffered so severely and for so long? It meant that South African produce is well advertised in Great Britain. You must remember Great Britain has always been your best market, and Great Britain will always be looked upon as our best market for all surplus food in future. Therefore I think hon. members opposite are wrong not only in not helping by subscribing to the fund but in decrying its object.

The hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) today merely displayed his ignorance in regard to farming. He stated that farming is so marvellously profitable. Why then does he not farm himself?

I do farm myself.

Then the hon. member surely has another source of income if he makes such wonderful profits. He surely has a store as well. If he has any knowledge of farming then he will know that a farmer sometimes sows for five years in succession and only reaps one crop. If it happens, as it has happened in the past few years, that a farmer’s crops are a failure and he eventually reaps a crop and receives a reasonable price, then he has to make up for the matter and we are grateful for that, the losses of the former years. In the past few years mealies as well as wheat was a failure and even if the farmer should now receive £6 per bag, he will not cover his expenses over all those years. If the farmer receives a fixed price and he reaps regular crops then it is quite another matter. Take the case of wheat. It costs the farmer £2 per bag to sow wheat. He sowed the first year but he received nothing in return. In the second year he sowed again and it therefore already cost him £4 per bag. If he sows again this year then it costs him £6 per bag and all those expenses have to be met before he can show a profit. In spite of that we hear from the hon. member opposite that the farmer receives such high prices.

I am not opposed to high prices.

But you said that the farmers made such wonderful profits.

Some of them.

If there is an industry which in the past always came off second best, then it is farming. That has not only been the case in our country, but also the case all over the world. Although 60 per cent. of our population make a living out of farming it nevertheless appears that only one-third of the income tax payments are made by farmers. That proves what small incomes they have. If in future the hon. member wants to speak about farming then he must first of all acquire a thorough knowledge of the matter. I want to draw attention today to the question of famine which is threatening the whole country. We know that there is a food shortage right throughout the whole world. In Europe especially there is again a volcano which can perhaps erupt and lead to war. We are still receiving a small quantity of food from Europe, but if that happens, what is our position going to be. We know that people in Europe are dying from hunger and we cannot expect that they should feed us. The important problem today is the production of food. More than two months ago we on this side of the House approached the Minister of Agriculture in connection with seed wheat with a view to the prevention of famine. After considerable struggling the Minister went so far as to devise a small scheme of providing seed wheat in the areas which were drought stricken. The maximum was 20 bags and in addition a small quantity of fertiliser was also provided. We pointed out to the Hon. Minister that it was absolutely inadequate because the scheme was limited solely to the more needy farmers. We asked the Government to encourage the production of wheat in general by assisting the farmers with seed wheat. It is now the sowing season. Copious rains have fallen right throughout the Free State as well as over a considerable portion of the Transvaal. The areas which were drought stricken are now the best situated to provide a bumper crop, but where is the seed wheat? Nothing has been done by the Government to assist the farmers in obtaining wheat for it is the same thing, and this is also their policy in regard to cheese. I have just endeavoured to show that it is that policy of the Government that has led to all the unpleasantness and shortages, and then hon. members on the cross-benches come and ask for another Ministry, they ask for another control.

Not a control.

This will create more shortages.

You want another government, not another Ministry.

This motion is proposed with the object of getting a Food Ministry, but what is the position? There was a time here in Cape Town, and elsewhere, when the people stood in queues hundreds of yards in length and then they could not get their necessaries. Take sugar, for instance. What happened with sugar? These people cannot get it.

That is not true.

That hon. member apparently does not know there was a time when the poor people could not get more than ½ lb. sugar at a time. I assume that that hon. member could get plenty of sugar, but I know that in the platteland, in the streets where the people had to stand in queues, they could not get more than 1 lb. of sugar. I am perfectly satisfied with the method that is being applied today. I am perfectly satisfied with our control system as it is being applied, and I am perfectly satisfied with the bodies that are in charge of that control. There is continuous consultation between the various bodies. The smallest details are gone into, and the hon. member knows that decisions are not taken with eyes shut. If you have a claim you can present it, and that claim is dealt with on its merits. If you institute a new Food Ministry you will have to create a new organisation. You will still have to put your claims to that organisation and it will still be gone into thoroughly. Consequently I cannot support the motion of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). I am not prepared to vote for it. I think it is better for those hon. members first to put their own house in order and then they will find there is nothing wrong today with the control system and the distribution system, but with the Government.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) started her speech by referring to the attitude of the farmers on this particular question of establishing a Ministry of Food, and she stated that the very fact that so much opposition was coming from the farming members opposite would lead one to think that there is a great amount of justification for the proposal of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger).

