The House will probably remember that I endeavoured by way of moving the adjournment of the House to bring to the attention of the House the very painful situation that has arisen in the country owing to the shortage of bread. If I may be permitted, I want now to take an opportunity to raise the question under the Prime Minister’s vote. Is there a spare half-hour for me?

No, both periods have already been utilised.

First of all I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he purposes to continue the present system of governing this country by Boards. That is a very pertinent question in view of the sitution in which we find ourselves. Board after Board has been set up and controller after controller, and whilst I do not object and I do not think any reasonable member of this House will be prepared to object to the administration of a policy being in the hands, under supervision, of course, of Boards of Controllers; yet I do most strongly object— and I feel that hon. members will support me in that objection—to these Boards establishing a policy of the country. That is what is happening over this particular situation. Here you have the Wheat Control Board. Incidentally, that Board is lopsided in its personnel. The majority of the members of that Board are farmers. A very large proportion of them have several other financial interests, and only one member of the Board, if my information is correct, represents the interests of the consumer. Now, the consumers are the vast mass of the public, and if any preponderance of representation is required at all, it should be that representing the consumers. But that is not so. So I am finding fault with the members of the Board, its composition; and the same applies to the Maize Control Board. Now, we have to admit and admit with pain that there is a shortage of bread. I am one of those who has advocated a tightening of our belts in the interests of world humanity. I am prepared to contribute and to ask others to contribute in kind to the feeding of the rest of the world. But as a result of that, whether that operates or not, we have to admit that there is and must inevitably be, in all the circumstances, a shortage of what we call the staff of life. Now, how does this Board cope with that? I am advocating as strongly as I can a system of rationing. Whatever shortage there may be, or whatever quantity of this commodity there may be available in the country, it is the business of the Government to see that it is evenly distributed to all the mouths in the country, and not to leave us with a complete absence of this food, in the majority of cases, whilst there is a surplus available to others who can afford to buy. Incidentally, I want to mention this, apropos of Boards controlling our policy, and getting a very swollen-headed idea of their own importance.

Hear, hear.

Actually on the day when I endeavoured to move the adjournment of the House, my party’s caucus decided upon a deputation consisting of my hon. friend here, the hon. member for Durban North (Rev. Miles-Cadman), the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. A. C. Payne) and myself, together with some experts, the real experts, namely, the chairman and secretary of the Bakers’ Union (I am talking of the employees), who themselves have examined the position very carefully, and who, with all their inside information, had certain considerations to put before the Wheat Board. We asked for an interview with the chairman before they started their meeting, in order to introduce these two gentlemen to them, and to place before them their views as to how this unfortunate situation could be met in the fairest possible way for all concerned. But we were calmly informed that we could not be seen. We, members of Parliament, could not be seen by this august body, the Wheat Board. Tut, tut! Fancy members of Parliament asking ’to be seen by so august a body. We were told that we could be seen next week, but they are deciding within the next day or two a plan of bread economy for the whole Union. Still, they are not prepared to give consideration to all the representations that can be made. That should have been their first duty, but they have not done so. What is the position? If the Press is to be believed, they have already arrived at a decision. They have proposed that there should be one breadless day a week. That means that on one day a week thousands of people in this country—I am not exaggerating—will have nothing to eat, because that is all they get. I am glad hon. members appreciate the enormity of this. Then, as a reinforcing method, they decided that after 5 p.m. there should be no bread consumed anywhere. What a ridiculous suggestion to make. How can you see, in many thousands of families, whether or not they have bread after five o’clock?

You can only do it in the hotels

Yes. On the face of it, without further examination, it is a ridiculous method. Another thing is that in order to encourage increased production of wheat —which incidentally will exhaust our soil— they talk about increasing the price to the farmer substantially. Now, the farmer is getting 37s. 6d. a bag.

That is only for first grade.

We are only dealing with first grade. Call it an average of 35s. Before the war 22s. was regarded as a tremendous price well worth growing wheat for as a paying proposition. Now it is 35s. all round, and the proposal is that they should get more to induce them to grow. These references I am making are only incidental to my argument. I am only endeavouring to show that by reason of the fact that this Board in its wisdom, or lack of it, has decided not to have representations made to it by people who know something about it, they are getting into this unholy mess, and they are not going to provide the people who need bread most with the bread they need from the common pool. I urge upon the Prime Minister that a closer examination should be made, and that the policy shall be set up by the Government itself, who should take responsibility for it, and that the Government should not shelter behind the Board which does not know anything at all about the question.