I can understand why you say that.

The hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) has made various ex parte statements this afternoon, none of which can be justified by facts or figures at all, and it is an extraordinary thing in a matter like this that the farmers in this House, as the hon. member for Jeppes pointed out, object to this motion. This motion, far from showing any hostility to the farmers at all, will be in the interests of the farmers if by the establishment of a Ministry of Food it is going to give greater satisfaction to the people of this country. The farmers are going to be given a square deal. I would like to remind the farmers of this country that the prices of the bulk of the products are controlled. The consumer and the middleman has nothing to do at all with the price of maize, for example. It has been fixed by the board. Similarly the price of wheat has been fixed by the board, and the consumer and the middleman had no say at all in the fixation of that price. The same applies to the price of dairy products, and when hon. members say that this motion is hostile to the farmer they do not seem to realise that the prices of the bulk of these products are usually fixed by farmers’ organisations and our concern is merely from the business point of view. The hon. member for Cradock was good enough to make some sneering reference to an interjection I made on the question of wheat. I would like to tell the hon. member for Cradock that twelve years ago—I am not sure whether he was in the House then—but twelve years ago I was one of the five members of the commission which was appointed to enquire into co-operation and agricultural credit, and there was not a single product that we did not investigate. The report that we brought out then still stands today as the guide as to what farming should be in this country. The conclusions that that commission arrived at have never been controverted and a great deal of the trouble and the difficulty that we are in today is because we have not followed the recommendations contained in that report. On the question of price control, boards, the fixation of prices and sale through one channel, we pointed out in this report the difficulties that were bound to follow and when the hon. member made this attack this afternoon on the middleman, when he stated that it is the middleman who is making all the profits and that the prices of the farmers are depressed in order to give larger profits to the middleman, all that is just camouflage. It will not bear investigation. It will not bear investigation by any thoroughly impartial commission, and I am going to deal briefly with the findings of this commission on the value of the middleman’s services, which has been proved particularly in the last few years. It is stated in paragraph 129 of the commission’s report—

And so it goes on. Our contention is that it is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to see to the production of our primary products. During the early part of the war, when I was connected with the question of food supplies, it ‘was one of the essential duties that was placed on the Minister of Agriculture to increase production, to advise the farmers as to what was required and to do everything possible to increase the total production of this country. But there his function stopped, and it was the function then of the marketing side to be responsible to get rid of that increased production. To this extent I do agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern that it is necessary to establish a Ministry of Food to deal with the business side. I am not so much concerned whether a new Ministry is created, or whether this is put under another Ministry, but I do feel that there should be a Ministry which is concerned solely with the business side. It should be his duty to see that he gets food from every possible source, and it is also his responsibility to see that that food is marketed properly. Hon. members have made various references to the difficulties that have existed in the last few years. I realise, of course, that especially during the war years the position has been abnormal. I venture to say this—and that is where I found the argument of the Minister of Finance not quite convincing—if there is no necessity to have a Ministry of Food, why was it necessary to have one in Britain? There they had a Minister of Agriculture, and he told us at the time that his function was to get increased production, to get increased crops. His duty was to guide the farmers.

What about prices?

I will deal with the question of prices in a moment. It was the duty of the Minister of Agriculture to guide the farmers and, what was mote, it was his duty to tell the farmers what they could grow and where they could grow it, and if they did not grow what they were told to grow they were put off the land. Their farms were taken away from them and put in charge of people who would carry out the instructions of the Department. The whole system of agriculture was reorganised and placed under the Minister of Agriculture, and it was his duty to see that there was the maximum production, and he instructed the farmers what land was to be put under crops and what land was to be reserved for dairy farming. The whole system was organised by the Minister of Agriculture. There can be no question that in this country you have had a distinct clash between the duties and responsibilities of the Minister of Agriculture and the interests of the consumers. I can give the House definite instances. I know myself what happened when I was on the Food Council. Whenever it was a case of the interests of the producers as opposed to the interests of the consumers, the officials of the Agricultural Department were inclined to put the interests of the producer first. It must be so; that is the way they are brought up in the Department; they place the interests of the farmer first. Those of us who were not directly connected with the Department had different views. It was not a question of lack of bona fides on the part of the officials. Take the question of rationing, for instance. I am now referring to the year 1941, when the question was first raised of a rise in the price of meat, and then the question arose what control should be exercised. I can remember very well at the time the argument took place that there was one distinguished member of the Department who opposed the rationing of meat because, he said, it might seriously interfere with the consumption of meat, and that would be detrimental to the interests of the farmer. And there you have the agricultural point of view, which was entirely different from the business point of view. I believe myself that if this thing had been tackled properly from the beginning, you would have had a very different position in regard to food supplies. I do not agree with the Minister of Finance there. This question of supply and production is a thing that has exercised the minds of farmers and Governments for a long time. You have had these reports at different times, and they give one cause for very serious alarm when you read here that there has been much abuse of the veld, etc. I remember that some 12 years ago, when we were dealing with the question of wheat production in the Cape, one of the things that was pointed out to us at that time was the deterioration of the wheat lands in the Cape, the increased cost of fertilising those lands each year and so forcing up the price of wheat. Take another aspect of this question of price control. You have a price control. The Department of Agriculture or the relative board fixes the price of the product. They are the sole persons to do so. They fix the price for wheat at 36s. per bag or whatever the price may be, quite regardless of the fact that in different parts of the country the cost of production of wheat varies. May I read just one paragraph from this particular report? We went into the price that should be paid for mealies. At that time the price was 20s. per bag. I am not holding that up as the price that should be paid at the present moment. What I am saying is that different prices should be paid in different areas. Paragraph 323 of this report reads—

These facts, of course, are very well known to the House.

The values of land, of course, have changed.

Yes, I readily concede that, but you do get varying costs of production of wheat in South Africa. You get different costs in two or three different areas. You get different costs in the Free State, and since the Government has practically taken over the whole of the wheat crop, there ought to be zones for the price of wheat, and I feel that it is wrong to fix a price of 36s. per bag for wheat in all areas and to pay that price irrespective of the production costs. It is not fair to the man whose production costs are high, and it gives the man whose production costs are low a bigger profit than he is entitled to, and if zoning were introduced, in this respect, it would reduce the costs all round.