Another suggestion by this Board is that they shall ration the supply of bread which the bakers may make. But there is no obligation on the bakers to see that it is distributed fairly; and today a black market has already been created. Dealers, retailers, are already offering far beyond the controlled maximum price to the bakers. In fact, a figure has been given to me, that already they have offered 7s. 6d. a dozen, more than the retail price of bread to the consumer. What does that mean? Sooner or later at all events some of the bakers will fall, and sell their bread to the retailers who will give them the highest price, and that still further restricts the possibility of the unfortunate poor man and woman in the country to buy bread at all. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, I want very strongly to support the case that the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has been making to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, and I want to speak in this regard especially about the effects of the present position on the people whom I represent. They are the people who are mainly voiceless. They are the people who have no established relations with traders, particularly in the urban areas, and they have no established control over supplies of food. They are the people who suffer most when the country gets into the sort of position it is in at the present time. When we entered this war, our native population, like all our lower income groups, were remarkable for the high degree of malnutrition which characterised them. That situation has not improved during the war. In many directions it has deteriorated during the war. We have suffered from a number of food crises, particularly in the last two or three years. Every one of these food crises has come back on the non-European population and the poorer Europeans of the community, to aggravate what was already a very serious condition. Last year maize was in short supply in this country. Maize, as we all know, is the basic food of the non-European population, particularly of the African population, and that basic food has gone up in price by practically 100 per cent. in the course of the war. Wages have gone up in nothing like the same proportion. We know what wage rise was given in the mining industry, because that was fixed by Parliament; and we know that there is no cost of living allowance to native miners. But native miners have families, most of whom do not produce their own food supplies in ordinary times, and who have been badly hit by the drought conditions which have been one of the fortuitous misfortunes which we have suffered during the last year or two. In the circumstances, large numbers of native mineworkers and their families have been dependent on the food they can buy, as have been increasing numbers of Africans in urban areas. That food has not only been enormously increased in cost, but it has practically vanished from the native areas—I am talking now of the rural areas—and it is extremely difficult to get in the urban areas. Whenever any commodity is in short supply, these people find difficulty in getting their share. Last year, when I was in the Ciskei, I found that even the people who could afford to buy could not get maize. By some curious set of circumstances there was no maize, a circumstance which I still find difficult to understand, because, in spite of short crops in this country, more maize has been put through trade channels in recent years than before the war. Actually a million bags are being put through these channels every month, yet the natives are not getting the maize; and when they do get it, the price is a very great consideration. This price, fantastically high, is established by the Food Controller on the basis of a price guarantee to the farmers. But the natives are not able to buy at the bag price. They can only buy at the retail price for small quantities, which is a considerably higher price. And I have seen natives who have walked miles to try to get maize hanging round for hours at country stores, and when they get half a bag of maize, it takes them the rest of the day to get back to the kraal; and the maize only lasts a few days, seeing that there is no other food. Last year in the Ciskei there was no sugar available. Today a great many natives who could not get maize last year and the year before owing to droughts were forced back on bread. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. A. O. B. Payn) has told me on various occasions, and I presume would be willing to tell the House, that the baking industry has increased enormously in the Transkei. In the towns many natives have gone on a bread diet as an alternative to maize, and more and more have done so since maize became impossible to get. Now these people stand in queues for endless hours, only to find when they reach the counter that there is no bread for them. The two points I want to put to the Prime Minister in regard to the food situation are these: The first is that the cost of food is not only fantastically high, but it is most disastrously high from a nutritional point of view today. Before the war many natives were moving off a maize diet to a more varied diet, but the steady rise in the price of foodstuffs, which I submit the Government has allowed to happen to far too great an extent during the war, has forced the people back on this maize diet, with a very serious aggravation of their nutritional condition. But, secondly, the absence of any analysis of the food needs of this country has meant that when food is in short supply and there has been no rigid rationing, the African people just don’t get food. I want to say to the Prime Minister that this is where I think the most serious gap exists in our present set-up. We have a food control organisation, but we have no food policy in this country, and at the moment we are incapable of making any effective use of any food control policy, because we do not know the needs of the people. In my opinion, the Nutrition Council, which the Minister of Finance referred to the other day as the body which can tell the Government what are the needs of the people, has done an excellent job in the only field that was open to it, the field of research. The Nutrition Council has established two things beyond doubt. One is that we have a very grave problem of malnutrition in this country, and the other is the qualitative diet that should be available as the basis of human efficiency. That is a purely research job. But it is failing to appreciate the rigid limits of the Nutrition Council to suggest in the present set-up they are capable of telling the Government what the present quantitative needs of the population are. They have no machinery to evaluate the quantitative food needs of the native population or of any section of the population. Now that piece of information is what we lack hopelessly; we do not know what food the people need. The result was seen last year, and the year before, when the Maize Board was faced with the problem of spreading out over the year the available supplies of maize. The Food Controller put out a notice that people would not be allowed to buy two bags permit free per person per month. When I first heard that I did not worry, because I knew no native family could afford one bag of maize per person per month. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that here again difficulty has arisen. We quite agree that the Boards which were appointed must remain. We may perhaps differ as regards their composition and the way in which they function. We agree with the consumers that they should perhaps have more representation, but we feel that in this connection we can investigate what other countries have done. They also have Boards in Australia, but their composition is quite different to ours. There they have a producers’ Board and a consumers’ Board, and nobody can say that the consumers are not represented, for they have their own Board. Eventually they get together and the two Boards decide on the prices which must be paid so that the farmers can exist, the middle men can make their profit and so that the consumers are protected. If we can transform our boards in this direction they will be successful. I agree with the hon. member that the man who buys from day to day by no means receives his rightful share of what there is. In the Cradock district there are many poor people and natives who are starving, but what happens? The man who has an account at a shop receives preference. If a little mealie meal or flour arrives, the man who has an account receives preference, but the man who pays cash and buys from day to day has to take a back seat. When one buys in small quantities the prices are still terribly high—enormous profit is being made. It is the man who buys by the bucket who is hardest hit. There is insufficient protection for the man of small means. On that point I heartily agree with the hon. member who has just been seated. It happened in my constituency just before I left that certain quotas of flour were stopped owing to a misunderstanding, and where a certain shopkeeper had to provide for the needs of 500 families, the morning I left he did not have sufficient wheat for 250 families. The poor people had to go without. I am certain that in my constituency there were a large number who went without food. The distribution system as it exists today is not satisfactory. The Boards are not sufficiently interested in distribution; it apparently does not concern them whether everybody gets food and also whether the poorer classes can obtain food. I shall be glad if the Boards will ensure in the future that proper provision is made for the poor people and the natives who live on bread, wheat and mealie meal alone. They cannot afford to buy other things, but in the past they have not always been properly treated. Now we come to the price basis, and I am sorry that it was raised. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) said that before the war the farmers received 22s. per bag for wheat, and now they are getting 35s., about 50 per cent. more. But I want to ask him to consider the price at which wheat has to be imported today, for then he will see that the farmers in this country are very reasonable to be satisfied with the fixed price. We import mealies at 33s. per bag, but in this country the farmers receive only 19s., and even for 33s. you cannot obtain mealies. I want hon. members to be reasonable towards the producer. He cannot produce under production costs, and if you want everyone to be fed you must ensure that the farmer receives a decent price for his product. I also want to point out to the hon. member for Benoni that there are hundreds of poor farmers who produce 200 or 300 bags of wheat or mealies. The hon. member must not deprive these people of their bread and butter, for they must be able to exist and make a living. That is why we feel that the prices which have been fixed are reasonable. You definitely cannot import wheat under £2 5s. or £2 10s. Why, then, should the producer only receive 35s.? Leave the price basis as it is. Do not expect the farmer in this country under existing conditions to receive so much less than the prices in the world market. Then he will not be able to produce. During the war the farmer played the game and was satisfied with a lower price than he would have received in an open market. If it were possible to import on a cheaper basis, I would still be able to understand it, but it is not possible. Today there is £10 million on the estimates for import subsidies. Let us realise, after all, that if we compensate the farmer for his production costs, everybody in the country will benefit by it, and the shortage will be obviated. But what is necessary is that the big gap must be narrowed between the price obtained by the producer and that which the farmer has to pay. To be able to do this there must be proper machinery to exercise control. The farmers do not want to exploit any section. The farmers realise that if their products are priced too high, then the consumers cannot pay the prices. The consumers and producers must be brought closer together and arrange their affairs. It is the middleman who makes too much profit. I feel, too, as the hon. member said, that people in the lower income groups are exploited. Why should you have to pay 3s. 6d. for a bucket of flour when the shopkeeper only pays 19s. for a bag? There the man who lives from day to day is hardest hit. In this connection, I agree entirely with hon. members, but they must not try to ruin the producers. Under existing circumstances a farmer cannot produce wheat under £2 a bag, and under no circumstances can he produce mealies today under 19s. I am speaking as a practical farmer. I cannot produce mealies under irrigation, for it will not pay me at today’s prices. For that reason I leave it alone. I can also not produce wheat at 35s. per bag under irrigation, because it does not pay me. Thus, I do not do so. But you must protect people who produce wheat, otherwise you will not get the supplies which you need. Unfortunately, we have not yet got efficient control, as they have in other countries; we have not got the stores which are necessary, and our distribution system leaves a lot to be desired. The gap between the producer and the consumer is too big, and we must create efficient machinery to bring about an improvement there.

I hope the Committee will not get its attention concentrated too much on the question of prices. We do not want the main point of view we should apply to this matter to be sidetracked in this fashion. The point the hon. gentleman mentioned about the small men who produced only a few hundred bags brings home to us the necessity for a complete reorganisation of the agricultural side of the question, and we should not leave it to haphazard and hurly-burly, each one working on his own, making a profit out of foodstuffs. They have got it, of course, under our present system, I admit that. But even that is a matter for close investigation. The situation that presents itself now is immediate, and something has to be done. I want to develop the point I was making, and that is that a black market has already been created. It is there, and the retailers are offering higher prices than the retail price of bread to bakers. It is easy to see that before very long a large proportion of the bakers—they are just human and they, too, are profitmakers—will succumb to the blandishments of those who are offering them 7s. 6d. There is no limit at all. It will become an auction. Because there is a certain section of the population who will buy it, however high the price, but it will further restrict the quantity available to the poor, which includes the natives; I do not leave them out of my consideration at all. The native is looking for bread. He loves bread, in the urban districts especially. And that brings me to another point. Is it known to members of this Committee that people who care not how they make their money are grinding the natives still further down? We have seen the reports in the papers, and I take it these are expressions of fact; some people are selling slices of bread to natives, with a little smearing of jam or something else, and they call it a sandwich and charge accordingly. They should be shot.

Natives are doing that.

They learn all the vices of my hon. friend and none of his virtues. There are very few of those. Whoever they may be, whatever the colour of their skin, I want to direct attention to the necessity of rationing bread.

How do you do it?

How did they do it in England, how do they do it anywhere and everywhere where they are rationing? We are the most retrogressive and backward crowd on the face of the earth in this matter. Which is more difficult — starving the people or doing something to give them bread? Are we to dismiss this suggestion of mine because it is difficult?

It is much easier to starve them.

Yes, but that is not right; that is not how we should feel. We have had many difficult problems before us and we have always been prepared to tackle them, and no one is going to convince me we cannot tackle any difficult problem. This is the trouble that overshadows all our difficulties. There is the necessity to supply bread to people who require the bread to live and the quantity we have at our disposal has to be fairly distributed among them all. That is the underlying principle we have to adopt. I would urge on the Prime Minister when he is going overseas with an international reputation—of which I am proud—that that is not his only duty in life; let me lay that flattering unction to his soul. His first duty is to his own people, and his own people are the many thousands of people who in the ordinary way cannot afford to buy enough bread. But we should see they have enough bread at the stores. I urge upon the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that that should be the first consideration in order to relieve the distress of so many thousands of people.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has raised an issue which is undoubtedly exercising the mind of the whole of the country at the present time. It has exercised the mind of the Government for a good many months in the past. As the hon. member has pointed out, we are faced with a shortage during the coming year of wheat and flour, and that shortage is accentuated by the failure of our own maize crop in addition to the shortage of our own wheat crop. Hon. members are aware of it, but there seems to be a number of people in the country who have not yet grasped the fact that it is so, that it is an ineluctable fact we are faced with this shortage and we have to deal with it. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Benoni it is a matter of first importance we should do so. What is the position? May I briefly outline to the Committee what the actual state of affairs is as far as wheat is concerned. Owing to the failure of our wheat crop we had to request the Combined Food Boards to supply us, if possible, with 3½ million bags of wheat to see us through until our next crop came in. I went over to London two months ago on that particular subject. The position now is: Our requests were considered in London and in Washington in conjunction with the requests from many other countries suffering from shortages as great if not greater than ours. There is not enough grain in the world to go round, and as a result we received what we must regard as a very fair allocation of what was available. So far we have been allocated of the 3½ million bags we asked for 1,925,000 bags up to the end of June. Then a further allocation will be made to the world; and if we are allocated on the same basis, as we hope we will be, for the rest of the year, we shall have another 750,000 bags of wheat to come into the country, to be here and available before our next crop.

What is the price?