I want to deal with another matter on this question of food. I have already pointed out that there are controlled prices in respect of the bulk of the food commodities in the country. You find that practically every item in the grocers’ shops is subject to price control, and it has all been worked out on a very narrow margin of profit. The primary products are all price controlled, and yet the highest increase over the prices which were obtained in 1938 is in the case of food. Here I have the price index for December, 1945. It shows that there was an increase of 39.2 per cent. over the 1938 figures. When you include food, fuel, rent and light the increase is 28½ per cent., and if you add the increases under the heading sundries it comes to 33 per cent. I want to tell the House what the significance is of this increase in the price of food and its effect on the cost of living, and why it is so necessary to take steps to bring it down. The following figures are given in the Year Book for 1938; these figures are in relation to the income of the family. According to these figures food represents 34.7 per cent. of the family’s expenditure, fuel and light 5 per cent., rent 25 per cent. and sundries 34.8 per cent. The expenditure of food represents more than one third of the total expenditure of the family. But what I want to point out is this, that the biggest increase in the cost of living is in respect of those items which come under food, and those items are all controlled. Items such as light and sundries, where the business people have control, show a very much smaller increase in price. I feel that this is a matter that definitely requires consideration. The responsibility of a Minister of Food is quite different from that of the farmer. As I have indicated earlier, the farmer’s responsibility is to see that food is produced, and if he finds that he cannot produce economically or that the crops are likely to be a failure, then it becomes the responsibility of the business side. We know what has happened in the past. We have been living in hopes now for the last year or two that there would be better crops and that there will be no need to import, and what has been the result? In the last month or two we have had to rush overseas to buy where we could, whereas if the thing had been tackled properly in a businesslike manner we should probably have been able to ensure adequate supplies earlier. I want to emphasise the fact that far from this motion being hostile towards the farmers, its acceptance and the establishment in consequence of a Ministry of Food will definitely be in their interests. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern where she mixes up the question of nutrition with the establishment of a Ministry of Food. The problem of nutrition goes far beyond the question of a Ministry of Food. I think it has been indicated here that the proper place to deal with nutrition is under the Department of Health. Let me say also that malnutrition is not always a question of lack of food. We know of many people who have large incomes and yet the nutritional standard in their families is very bad indeed. I would say that that aspect would rather come under the Department of Education. But it is essential that there should be the closest co-ordination between a Ministry of Food and a nutritional council to see that proper food is obtained for the people of this country. I hardly expect that the Minister will accept this motion, but I would say definitely that it is going to be in the interests of this country eventually to have a Ministry of Food, because it is quite evident that owing to increased wages and the improved standard of living of the people in this country, we are not able to supply everything that is required in the way of nutritional food. We are consuming more butter today than we can produce. Even with an improved crop of maize I doubt whether we shall be able to meet our requirements, and one of these days steps will have to be taken to bring down the cost of maize to a price which the lower wage groups can meet. When you see that there is a proposal to fix the price of maize at 22s. 6d. per bag and when you look at this report which was drawn up only ten years ago and you find that there we pointed out what the effect would be on the lower income groups if the price of maize ever reached the figure of 15s. per bag, then you realise how very serious the position is. I say that you will never be able to get back to the old prices of your primary products. I think the Minister will have to face largely increased subsidies on food, and I believe that having a purely disinterested Minister to deal with this will tend to improve the position.

It is encouraging to have the support of a Government front-bencher in our desire to set up a Ministry of Food and it is equally encouraging to hear him say that wheat is not subsidised on a reasonable basis in this country. It is quite unscientific that land capable of producing ten bushels of wheat to the acre should be subsidised to the same degree as land which is only capable of producing four bushels of wheat to the acre. Obviously the cost of the production of wheat from land only capable of producing four bushels to the acre is proportionately higher than the cost of producing wheat from land capable of producing ten bushes. It is reasonable and acceptable even to a schoolboy that land capable of producing only four bushels of wheat to the acre should be subsidised to a higher extent than land capable of producing much more, or conversely that land capable of producing a higher yield is not entitled to the same amount of subsidy as land producing much less. There must be some explanation for the fact that such things can go on in South Africa, and the explanation is easy to find. It is because the Department of Agriculture is concerned solely with the interests of the producer. Nobody cavils at there being a department solely concerned with the interests of the producer, but the producer is not the only party concerned in the production, distribution and consumption of food. While it is creditable to the farmers that they are highly organised and able to exert some influence on the Government, it is equally true it is unfortunate that the consumers are not highly organised, that they are not organised into a single consumers’ organisation which could adequately exercise influence on the governmental departments concerned with the provision and consumption of goods in this country. The argument by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that the advocacy of the setting up of a Ministry of Food is not in any way hostile to the farmers is an argument which may be subject to some criticism, because under the present circumstances where the Department of Agriculture is solely concerned with the interests of the farmer the consequence is that farmers are reaping the benefit, and prices are being fixed at their own dictates irrespective of the needs and interests of the consuming community. It must obviously follow that if a Ministry of Food is set up for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the interests of consumers it must inevitably come into conflict with the interests of the farming community. So one has to realise that there is inherently a basic difference between the interests of the consumer and the interests of the producer, between the interests of the purchaser and of the seller. The seller always wants to get as high a price as possible for the commodity he offers for sale. On the other hand the purchaser wants to buy that commodity at the lowest possible price at which he can purchase. So there is an inherent conflict. It is reasonable that the producers should make representations to a State department through their organisation in their own interests, and they are sufficiently highly organised to make the best arrangements they can for themselves through their collective bargaining machinery. The only way in which the interests of the consumers can be protected is by setting up a State department which will secure and protect the interests of consumers, particularly in the absence of a single organisation representing the consumers as such. At present the consumers are integrated in various political parties, there is not a single consumers’ organisation that is strong enough to represent them adequately. Their interests need to be protected. Many examples can be presented to show that the farmers are being well protected, but that they are being protected at the expense of the consumers. The nett effect of this, and I have dealt with this special point frequently on, public platforms, is that there exists in the minds of the urban population a consistent and persistent belief that the farmers are being spoon-fed. It is an allegation one frequently heard in pre-war days, but with less frequency during the period of the war, especially during times when food shortages were not confined to South Africa but experienced universally, and which we are hearing again in the urban areas with increasing frequency, especially now that the world shortage of basic cereal products has been alleviated. This inevitably engenders an antagonism between the urban population and the rural dwellers, and an antagonism which can only be mitigated if the interests of the consuming population are adequately represented in the way we have asked for, by the establishment of a Ministry of Food. It is true control boards have been set up with the primary object of regulating the flow of various commodities and fixing the basic prices at which they shall be sold, but almost every one of these control boards is a board not representative of the three parties interested, producer, distributor and consumer, but the control boards are almost completely dominated by producer interests. It is my firm believe there is an additional reason why the farming interests, and these control boards representing as they do the producing interests, are afraid of what is asked for in this resolution, and that is easy to explain. We state that there should be subsidisation of the lower income groups in order that the goods necessary for their nutrition should be made available to them, and that subsidisation is in effect utterly opposed by the producing interests because the subsidisation of the lower income groups tends to indicate the possibility of the farmer as the producer being paid at too high a level for the goods he produces.

A particular request was made to me that I should not speak at any great length on this subject. The hon. member for Sunnyside concluded by saying there is no likelihood of the Government accepting the resolution. This subject has been aired on the second privates members’ day, and important though I know it to be I realise a number of members of this House are equally concerned with and would like us to pass on to the next motion on the Order Paper. I believe the hon. mover of this resolution has indicated her preparedness to accept a motion for the adjournment of this debate. With the permission of the mover, I move—

I second.

I wish to say a few words on the motion for the adjournment of this debate. Representing a party in this House which has not had the opportunity to take part in so important a debate as this I do suggest in the interests of good government, and in the interests of the people of South Africa who are anxiously waiting to know what the position of the Dominion Party is in connection with the resolution before the House—I feel sure the House will be prepared to carry on this very important debate, affecting, as it may be said, the livelihood of many thousands of our people. This is a question on which the country as a whole is feeling very concerned. We have had the Housewives’ League repeatedly making representations to the Government, and officials of the Agricultural Department have been sent to most of the large towns in the Union in an endeavour to explain to the people who are so agitated what the present position is in regard to the production and distribution of food. These officials have been touring the country, explaining the difficulties in connection with food, but today there is a definite demand that the Food Ministry should be established. If we are going to adjourn the debate without the House having an opportunity of arriving at a decision on whether a Ministry of Food should be set up or whether the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) should be accepted or otherwise, I think the country will be keenly disappointed that the House has failed to give its decision on a matter of such urgency and importance. I think I would be justified in saying that there is not a single newspaper in this country that has not advocated the desirability of a Ministry of Food being established.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the case. The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

It has been established, Sir, from every side of the House that a decision should be taken whether a Ministry of Food should come into being or not, as has been done practically throughout the Commonwealth. One is justified, therefore, in suggesting that South Africa is desirous of knowing the opinion of each member of the House on this subject. I see the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) there. It has been suggested in many influential quarters he should be the next Minister of Agriculture.

Order, order. That has nothing to do with the motion.