I am not in a position to give the exact price, but if you add freight and transport from the other end the price is fairly high. In any case the price is not relevant to the argument of the hon. member for Benoni that I am dealing with. Therefore on the assumption we are getting a future allocation on a similar basis as we have had so far we are faced with a shortage of 800,000 bags of wheat for the rest of this year, and that means that the country will have to consume roughly 100,000 bags of wheat less per month for the rest of this year, and that means a cut of roughly 20 per cent. in wheat and wheat products. That is a fact which we all have to face. It is a fact for which nobody can be held responsible. It is due to a combination of circumstances beyond human control. We would like, if it had been possible, to have relieved the wheat position by increasing the maize distribution. We have done all we can to obtain maize from overseas and — again having regard to the general circumstances — we have been successful in obtaining enough maize to see us through until the new crop comes in in June. But we have only just been successful in getting enough, and we are skating on fairly thin ice in maintaining the present consumption through the trade of something over a million bags per month, and therefore it is not possible to ease the wheat situation by increasing the distribution of maize at the present time.

The Government therefore must take what steps it can to bring home to the people the necessity for these economies being made.

You can only do that by rationing.

I will come to the question of rationing in a moment if the hon. member will allow me. The other day as a start we prohibited the making of toast. That sounds a very small and insignificant thing to do; but the reports we are getting from all over the country both from the bakers and the catering trade are to the effect that that small regulation has already resulted in a very substantial saving of bread.

What do you mean by a substantial saving?

I cannot give the exact figure because we cannot get it. The figure given by the Hotelkeepers’ Association shows the amount of bread the hotels are saving. I think one man said it amounted to six dozen loaves a week, that is, in one hotel. There are other steps we intend taking at once. A Government Gazette will be issued in the next few days prohibiting the sifting of flour and meal, and prohibiting the sale of sieves. The hon. member for Benoni asked how it was possible to go into every house and see that nobody has any bread after 5 o’clock. The answer is, of course, that it is not possible, unless we give the police permission to walk into every house at any time of the day; and if we did that the first person to object with hysterical noise would be the hon. member for Benoni. In other words, it cannot be done. My point is in this way it can be done if everybody will realise the seriousness of the position and will conform to the regulations laid down by the Government.

There are the black marketeers.

We will have to deal with the black marketeers, but for one black marketeer there are several hundred householders, and it is the householders I am referring to. We propose further to prohibit the serving of bread or wheaten products between 4 o’clock in the afternoon and 6 o’clock in the morning, and there would be a prohibition on cakes and bread for sale except by registered bakers and manufacturers. We also propose to cut by a further 50 per cent. the making of cakes and biscuits and macaroni. Of course those manufacturers have for some time past been prohibited from using sifted meal at all. They have for some time been using a ration of 80 per cent. unsifted meal, and I am proposing to cut them a further 50 per cent., and to prohibit bread for the brewing of beer or the feeding of animals. The use of meal has for some time been prohibited, except for thé purpose of making bread. We are informed by our officials on the Reef that the sale and purchase of bread for the making of beer has assumed quite considerable proportions, and is consuming a substantial quantity of bread at present. Those restrictions will be put into force at once. They will result in a substantial saving of bread in the various directions which they affect. The Wheat Control Board is meeting today. It is meeting all sections of the trade and discussing the whole question of economies, and it may be that the Board may make further suggestions to the Government which we shall be very ready to consider and act upon if they are considered practical.

What steps are you taking to stop the sale of bread at 3d. a slice?

The hon. member for Benoni made a general attack on control boards, which I do not think I need deal with at the moment, but as far as the Wheat Control Board is concerned, first of all he must remember the Wheat Control Board is undertaking functions at the request of the Government for which it was not originally intended, and on all matters of policy such as fixing of prices and rationing and general questions of distribution, the Board acts on the instructions of the Government.

Will you tell us what the Wheat Board decided? Will they encourage farmers or not?

That is what the Board is meeting for at present. The Government is awaiting the recommendations of the Board. They have not yet reported to the Government. All these restrictions which are being placed on the consumption of bread and wheaten products now by the Government and which the Government will have to endeavour to see enforced only refer to the trade, i.e., to the places where bread is consumed in public, and these people can to a very large extent be supervised and controlled, but I do not think it is generally realised what an enormous proportion of the consumption of meal and flour in the Union takes place in the home, being baked and eaten there. Something like 55 per cent. of the total consumption is still baked in the home and never goes through the bakers’ shops at all. That means that if we are going to save 20 per cent., and if the 80 per cent. which we hope to make available is in fact going to be available to the people, if the bakeries are to have 80 per cent. of their normal supplies, then every housewife in the country will also have to save 20 per cent. of her consumption and baking, and that is pre-eminently a case where the people will simply have to help to save themselves if we are going to get through this pressing period without grievous suffering, particularly to those classes of the population for whom the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has been pleading. [Time limit.]

There is one factor which we must not lose sight of, and it is that there is a real shortage of two of our most important foodstuffs, namely, mealies and wheat. That the Government is responsible to a certain extent for those shortages cannot be disputed, but I do not intend discussing that question now. Under circumstances such as these, where there is a great shortage of those two important foodstuffs, it is self-evident that the question of distribution of the quantities at your disposal will be a very important task. In this connection we now learn that at this stage the Government has called in the help of overseas food experts to advise it. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it was necessary to get somebody from overseas to advise him of the most efficient method of distributing foodstuffs which are in short supply among the nation? The Government has failed in its duty towards the nation. I regard it as quite unnecessary to get somebody from overseas to advise us, and it will not have the desired results, for the persons who come here, whatever their capabilities may be and whatever their experience may be which they have acquired in other countries, are not acquainted with the circumstances in South Africa. I maintain that the circumstances in South Africa are quite different to the circumstances in those countries, and that the people will have to be here a long time to study the circumstances before they will be in a position to furnish a proper report, and by the time they have become acquainted with the circumstances in South Africa the need will be greater and the need of the nation will have become worse. What the Government should have done is that they should have appointed suitable persons in this country to investigate the circumstances and to see what the best method is of distributing our important foodstuffs. It must be remembered that our Marketing Boards who today are saddled with great problems in connection with these shortages were not established in the first instance to deal with shortages of products, but to deal with surpluses. Circumstances have, however, changed so much that there are shortages,’ and now they have to solve this new state of affairs, which is not easy. The Government should have anticipated matters earlier and investigated the position. It seems to me as though these circumstances of today are now being used by certain interested parties and certain influences in the country to attack the control schemes as such and to bring them into disfavour with the nation, and this is what I would like to bring to the attention of the Government. I find, for instance that in this morning’s “Cape Times” a special attempt is being made in that direction. These shortages and difficult circumstances we are experiencing today are being linked with the visit of Sir Henry French who is now coming to South Africa to advise the Government in connection with the distribution of foodstuffs, and that report is so compiled in the paper that simultaneously with the announcement of the visit of Sir Henry French insinuations are being made against the control boards. For example, in this morning’s “Cape Times” it is announced under the same heading that Sir Henry French has arrived here, and in the following paragraph it says—

The “Cape Times” links Sir Henry French’s visit with the activities of the control boards, and it is stated that they are the cause of the shortage. Under the same heading certain findings of Professor Hutt are discussed. He is said to have said in connection with control boards—

And then under the same heading there is a further report given of the resignation of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who is supposed to have resigned from the Mealie Board because prices were fixed too high. And further on, on the same page under the same heading it is said that the Wheat Control Board is now meeting—

The whole idea is to throw suspicion on the control boards, and I want to warn the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and ask the Government not to allow the visit of Sir Henry French to be used as a background from which attacks will be launched on control boards. The control boards have to function under very difficult circumstances. They have to contend with shortages today. I have just said that they were not established to deal with shortages, but to deal with surpluses, and hon. members in this House and the country in general must know that these people have difficult work to perform, and I want to say that it is not sufficiently realised what the circumstances would have been in the country if those control boards had not functioned and if the control boards had not kept prices low. The fact is that during the war the control boards kept the prices of products under their control low. Take, for example, the price of wheat. During this war the price of wheat never rose beyond £2 per bag, and after the previous war the price of wheat rose to £4 per bag. The control boards keep prices low. I do not want control boards to make use of their powers and rights by forcing up the prices of products too much. I think the farmer in South Africa will be the first man to say that he is not in favour of prices being too high. But at the same time the control boards must ensure, particularly where there are now shortages of important foodstuffs, that production is encouraged. The position today is to a large extent due to the fact that production has not been sufficiently encouraged in the past. There are persons who assert that the control boards only look to the interests of the producers, that the control boards are “pressure groups” which force prices up. Those people quite forget the machinery under which those control boards function. No control board fixes prices. The Minister or the Government fixes prices. The control boards are only advisory bodies; but the Government is advised by more than the control boards.

It is also advised by the Marketing Board, by the Board of Commerce and Industry, and those boards, the Marketing Board and the Board of Commerce and Industry, will not neglect the interests of the consumers. They represent the wide interests of the nation, and it is thus quite wrong of hon. members such as the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) and others to accuse and lay the blame at the door of the control boards and to say that they are responsible for the increases in the prices of products. [Time limit.]