The hon. member has been sitting in the House for the last two hours awaiting an opportunity to be able to rise in his place and give his views in connection with this important resolution which is before the House. Members of the Dominion Party are anxious that their views should be made known. The majority of the members who have been sitting here the whole afternoon are anxious to give the House and the country the benefit of their views. I have been very disappointed at the mover of a motion such as this being prepared to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate. The National Council of Women, the Housewives’ League and other women’s organisations who are keenly interested in this matter will, I think, make it plain to the hon. member that they desire the decision of Parliament on this subject, and the hon. member will not receive any thanks from the women of South Africa when they know that the motion has been disposed of in this way. The hon. member will be forced to admit she was not too interested in it, because at the critical moment she was quite prepared that someone should get up in the House—probably on her suggestion—and move the adjournment of the debate. She is deliberately denying this House….

The hon. member has used that same argument three times.

Yes. [Laughter.] In order to influence the hon. member to allow this debate to continue, it may be necessary to repeat it four times.

Order, order. If the hon. member disregards the authority of the Chair, I shall have to enforce the Standing Order which forbids repetition.

I am really suggesting that the interests of the farming community have been attacked so much that the farming members ought to be accorded the opportunity to carry on the debate, as a number of them are anxious to submit facts and figures which they consider will prove that the farming community have not been exploiting the position in regard to the shortages of food. I feel that consideration should be given to that even if I am not permitted to plead that probably the most influential party in this House, the Dominion Party, is being denied the opportunity of stating its views on this motion. I do appeal to the hon. member to withdraw the motion for the adjournment and allow the debate to go on to a division, so that we will know what support there is for the motion and for the amendment.

I wish to say a few words in support of the remarks which have fallen from my colleague.

Blah, blah.

I am very disappointed if this debate is to come to an end without a decision being taken so that we may know who are in favour of the proposal for a Food Ministry and who are not. I wished to put a very important proposal before this House, but now it is proposed the debate should come to a sudden end. I feel that very keenly. [Laughter.] I was prepared to support the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in this very excellent proposal that a Food Ministry should be established. This food position has developed very seriously….

Order, order. The hon. member must not discuss the merits of the subject. He must speak to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I wish to bring to the notice of the House the serious position which was experienced in Durban, far worse than at the other end of South Africa. I am sure my constituents and the City of Durban will be very disappointed if this debate is adjourned. We have had public meetings, and the women of Durban especially have advocated the desirability for setting up a Ministry of Food. We are now told the debate is going to be adjourned, and that will mean the motion will never come before the House again. I think it is most unfortunate.

I have never before experienced anything such as occurred in the House this afternoon. I was very glad to hear the various arguments but it was a shock to me to hear a member of the Labour Party propose the adjournment of this important debate, and I was still more surprised that the mover of the motion gave her approval to it. One comes to the conclusion that the motion was meant simply as an advertisement, and that it was proposed frivolously.

The hon. member must not go into the merits of the motion.

I am speaking about the adjournment of the debate, which the mover approved, and I would like her to give us the motive for the adjournment of the debate so that the motion cannot be discussed any further.

Sit down, and give her a chance.

I want her to tell us what the reason is why this debate should be adjourned. We know what follows on the Order Paper. The adjournment has been proposed because there is an agreement between certain people. That does not place the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in a good light. Our side of the House has an amendment for consideration. It is a very important amendment and we should like to have another whole day to discuss it. We have the time now, and though we have the time the proposer of the motion comes along and attaches her approval to the adjournment of the debate.

Where is the mover of the amendment?

I saw him a minute ago in the lobby. He has not left. We have so many speakers on this motion that we need another day, and now we are being deprived of this time—I have never encountered anything so shocking in this House—without the mover of the motion telling us why she is prepared to accept the adjournment. Therefore we on this side are not prepared to support the motion for the adjournment. It is a question of principle. When we observe which members are supporting the motion of the hon. member it is necessary to have a division on this motion so that the farmers can see how the members vote, and so that the consumers can also see how the members vote. I have nothing to do with the next item on the Order Paper. Apparently the debate must now be adjourned so that it can come up. I am not concerned whether it comes up or not, but we wish to express our views on this motion and to rebut the arguments that have already been used. If the hon. member will stand up and tell us why she is taking this course of action we may review our position. She must have the courage to stand up and tell us why she wishes to have the debate adjourned.