As I was saying, this is a case where the people will have to be prepared to help to save themselves as well as supplementing anything the Government tries to do to deal with the position. For some weeks past, we have been preparing a publicity campaign in the Press and in the cinema to bring home to the people the necessity for everyone playing his part in meeting the situation, and that is starting at once.

I come to the question of distribution, which by common consent is the most difficult of all the aspects of this food position In regard to wheaten products, the Wheat Control Board on behalf of the Government does, and for a very long time past has very strictly distributed both wheat and flour and meal to the miller, the baker, and to the trade. I would like to reassure the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) at once on the question of the visit of Sir Henry French to this country, and to give him the positive assurance that he has not been invited here to investigate the functions of our Agricultural Control Boards; and I agree with the hon. member that it would be a very poor recognition of the work which these Boards have done for the country during the war if we were to turn on them now, because even if they have not succeeded 100 per cent. in carrying out duties for which they were never intended, and which they undertook at the urgent request of the Government, we should not blame them now and say they are inefficient. So that the position is that the wheaten products are rationed efficiently, continually and strictly right down to the retail trader. That is the point where rationing ceases as far as the Wheat Board is concerned. It has been suggested again this morning that the way to bridge that gap is to institute some form of consumer rationing. Personally, I have always felt that that presented insuperable difficulties. We have studied this thing for two or three years, and we still feel that, based on a registration which does not exist, rationing by coupon to the consumer is not a practicable proposition in the Union. I had talks with the experts when I was in England, and they agreed with me that, having regard to our conditions in the Union, the system to which everyone looks as an example, the one in existence in Britain during the war, would not be effective in this country. However, we have pursued the matter, and it is for that reason that we now have visiting this country two of the leading experts on food rationing in the world. They have come here to advise the Government without any prejudice at all on how we might improve our distributive methods as regards foodstuffs in short supply, and whether or not a consumer rationing system is possible. I think the hon. member for Oudtshoorn is rather shortsighted in suggesting that we have not done the right thing in getting two people who have had world-wide experience on the whole question to advise us whether we can or cannot apply it here. But, meanwhile, we have to rely on the trader to distribute bread fairly. The distribution of bread should be a simple matter. It is not a thing you can hoard or store. The trader cannot buy large quantities. It is distributed from day to day, and unless the trader is dishonest it should be a simple rnatter for him to ration his 80 per cent. fairly amongst his customers. If we find that the trader is not carrying out his duty, we shall have no hesitation in dealing severely with him. We shall take away his quota and give it to someone else, and put him out of business.

How will you discover it?

One of the ways of finding out is if the public co-operates and reports to the food authorities where a local trader is exploiting the position in favour of himself. If the community does not co-operate, we cannot control them. The same thing applies in regard to the black market. This question of sandwiches is one which has suddenly cropped up, and we shall have to deal with it, but it is not a difficult problem. Therefore, there is no need for the country to panic, and I hope that public men and women will not give the impression that there is a need to panic. I appeal to responsible people, like the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), not to spread alarm or to exaggerate the position. It would be much better for all of us if we would use our influence with the different sections of the community, to impress on the people to use a little self-restraint and to give ordinary consideration to each other, and readiness to co-operate in getting through these times; there will then be enough for everyone, and that is the appeal I would like to make to members of this Committee.

I wish to support what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) with reference to the grave situation that confronts the native population. I may say that the hon. member is not exaggerating by a hair’s breadth the grave state of affairs that already exists, and which will be accentuated by the further food restrictions to be imposed. There is one point on which I apprehend a good deal of difficulty. I think the Minister suggested that among the future restrictions it was thought that only bakers would be allowed to deal with the sale of bread. He indicated that the country storekeeper in any case would probably be cut off from the supplies he has relied upon hitherto. I should be very sorry to see any such step taken without advice from the persons concerned. I know that in this time of maize shortage the reliance placed by natives on small quantities of bread made available to them by the country storekeeper is very great, and has gone far to alleviate the distress. A fortnight ago during a visit to Natal I stood in a queue with natives who wanted to get their small quarter loaf and I was tremendously impressed by the satisfaction they derived in obtaining that small ration. That form of rationing should not be made illegal. The distress amongst the natives is very serious indeed. I regret that the Minister of Native Affairs is not here today, because I feel that this question is not getting sufficient consideration, and there is not sufficient anxiety shown by the Department for the native population. That Department is not dealing only with the affairs of a department, but with the affairs of a nation, and there is no doubt that the outcry coming from these people is a very bitter one. Wherever they go, in an endeavour to get relief from the present difficulties confronting them the natives are met officially with complete indifference if not with blank refusal, and when you have reached that stage with the native, you are driving him into an unreasoning frame of mind. I cannot understand why this state of affairs should exist. Those of us who as farmers rationed our natives are now in this position that there is an absolute prohibition, against our selling direct to the natives. We have grown less maize on that account. The strict rule of the Maize Control Board has discouraged farmers from growing maize to keep their own people, which has contributed to their acute distress.

In what way has that been done?

The Maize Control Board promulgated a rule that the producer is not allowed to sell any maize at all except to the Board.

That is still in force, and also applies to wheat.

That is actually the law. Farmers have been told to disregard this, but that does not remove the possibility of their one day being prosecuted for contravening a regulation which carries with it substantion penalties. I am speaking for the moment of the situation that exists at present, which is very grave indeed for the natives. I live in a district in which we see them living in their own kraals in a state of want. We have tried in vain to alleviate the situation. A feeling of want pervades the whole community. The miller gets insufficient supplies from the Maize Control Board. The system of permits for maize may have a good effect in rationing the limited quantities in existence, but it is a very cumbersome method. The storekeeper says that if he wishes to lay in a stock of maize, he must first apply for the necessary permit. Then an argument follows as to whether his request is reasonable, and finally after his permit is granted he must begin to look round for a supplier where his orders can be met. So there is the maximum delay. In regard to the native people we should cut out whatever formalities can be disposed of. At present this method is cumbersome and clumsy, embodying great delaying tactics. I deplore the fact that the hon. member for Cape Eastern is no longer a member of the Maize Control Board. Her devoted services on behalf of the natives are of the utmost value, and I should be very sorry if her services were to be completely lost from the Mealie Control Board. I should like her reasons for having found it impossible to continue under the present arrangement to be made public. There should be attention paid to the urgent need of seeing that there are no hungry people in this country and the slackness and delays of control boards should not be such as to bring the system of distribution into discredit.

This has been a very useful discussion, and I am pleased to find that the Minister has emphasised the fact that the functions of the control boards were never intended to cover the rationing of all these various commodities in short supply. The fact that they have come forward and assisted has laid them open to a certain amount of criticism which they really should not have had to meet. The boards were intended to assist in the production and marketing of food, and in the preamble to the Act, when this was originally passed, this was made perfectly clear. A further function that has been imposed on them is to try and improve the position from the point of view of the consumers. The Marketing Act originally laid down that the Minister should be advised by a Consumers’ Advisory Committee. That committee is still in existence, and it is in my opinion the body that should make representations to the Government and to the boards with regard to these various consumer questions. I am told it has never functioned properly. It may be called together by the Minister, but it may also call meetings on its own account. Three members of the Committee may at any time call a meeting of the Consumers’ Advisory Committee.

Have they ever met?

. They have met, but if this body did not think it necessary to meet to consider these matters it is obvious it is not functioning properly, and I think that question requires consideration by the Government. The fact that a producers’ board declined to meet members of the Labour Party is not something that calls for condemnation of the board. I think members should make use of the functions laid down by the Marketing Act to put their points of view, and if they are unable to do that they should approach the Government direct, but I do not think it is a function of Marketing Boards to receive representations from any party in this House, otherwise they will soon become a political body. It was to obviate that that we have this Consumers’ Advisory Committee. I do feel that members of the Labour Party and members who speak directly for consumers are much more reasonable in their attitude than they were a few years ago as a result of the experience they have gained in the inner working. They are not making the same bitter attacks as they did, on the farmers, some two or three years ago. Giving them the job to do has shown them some of the practical difficulties we are up against, and they do realise in these times of high costs of production it is necessary to pay attractive prices if we are going to get a reasonable quantity of food produced in this country. We have the alternative of imports. It should be emphasised that during the war the farmers produced practically enough food for the people of this country, and at prices very much less than they would have to pay if they had to import that food. This is borne out by the prices we find the Government is having, to pay during these times of extreme shortage.

I want to emphasise a point in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I feel that in the native areas the acute food shortage is past, I think we are over the crisis. The hon. member shakes his head, but I have information from several traders in native areas that they do not require the quota of mealies that has been allocated to them. They have already intimated that the demand has dropped almost to nothing as a result of green mealies being now available. I know that in many cases the sale of bread to these native stores has increased enormously. That undoubtedly is something that will have to be met in the future. The natives have bought bread when mealies were not available, and wherever they can get it they will buy it in increased quantities, and that is a difficulty the Government will have to try to overcome. I would suggest every possible step be taken to encourage the native traders within the next few months to buy all the maize possible. We know how improvident the natives are. If they have two or three bags of mealies they will begin brewing beer. So we should encourage traders to buy maize and store it against lean times. We also know that during the war farmers were prohibited from selling maize direct. When it was found maize was in very short supply the Government had to try to get control and to organise distribution as well as possible. If maize was freely sold by anyone who had it, it would not be distributed in the best way possible; some would get too much and others too little.

My main point is to suggest that the Government should do everything possible to encourage a food production drive. Large numbers of people could help themselves much more than they are doing. In most parts of the country we have ample supplies of meat and potatoes. So people are not going to starve even in these urban areas if they can get meat and potatoes. The Government should encourage the production of more food, and I should like to see greater encouragement given to growing potatoes. Potatoes can be grown in large quantities. In regard to potatoes, however, the Government has in the past imposed a maximum price and no minimum. What encouragement is there to the farmer to grow a risky crop? He knows if he gets a short crop he can only receive a maximum price, and with a big crop he may receive less than for half a crop owing to a drop in the price. That is a policy that has to be put right. If the Government say this is a highly perishable product I think the answer is they must take risks, they must spend money and encourage the production of large quantities of potatoes which can easily be dehydrated and stored for periods of scarcity. A food production drive should have been instituted long ago. I do not think it is yet too late, and I would urge the Government to do something along these lines.

Another point I want to emphasise is this: The farming community is not responsible for the feeding of people who cannot buy food for themselves. The farming community is not responsible for the large number of people who are underfed and underpaid. That is a Government responsibility, and I am very pleased to find the consumers’ representatives are appreciating that more. In the past there has been a lot of criticism, a lot of uninformed criticism, and farmers have often felt resentment over the question of prices. They have felt they were called upon to bear something they were not responsible for. They produce food as a means of earning a livelihood, and they are entitled to every credit for the part they played during the war in producing large quantities of food on a percentage increase in price that is very moderate compared with the increase in the price of clothing and all sorts of other commodities which have gone up very much more.

Statistics do not support that.

Statistics do support that. If you will compare the statistics you will find that farm production has not advanced to anything like the extent of clothing. The increase in respect of Union food products has been very much smaller than the index figures for imported foods. [Time limit.]

Order, order. I should like to point out to the hon. member who has just spoken, and to other members that I have allowed considerable latitude in the discussion of food and the fixation of prices. But there are limits even on the Prime Minister’s Vote, and I cannot allow a general discussion on matters which do not fall under his vote and of which the Prime Minister obviously can have no knowledge.

I shall endeavour to confine myself to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Economic Development used words here which sounded very much like the words which were used by the Government on the eve of the great meat shortage which South Africa experienced. He said to us: “There is no need for a panic”. Similar words were used by the Government when we were confronted with the meat crisis, and I want to say to the Prime Minister that the difficulty we had in connection with the meat shortage cannot be compared with the situation which now confronts South Africa. The Minister of Economic Development said that the consumption of bread will be 20 per cent. less than before. I do not know whether he put the position correctly. I see that in the “Cape Times” of two weeks ago there is a report that many shops in Cape Town have been informed that their supplies will be cut by 25 per cent. That is very much worse than the 20 per cent. mentioned by the Minister. I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to make use of this debate in order to make a statement. Rumour has it that the Wheat Board has recommended 45s. per bag as the wheat price, but that the Government will not agree to more than £2. What can be more discouraging to the wheat farmers than such a rumour? I hope it is not true. Sowing time is drawing near. What happens during the course of the next few weeks is of the utmost importance. Everyone in this House and outside this House realises that the wheat farmers will have to sow and sow. They are expected to produce, but what encouragement do they receive? What encouragement have they received in the past, and what encouragement are they receiving now, particularly when rumours like this are doing the rounds? The sooner the Prime Minister makes a statement, the better it will be. The wheat farmers have received nothing but discouragement, and during the war years they have exhausted the land. They could not obtain the necessary fertiliser. There is still a shortage of fertiliser, and the wheat farmer has to run the risk of exhausting his land still more. If he is not encouraged what is going to be the result for South Africa? The wheat farmer must help to solve the food position at his own expense. The result is greater exhaustion of the land. Another discouraging factor is that throughout the whole war period the wheat farmers could not obtain seed-wheat on reasonable terms, and that is still the case today. There is nothing but discouragement. The wheat farmer has to make sacrifices, and there is no encouragement. Three things must be done to give to the wheat farmer what is his due. In the first place fertiliser must be provided, as much as is humanly possible. Secondly seed-wheat must be placed at his disposal at reasonable prices. Thirdly, and this is the important factor, the price must be so fixed as to ensure encouragement for the wheat farmer to produce.

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

I was saying that sowing time is near at hand, and whether the wheat farmers can sow depends on what the Government is going to do in the course of the next few weeks. For that reason I want to urge the Prime Minister to make a reassuring and encouraging statement to the wheat farmers. South Africa’s position is peculiar, for South Africa can save itself and is in a position to produce sufficient wheat, but it finds itself in the regrettable position of having to go and beg abroad for 3½ million bags of wheat. The Government cannot wash its hands of guilt, for it is to a large extent responsible for the position that exists today. Now we have to pay a subsidy on imported wheat. The Minister of Economic Development cannot tell us yet what the price of imported wheat is going to be, but he intimated that the price will be higher than what we are paying here today for wheat. The question I want to ask is this: Would it not be much better, instead of paying a subsidy on imported wheat, to fix the price of wheat in such a way that it will encourage the wheat farmers to sow wheat and to produce sufficient wheat in South Africa? Why can this money not be paid to the wheat farmers so that the money is kept in this country and so that we do not find ourselves in the unenviable position of having to go and beg abroad from time to time for wheat and flour which we ourselves can produce? All that is necessary is sufficient encouragement. During the war years the wheat farmers made the greatest sacrifices because their price was kept low in comparison with what it was during the previous war, and on the other hand the wheat farmer is not encouraged to sow wheat. As far as fertiliser is concerned, he is discouraged. He has had to decrease the value of his land by exhausting the land. Today the position is still the same. Also as far as seed-wheat is concerned, he receives no encouragement and help, and I am speaking of help on the part of the Government. There are three things the farmers need. The first is proper fertiliser, which can be made available.

There is none.

But the Government must make provision. It is the fault of the Government that there is no proper fertiliser, for it is obtainable. Secondly, seed-wheat must be made available at reasonable prices and on easy terms; and thirdly, and this is the most important point, the wheat farmers must be offered a decent price. I understand that the Wheat Control Board wants to offer a decent price, but that the Government of the day is not prepared to go so far. That is why it is necessary for the Prime Minister to make a statement. Don’t expect the wheat farmer to help to solve the food position at his own expense.

I want to refer to some of the remarks made by the Minister of Economic Development. The Minister said that in order to alleviate the wheat position we were hoping to distribute more maize. May I make a suggestion here that there is a very sound principle enunciated there by the Minister, but the present wheat regulations have gone just the other way about. Under the present regulations, the baker is no longer allowed to make sausage rolls, meat pies and the rock buns which were so largely used by the natives. At the moment meat is in fair supply, and it would be saving wheat if we allowed these foods to be made again, i.e., the sausage rolls or the meat pies and the little buns. Now these buns contain valuable food in the form of raisins and sugar. In the past it has been the habit for traders in the native areas to import large numbers of these so-called native buns composed of wheat, raisins and sugar, all very nutritional, but now that has been stopped. They are no more allowed to make up wheat in that form in small quantities. The net result is that today the smallest article in that line one can find is the 2 lb. loaf of bread.

Why cannot you cut that up into sandwiches?

You can cut it up, and sell it at an enormous price, but I do not want to see that done. These people cannot afford to pay tickey a slice just because it has a little jam on it. The present system does not help us to distribute the necessities in small quantities to the people who require them, and we all know that if a large quantity has to be cut up and then handled, there is extra wastage. We also know that the poorest people cannot afford to buy large quantities. Therefore, these are the ones who will not be getting their fair share if we stop the products now being manufactured for them. In Zululand I know that small storekeepers used to get dozens of these little native buns which were retailed at 2d. Today the smallest unit the storekeeper can get is the 2 lb. loaf. These people were getting extra food value. In the large centres today, where there is a fair meat supply, if we introduce a system of rationing, these people could make meat rolls and sell them, and we can control the price, and those who need it most would get it.