I would like to raise my protest against the adjournment. The subject of the Food Ministry has been brought up by many groups in Johannesburg and has been advocated in the City Council especially by the mayor and the Labour members of the council. I am surprised that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has agreed to the adjournment of the debate, because I have always thought nothing would give greater pleasure than to have a Ministry of Food, especially in the circumstances that obtains in the country today. Now, to find that she agrees to the adjournment surprises me very much after the fine manner in which she put forward her motion. I only hope that the hon. member is not afraid of her motion being turned down. I do hope that the hon. member will ignore this plea for the adjournment and will allow the House to continue the debate. We have had this cry for a Ministry of Food from all the women’s associations on the Rand.

Order, order. That argument has been used already by all the members who have spoken.

Sir, I did not hear it. If there is one thing I never do it is to say what other members have said, and I can assure you that I did not hear other members referring to it. While I was in the Minister’s chambers in Pretoria we had a mass meeting of women from Pretoria and Johannesburg who forced their way in demanding that we should have a Ministry of Food, and then to find that the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) to whom all the women in South Africa look for a lead, agrees to the adjournment, surprises and pains me.

Order, order. The hon. member must speak to the motion for the adjournment.

I would plead with the hon. member not to agree to the adjournment.

I did not propose the adjournment.

You agreed to it.

I move—

I second.

May I rise on a point of order. I understand from what I observed here now that the previous speaker did not move that the question be now put and he had not finished speaking when the question was put.

The question was put in accordance with the rules of the House.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—40.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Hemming, G. K.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

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

Noes—20.

Acutt, F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

McLean, J.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. J. van Nierop and F. W. Waring.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and the House divided:

Ayes—40.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T.B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Hayward, G. N.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

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

Noes—21.

Acutt, F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

McLean. J.

Mentz, F. E.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: P. J. van Nierop and F. W. Waring.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 5th April.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—14.

Acutt, F. H.

Derbyshire. J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Erasmus, H. S.

Gray, T. P.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: F. E. Mentz and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—31.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Davis, A.

Du Toit, R. J.

Friend, G. A.

Hayward. G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge. M.

Latimer, A.

Madeley, W. B.

Molteno, D. B.

Fayne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Ueckermann, K.

Van Niekerk. H. J. L.

Wanless, A. T.

Tellers: T. B. Bowker and V. L. Shearer.

Motion accordingly negatived.

I want to move a further amendment to Clause 12.

The hon. member can only move an amendment to the new Clause 12 as moved by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate). The Committee is considering the new Clause 12 moved by the hon. member for South Coast.

On a point of order, are we not entitled to know what is before the House?

I have pointed out that the hon. member for South Coast moved a new Clause 12 as printed in the Votes and Proceedings.

New Clause 12, proposed by Mr. Neate, put and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt and Derbyshire) voted in favour of the Clause, the Chairman declared it negatived.

On Clause 12,

On this clause I have an amendment printed on page 175, which assumes that this clause will first of all be negatived. In view of the fact that we are applying the provisions of the Building Societies Act to this Department, most of what is in this clause is unnecessary. All that is necessary is to fix the maximum rate of advances, which it is proposed should be in excess of that which is provided for in the Building Societies Act. In the Building Societies Act the proportion allowed is 75 per cent. The Select Committee resolved to raise it to 95 per cent., and it will be necessary for me to move to insert another clause if this clause is negatived merely to give effect to the higher rate. The rest of the clause is unnecessary, and it is therefore necessary to delete same in order to enable the Committee to insert another clause.

On the motion of Mr. Acutt, the Chairman put the amendment proposed to the Select Committee in line 36,

I do not know whether the clause is going to be cancelled, as the Minister of Finance suggests, but I consider that 95 per cent. is far too great a percentage for a financial institution to lend money on property. We know what our experience has been in South Africa in the past. Today we live in prosperous times and inflated values, and tomorrow something happens which causes a depression, and the value of property goes down. It is dangerous to allow any financial institution to lend money on property up to the extent of 95 per cent. of its value, and I think it would be very unwise of this House to pass a law to allow municipalities to have a savings bank and to lend money out on property. I think it would be a very dangerous experiment. For many years we have had inflation and high values in property, and to my mind we would be doing a great harm to the city of Durban if we passed a law of this nature. I therefore wish to move as an amendment to the amendment—