I want to refer to one other remark by the Minister. He referred to the fact that we were now rationing wheat to the miller, to the baker and to the storekeeper, and he stated that it would be easy for the baker to distribute it to his customers. It would be an easy matter if every customer were known to the storekeeper, but this is not so. And who is the man to suffer under that system even if the storekeeper tries to distribute honestly? It will be the casual buyer, who will be told: I do not know you, get hence, I am sorry, I have to supply my regular customers. In this way the poor man who has in the past bought casually is going to find he will get nothing at all. The rich man in Parktown who has a regular account will get his share, so will the rich people everywhere, all those with regular accounts will get their share. But the poor man who never knows whether he has sufficient money in his pocket to buy one or two loaves at a particular time for his big family, and who buys when he has cash available, is not going to get anything at all under this system. If on the other hand it is easy for the storekeeper to distribute fairly and equitably surely it cannot be any more difficult for the Government to do so? Why should we say to the storekeeper: Here is a job it is impossible for us to do but it is an easy job for you to do. Is that not absurd? It seems to me the Hon. Minister is not aware of ordinary trading practice; he is assuming every storekeeper knows every customer. Maldistribution is very much less in the rural areas than in the large urban areas for the simple reason that in the rural areas the customers are fairly well known to their traders who supply them. In the large urban areas the customers are not known to them. Therefore it becomes more and more necessary to have a system of distribution to consumers in the large areas. The Minister has given us a figure, that 55 per cent. of the meal that is used is sold today to ordinary householders who make their own bread, and it is only 45 per cent. that can possibly be distributed under a form of rationing via the baker. If we are going to cut down that 55 per cent. to 44 per cent.—which would represent 80 per cent. of 55 per cent.—we will find we will also need a system of distribution to the householder who now buys flour, so as to ensure an equitable distribution. I would suggest again we have a registration system, with every consumer registering at a particular place; and when that registration has been effected we inflict severe penalties on anybody who tries to buy anywhere else, and also severe penalties on any shopkeeper who gives an unfair share to any of his customers. I think the traders are entitled at least to this amount of protection. It could be made law that people must register at a particular place for those particular articles that they want, and that it will be criminal for them to buy at any other place. In that we could, at all events ensure that what is happening now where the storekeeper is trying to distribute fairly, will not happen. What happens now is that a number of storekeepers are genuinely trying to distribute fairly, but they cannot possibly ensure that their customers do not go to other storekeepers as well and get a double share.

How can you stop that without a coupon system?

You can do that perfectly well. The majority of people are intrinsically honest.

I am sorry that this debate today has developed into a discussion on producers’ prices as regards very valuable and scarce articles, such as mealies and wheat. The representatives of the consumers do not seem to realise the difficult position in which the country finds itself. We blamed the Government for the state of affairs existing in the country, but it is not within the reach of any board or person to distribute supplies which it does not possess, and ovér which it has no physical control. The mealie position is simply that the board has not the supplies to distribute.

I hope that the hon. member will adhere to my decision. I cannot allow him to enlarge on that matter.

I just want to make the House realise that while there are shortages and while the boards are sitting now to discuss prices, the representatives of the consumers in this House are bringing pressure to bear on the Government in connection with the fixation of prices.

May I remind the hon. member that that argument has already been repeated ad nauseam.

I will leave it there. I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that, in order to improve the position, he should not allow himself to be influenced or dissuaded from his path. He must ensure that something is really done to encourage the farmers to produce the necessary supplies. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) tried to indicate here this morning that labour costs and the like had not risen.

I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed with that argument.

I just want to put a question to the Prime Minister in connection with this serious question of a wheat shortage. He is aware of the fact that there is a shortage and that there are difficulties in connection with seed-wheat. I am glad that he is taking action in the matter. But as the Minister of Agriculture is sick and it is not yet known when he will be back, and consequently there will be delay in connection with the announcement of help in the form of seed-wheat and on encouraging subsidised selling price, I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether he will announce the price as soon as it is known. Sowing time is already a few weeks old, and the farmers want to know where they stand.

I hope the Prime Minister will grant me a few moments to raise the question of German internees of South-West once again.

Let me dispose of this question first.

Very well.

Mr. Chairman, before the Committee passes on to other subjects I should like to say a few words about this very important question which we have been discussing this morning. I am speaking under certain handicaps. The Minister who deals with these matters is not here. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture cannot be here and will not be here for some days, and the responsibility is thrown upon us, and we have to deal with it as best we can. My hon. friend the Minister of Economic Development has already given the House a good deal of information, but there are certain points which I think may still further be referred to and should be dealt with by me in such fashion as I can. I do not pretend to be able to throw much light on the question and to be very helpful.

I feel the gravity of the situation. We have had before us now for months a wheat situation which has given us very much trouble both in the country and here in the House. I am afraid that as the situation now develops we are going to face a more difficult situation in regard to wheat and maize. The facts have been stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Economic Development. He has given the House the figures. We sent him specially to London to go into these matters and he has told the House the result. The position is bad. It is very bad all over the world; and we are largely affected also by world conditions as we drew our supplies mostly from abroad, all such supplies as we wanted. In addition we had the drought here and we are in a situation of very great gravity in South Africa with which we have to deal.

There are certain matters we ought to rule out at once as not being germane and helpful to the discussion. The one is the reference continually made to the Marketing Board. The marketing system is not really germane to this discussion. Hon. members know how the marketing system was created. It arose after the great depression of more than ten years ago, the depression of 1932-33, when our agriculture was down and out, and special measures had to be taken to keep our farming population afloat. We cast about to see in what way our marketing system could be improved so that the agricultural situation might be saved for the future, because it seemed to be drifting into a desperate situation. We then adopted the marketing control system, which is in force today. It was, as hon. members will recall, copied from the British system which was working well, and it has been working fairly well since then. We adopted it and we are carrying on, and I think it is the system which, with certain reforms and adjustments, might continue to save agriculture in this country and the future of agriculture in this country. I think the arguments used here to drag agricultural organisations into this matter miss the real point. We have a situation created here by the farmer congresses and we have to see that system is carried on, and we are going to do so. That does not say improvements cannot be made in the future. The question of marketing boards is open for discussion and improvement.

I have seen to my great regret my hon. friend the member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) has decided to withdraw from the board with which she is associated. I am very sorry to see it. I do not like people to resign in difficulties. I think the situation has to be faced, and nobody is more competent to help from her angle than the hon. member for Cape Eastern. She stands for a great interest. She stands for a strong, good case, and I want her to continue to pull her weight if possible. It may be the consumers’ side of the marketing boards may have to be improved. It may also be we have to make greater use of the Consumers’ Committee which is part of that scheme, and of which we do not seem to have made proper use. I am sure the system properly worked will continue to be a sound foundation for agriculture to build on in future. Farmers find it very difficult to organise. Farming is not like other industries, it is an industry in itself; and unless there is some organisation like we have established in the Marketing Board, agriculture may get into the doldrums, as it did years ago. This is part of the discussion which you have ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I am referring to the arguments used here this morning.

My hon. friend the member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has pressed me, and I think some other hon. members have pressed me to announce as soon as possible the decision of the boards that are sitting now in regard to wheat and maize so they may know where they are, and to announce the fixation of prices for the future. The Wheat Board, which is sitting now and consulting over these matters, has not yet made its decision as far as I am aware. As soon as they have dealt with the matter the Government will give it all the consideration it deserves.

There are rumours it has decided.

It may be so, but it has not come to the Government yet. It is more likely they are still discussing this matter, which is a complex one and related to other issues. But, setting aside that matter of the Agricultural Boards, which I think are inherently good and sound, but may require adjustment to fit them into the developments now taking place, I come to the fact which is now before us, the ineluctable fact, as my friend the Minister of Economic Development called it, the food shortage. There is a food shortage, and it is not a passing crisis like the meat shortage. The meat crisis has passed, but we have here a situation in regard to wheat and maize which will face us at least for the rest of this year. We have the figures before us, and we have been told on figures which cannot be disputed there will have to be a reduction of 20 per cent. in the supplies which we send to the consumer for the rest of this year. That is the figure which the Combined Food Boards have settled, and we must reckon with that. The Government has just started to apply it. Knowing a crisis is coming, the Government has applied it, and at the commencement we are faced with these difficulties we hear from all parts of the country. I anticipated these difficulties, and that is why some weeks ago I made a national broadcast in which I warned people of what was coming and called on everybody to be helpful. It is not merely a matter in which people should look simply to the Government. It is a mistake in the country to look too much to the Government

Especially this one.

Even the best of governments, I think, have a very limited capacity dealing with brute facts such as are facing us here. Everyone will have to pull his weight, and we shall have to cast about in all directions to see how we can deal with this 20 per cent. reduction that has to take place. The Government may take steps and make regulations, but in the end it comes down to each individual consumer. He has to do his duty, and if he does it, as the Government will do its duty, we will weather the storm and the crisis, too.

The cry is now for rationing. The matter of rationing is being explored, as my hon. friend has explained. We have some officials here now to help us, and I hope they will be helpful. They have a very big experience behind them, a very wide experience of working a very difficult system in Great Britain, and they may be helpful to us. We look forward to suggestions and light and guidance from them, but in the end we shall have to help ourselves. What we have done in regard to the matter of rationing so far is this: We have rationing in this country. Hon. members must not be under the impression that nothing has been done at all in regard to this matter. There is rationing now right up to the point before you get to the consumer. Maize and wheat are both rationed right through the wholesale trade to the millers and bakers. They are rationed up to the retail trader. If you get beyond that stage you will have to ration for individuals, and that is a matter of the greatest difficulty and complexity in this country. As hon. members know, we have this situation, that we have an illiterate population, a population it will be most difficult to deal with in regard to ration cards and all that, and that is the last final step in regard to rationing we have not yet adopted. I personally find it very difficult to see any daylight how we are going to ration not only the European population, but the native population and all sections of our community, in view of the stage our development and culture has reached today. It is a very difficult matter. I think we shall have to turn our attention specifically to the case of the natives, the lower-paid groups, and if you cannot ration them—as you cannot— there may be other steps you can take, and I think we should do so. I do not think we are at the end of our resources, and, looking at the crisis ahead of us, looking at what we shall have to face not ’ today or tomorrow only, but the rest of the year, knowing these troubles will increase in magnitude and that the pressure will be felt more and more by the poorer classes of the community, I think we shall be called to institute special investigations to see how we can overcome these difficulties. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) has made suggestions, and he speaks with a great deal of practical experience. There may be a great deal in what he says. His point is we have gone too far in eliminating certain forms of producing flour, and he thinks we should not go as far as that. There are many ways of exploring this question. I am not sure we have gone far enough in fixing prices for small measures, not only for small people, but small measures where people like natives and others buy in very small quantities. I am not sure that the way of dealing with these simple people who cannot help themselves and are liable to be fleeced in the trade, I am not sure we have explored every way of meeting their case, because their case calls for special consideration. There is no more law-abiding section of the community than the native and coloured people in this country, and that is one of the great assets of South Africa. We have not a lawless communist community in South Africa. If I may use the term, the “underdog” in this country is an enormous asset to us; he is law-abiding, always prone to obey as far as possible and to do his duty in a simple way. I think we should go all out to study the needs and requirements of that portion of our community; and if we can find ways of meeting their case and their simple requirements in this emergency, the very big emergency which is now developing, we should do so. I hope it will be the task of the Government not to rest on what has been done—in fact we cannot do so—but to make special enquiry and investigation especially when you have to meet that special case. The rest of the community you can deal with by way of rationing which is already in existence; I think that applies to the well-to-do classes in this country. But the case of what I call the “underdog” is not met by the existing measures, and I think we shall have to make special measures and make a special investigation to see that their needs are also met. The Government is conscious of the gravity of the situation. The Government does not want to touch the interests of the farmers. We want to help the farmer in every way, because he is the producer. We want to encourage him, not by fixing unreasonable prices but by seeing that justice is done to him and seeing that agriculture is on a sound basis and the man who produces the food is fairly dealt with.

Can you tell us about seed wheat?

We are helping with seed as much as possible, but even there you have to be careful because the very wheat to be used for food goes for seed. It is like a dog trying to catch its tail. The problem of shortage of food is difficult to overcome. I agree that wherever seed can be given, seed potatoes, seed wheat, whatever can be used for future production should be used. There is no question about it. Let us use it as far as our resources allow. Of course our wheat resources are limited and our resources in other respects as well. Take the question of fertilisers. Nothing would have been more welcome to the Government than to flood the country with fertilisers, but there is a shortage of fertilisers. There has been difficulty in regard to transport bringing things out here. The very crisis that has arisen is due to the delay of some ships with cargoes from North America which, owing to climatic conditions, could not bring the stuff here. We are moving in a world of limitation, restriction and trouble right and left, and we have courageously to see our way in the best way possible through these difficulties. I have no doubt we shall pull through. I am convinced that with goodwill among our people generally and with a spirit of panic being avoided and everybody trying to pull his weight in the honest way we are inclined to do, we shall weather—I will not say the storm—but this very rough passage that lies before us. I think that is about all I want to say on this matter. I am sorry the matter cannot be dealt with more fully and adequately by my colleague who is away, but by the time his estimates come on the matter can be raised in the proper place. I am just giving my small mite.

I would like to say a few words in the interests of the old German population of South-West, and I am addressing myself to the Prime Minister because I think that the policy to be determined as to how those people are to be treated is one which the Prime Minister should not allow out of his hands, and he should also not allow himself to be influenced too much even by the Administration of South-West which may perhaps influence him too much by passing factors. Since the question was last raised in the House, we have perused the notice which appeared in the Government Gazette in which the commission and its terms of reference were made known. It is in the Government Gazette of 1st March. The commission will consist of three members, namely, Judge Hoexter as chairman, with Mr. Meintjes and Mr. Scott as additional members. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that I know these people and I have no objection to them. I think they are a good choice.

All three.

Yes, all three. Mr. Meintjes and Mr. Scott know South-West. They lived there for years, but the advantage is that they knew South-West in the days when conditions were normal. They knew the old German population of South-West before the bitterness originated.

So much the better.

Yes, it is undoubtedly valuable. I just want to express the hope and I hope that the Prime Minister agrees, that the commission will not allow itself to be influenced too much by new motives which have originated in South-West to get rid of the old Germans there. I am speaking not only of political persecution, but there is a desire among certain people to get rid of a large portion of the old South-West population for economical motives.

All the same, that will not influence them.

I hope so. The motive exists there and is very strong in South-West. They want the farms of the old South-West farmers. I know the three men, and am certain that they will not allow themselves to be influenced too strongly thereby, but nevertheless I think it is as well to say a few words on the subject. Now four grounds are advanced for deportation. The first is if you were an active leader of a Nazi organisation, even though it be in a small circle; the second is if you were not a member of such an organisation, but by your actions were known to be pro-Nazi; the third is if you did something which was injurious to the interests of the Union as opposed to, say, Germany or Italy; and the fourth is if you signed an undertaking, if you chose under the exchange system which existed at the commencement of the war, to be repatriated to Germany. I just want to say to the Prime Minister that I find some fault with the sequence. In my view, No. 3 is the most important, where you did something which promoted the interests of a foreign or hostile country to the detriment of the interests of the Union. In my view this ought to be first. It is a deed of sabotage, or something which borders on high treason, and to me it seems as though it can be a very strong ground for deportation, and in my view the emphasis has been laid on the wrong place. Then there is the other ground where a person played an active part as a leader of a Nazi group. I have also no objection to that, because I am convinced that none of the old Germans in South-West took an active part. Just before the war a group of young men arrived who took an active part, but I have in view the interests of the old South-West population in particular, and I do not believe that they were guilty of that. However, I think that the Prime Minister should make it clear what exactly he understands by (b), i.e., persons who did not belong to a Nazi organisation, but who by their actions became known as champions of National Socialistic doctrines. I think the Prime Minister will agree that it is very improbable that anyone who was strongly pro-Nazi did not belong to a Nazi organisation.

Emphasis must be laid on deeds which prove that such a person was hostilely disposed to the country.

I just want to say that I hope the door is not being opened here for malicious gossip.

Emphasis is laid on deeds.

I hope that the deeds will have to be proved before a decision is taken against a person. Then we come to (d) where persons, when they had the chance, chose to be repatriated to Germany. I would like the Prime Minister to take into consideration the circumstances under which the people signed. They had no free choice. There’ were more than a thousand who were locked up, and there was an enormous amount of intimidation and victimisation going on in the camps, and many people were forced to sign the document. They had no free choice.

Such cases can be proved.

I just want to say that in my view most emphasis should be laid on (c) No old inhabitant of South-West will be affected thereby, but I feel that (b) and (d) should not weigh too heavily with the Commission, particularly (d). There was no free choice. Let me just say to the Prime Minister that I know the old German population of South-West. During the war period no one felt normal or thought normally, but I can give this assurance to the Prime Minister, that deep in their hearts those people are good South-West citizens. They love South-West, they love South-West more than Germany, and there is nothing the people desire more than to be allowed to return to their farms and to be happy once again in South-West. Those people are good South-West citizens.

Why did their sons go completely wrong?

All they did was not to encourage their sons to fight against Germany, and let me say that I respect the Germans who did so. I do not think much of Germans who thought so little of their German blood that they were prepared to go and fight against their own nation. I do not think this should be used against them, and the Prime Minister knows that conditions in South-West were normal throughout the war. I do not think much of Germans who took up arms against their own blood. I find no fault with them on that score. The Prime Minister entered into an international contract with the German Government that these people would not be forced to fight against Germany.

Why did they send their sons overseas to become Nazis?

That is also not so. The sons of most Germans received their training in South-West, but it was customary, just as Union citizens in South-West send their sons to the Union to round off their education, to send their sons to Germany to receive a finishing off there. But they love South-West above everything else. I know them, I can mention all their names, they love South-West more than Germany, and I do not want to see these people suffer because of people in South-West who want their farms. [Time limit.]