Even 85 per cent. is not considered a very safe margin, but I want to help the city as far as possible if they are going to have this bank, to make a success of it, and I realise that there are many people who have not got the necessary cash to put down, and if I can be of any assistance in that respect, I am quite willing to make it 85 per cent. and not 75 per cent. as was suggested here. This clause has got so mixed up with all the amendments that it is difficult to know where we stand exactly. But in all earnestness I commend this amendment to this House.

I move—

I am not prepared to accept the Closure at this stage.

I do not want to challenge your ruling in any way, but where an amendment is moved to apply the closure after five minutes’ debate on a most important Bill like this, I think it is really a dangerous principle. Let us make an attempt to give Durban a Bill worthy of Parliament. We are trying on this side to make it a Bill that will be workable and acceptable, and I do appeal to hon. members to give us their assistance. May I suggest that in these days of inflation that any municipality which undertakes to advance 95 per cent. of the value of property, is courting disaster. We know what happened after the last war with regard to property values. A house that was worth as much as £2,000 after the last Great War dropped as much as 50 per cent. in value after a few years. At a later stage I shall endeavour to have inserted in this Bill a clause that will enable our city councils throughout the country, and Durban in particular, to advance another 10 per cent. on mortgages that have been arranged by building societies. That would mean that the municipalities would be incurring a possible liability of something life 10 per cent. only. I notice that my friends of the Labour Party, as usual, are missing. They do put in an appearance when an adjournment on a very important debate is moved, but they are conspicuous by their absence, as usual, when we are discussing a most important matter affecting the city of Durban. I suggest to the House that if we accept the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) we will be able to meet the situation. We must remember that in these days the pound is only worth about ten shillings and I contend that you are trifling with the intelligence of the ratepayers in asking the House to lay down that the municipalities should advance 95 per cent. on the values of fixed property. We cannot saddle the ratepayers of Durban with what may be a very serious loss on houses when the time will come, as it must come, when there will be a slump in property values. Today you have a property that is valued at something like £1,000 or £1,500 which is sold for as much as £8,000, almost six times its real value. In these circumstances of terrific inflation with which South Africa is faced at the moment, I would ask the House whether it is right and just and fair that we should empower any local authority to advance 95 per cent. on the value of property, when in another few years’ time it will only be worth something like 50 per cent. of the present price. I do appeal to the business men and the leaders of commerce in South Africa to consider this. We cannot think of implementing in a Bill an outrageous, unbusinesslike, unsatisfactory clause as this that may mean that the ratepayers of Durban will probably lose millions of pounds if any large scheme is embarked upon whereby hundreds of houses are erected at this time of high values. Only just recently the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) mentioned that if the Bill had been passed, 600 houses would have been erected today. Suppose this Bill had to pass through Parliament and suppose that 600 houses were to be built in the next six months, those 600 houses will be a liability on the Durban ratepayers. Representing a Durban constituency, and the most important part of Durban, I feel that I cannot allow this clause to stand as it is. The municipality has never built a single house in Durban without running the risk of losing a considerable amount of money. [Time limit.]

With regard to the remarks made by my colleague, I really do not quite know what he was getting at. I should like to know more clearly what his intentions are. He suggested that he was going to move later on that the municipality should be empowered to advance 10 per cent. in addition to the building society loan. That is a new idea to me, but I realise that the hon. member has a very fertile brain. That may become an established principle. But later in his remarks he reverted to 95 per cent.

I move—

Division called.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact tha† Mr. Derbyshire, who called for a division, has left the Chamber?

The hon. member who called for the division must vote in the division. Will the Serjeant-at-Arms please inform the hon. member that his presence is required in the Chamber?

Mr. DERBYSHIRE having taken his seat, it was found that fewer than ten members (viz., Messrs. Acutt and Derbyshire) voted against the motion.

The CHAIRMAN accordingly declared the motion to report progress and ask leave to sit again agreed to.

House Resumed:

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