I just want to make a few comments. I understand that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that as far as bread is concerned, he intends introducing rationing among the distributors. I do not know how the Prime Minister expects to succeed in achieving efficient rationing in this way, for our experience in connection with meat should have taught the Prime Minister that this is the most effective method of making a black market possible. Does the Prime Minister not realise that if you ration the dealers instead of the consumers that some dealers will be tempted from morning till night to collect black market prices? That is one point, but the next question is how are you going to ration? Have you not learnt that by rationing the distributors the one benefits and the other is simply ruined? The bureaucrats will simply be in a position, and that is why it is so dangerous, to make the allocations and they themselves are placed in the dangerous position of also being tempted to corruption from morning till night. What about the man who has black market clients? It is self-evident that he will try to obtain black market officials who will give him greater quantities than his competitor, with the result that you will have a flourishing black market trade, while the honest man will have to say to his clients every day: “I am sorry, but I cannot supply you.” I think we appreciate the Government’s attempt to introduce rationing, but if this is the form the rationing will take it will once again prove a complete failure. I hope that the Prime Minister and his bureaucrats who ought to enlighten him are aware of the fact that large quantities of coarse flour are being wasted today because people use sieves. The Prime Minister can say that it will be made illegal. That is very far reaching. It is looking for trouble if you go so far as to send people into private homes to say that people must burn their sieves. Then you are looking for plenty of trouble. If you want to ration, why not ration the quantity of wheat which may be used, so that people who cannot eat brown bread do not have to violate the law every day and throw away flour, for a large proportion of the flour is lost with the bran when it is sifted. Therefore much waste of wheat takes place among people who have to eat white bread for health reasons. We cannot go too far with some of the methods, and I am afraid that if the Government goes so far as to go into private homes and to say: You may not eat white bread, “alles ver boten,” then you are going too far. There is another efficient method, namely, by rationing the amount of wheat per family according to the size of the family, so that the single person who simply cannot eat brown bread and is forced to violate the law for the sake of his health, need not do so. I think that many doctors and officials have already told the Prime Minister that the health of 80 per cent. of the people suffers as a result of the coarse bread they have to eat. The Prime Minister ought to know that you cannot adulterate white bread as easily as you can coarse bread, and your housewives will tell you today that the coarse bread which is eaten today is not only the product of wheat, but that any ingredients can be added to it, with the result that the health of many people suffers because they do not get the genuine wheat product. Coarse bread can easily be adulterated, not so white bread. I think that the Prime Minister will reach his goal more effectively if he rations wheat and says that those who have to eat white bread can do so. Then the quantity of flour which is today thrown away with the bran will not be wasted. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to go so far as to enter people’s homes. For the last hundred years it has not happened in civilised countries. It may have happened centuries ago in the revolutionary period in Europe, but it will not serve its purpose now. Let the Minister apply the system which I have suggested, for by rationing dealers it can mean that a black market trade will originate. I hope that the Prime Minister will give attention to the matter. We all feel that the need is great. I think that the whole country wants to support the Prime Minister when he applies measures to restrict the consumption of wheat as far as possible, for the position is serious and we are prepared to support the Prime Minister if he applies the right method. Otherwise I fear he will not succeed.

I should like to come back to the Estimates, and more specifically the “External Representation” Vote. I should like to ask the Minister of External Affairs what the position is in connection with our representation in France. We hear of appointments in other countries, in Holland, Belgium and elsewhere, where representation was broken off during the war, but for some reason or other there has been no announcement in connection with the position in France. As the Rt. Hon. the Minister knows, before the war, except for Germany, France was our best client on the Continent of Europe. She was a great buyer of wool, skins and other products. I realise that at the moment the trade between these countries has been dislocated, but in view of the fact that there is a stable Government in France at the moment, and since appointments are being made, it strikes one as strange that no appointment has been made in Paris. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what the reason is.

Then I notice that provision is being made, apparently for the first time, for representation in Greece. I should like to know what the reason for that is. I am in favour of expanding our external service, but on the other hand I feel that we should expand in directions where it is worthwhile. I am not aware of any considerable trade in the past between the Union and Greece, and I should like to know, therefore, what the object is of this representation, especially at this juncture when conditions in Greece are very much dislocated. There is no stable Government in Greece, and the election which has just taken place indicates that half the population did not take part in the election. It is uncertain whether Greece will revert to a monarchy and it strikes me as strange that we should appoint a representative in Greece at this juncture.

Then I also want to say a few words in regard to the United States of America. During the past few years I have drawn the Minister’s attention to the tremendous increase in our expenses in the United States. When I raised this matter on the previous occasion the reply of the Rt. Hon. Minister was that the increased expenditure was caused by purchases and other activities in connection with war requirements, and that special officials were appointed for that purpose. The war is over and nevertheless we find that the expenses in connection with our representation in the United States have again risen and, as far as Washington alone is concerned, our expenses amount to £36,000, and an amount of almost £15,000 is being asked for in respect of New York, a fairly big increase from. £9,400 to £14,900. I am particularly interested in our representation there because I have an intimate knowledge of these two offices. I was there for seven years. I fully realise that there has been an expansion of activities, but I do want to ask whether a staff of 14 in Washington alone is justified. During my term of office, during the years I was there, especially towards the end, we had a great deal of work, but we did not have more than four people on the staff at any time, that is to say, I as Ambassador, the first secretary, the assistant secretary, a typiste and a messenger. That was all, and it seems to me there is an excessive increase in our expenses. In those days the total expenditure amounted to approximately £6,000 or £7,000.

That was thirteen years ago.

I admit that, but when we compare this with other countries, we find that the expenses in connection with our representation in other countries are still more or less at the same figure. I feel therefore that this increase is unduly great. I do not think the volume of work, particularly since the war is over, has increased to such an extent that this is justified. As far as New York is concerned, there is a Consul-General there at the moment, two Vice-Consuls and two clerical assistants, and a special director of the Government Information Bureau has also been appointed. I have no objection to information, but I just want to point out that this work is undertaken by the Consular officials, as far as the majority of governments overseas are concerned. Here we now have a Consul-General and two Vice-Consuls and I assume that in the near future the Minister of Transport will re-open his publicity office there, and that office could meet this need. I co-operated intimately with the publicity officer and I am acquainted with the valuable work he did. This need is therefore being met to a great extent. I ask myself whether it is necessary at this stage, especially since the war is over, to have this particular office there. The Prime Minister said that during the war it was necessary to keep the people in America informed about South Africa’s war effort. That is now a thing of the past. We have the Trade Commissioner to furnish trade information; we have the Publicity Bureau of the Railways to give information to tourists; we have the Minister and his staff to furnish information of a general nature; and the question arises whether these interests are of such a nature that it is really necessary to have an information bureau there at this stage. I hope the Minister of External Affairs will reply on this point. I feel that this increase in connection with our representation in the United States is excessive, and since the war is over, that the time has arrived to cut down our expenses to some extent and to return to normal conditions.

I want to raise a matter of considerable interest to industrialists and others in the country. During the war a number of contracts were entered into by people in South Africa which were for a limited period. It was within the contemplation of the parties that they should be for the period of the war. These contracts provided for termination in different ways. Some provided that they should end at the conclusion of hostilities, but many actually will only be determined upon a formal declation that the war has ended. Of course, there has as yet been no such formal declaration. Here again the contracting parties in all these cases had in mind that the contract would end within a reasonable period of the actual conclusion of hostilities. But the contracts provided that they would cease when there had been a formal declaration by the Government that the war had in fact ended. There has been no indication as yet that the Government intends within the near future to make any such declaration, with the consequence of course that these contracts are still in force, and I think I am entitled to say that in many cases they are prejudicial to some of the parties involved. I raise the matter to ask whether it would hot be possible for the Government to make such a statement in the Gazette to the effect that the war has in fact ended.

I just want to say a few words in reference to what we have just learned, namely, that it is the intention to announce in the “Government Gazette” next Friday that meal may no longer be sifted. We know that meal and wheat are very scarce, and the position is totally different from the position in connection with meat. If you will allow me to say so, there has never been a shortage of meat. There was meat in the country, but the distribution was hopeless. But we know that wheat is not available. I should like, however, to bring the following point to the notice of the Prime Minister: It must be realised that the poor man lives on bread alone. I may be expressing it a little strongly, but in any event his staple food is bread. Amongst the working classes there are people today who have meat in their homes on Sundays only; for the rest of the week they have porridge in the morning—again a form of meal—they have bread at lunch-time, and in the evening they again have bread. However idealistic the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economic Development may want to be, it is a practical impossibility for the poor man to eliminate bread at any of these three meals and to say that he may not have bread. It is a practical impossibility. But, in addition to that, the sifting of meal is now going to be prohibited. I personally believe that unsifted meal is the best. Fortunately, I have been accustomed to unsifted meal since childhood. We simply crush the wheat and throw it into the horse-drawn mill, where it is milled, and we eat it in the form in which it leaves the mill. I believe that that is the most wholesome form, but unfortunately the poor man does not always believe it. He believes that when he sifts the meal it is a great delicacy. He regards it as a sort of pudding. I just want to sound this warning note, that however idealistic we may want to be, and no matter how often we tell the people that it is wholesome to eat unsifted meal, that is not their opinion. They want the right to sift it, and before this regulation is promulgated, I want to put this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: Personally I believe that the people would prefer to take a little less than to be prohibited from sifting meal, and I should like the Prime Minister to bear that in mind.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in his speech rather deprecated the appeals which he inferred were increasing unduly to the Government. But, Sir, I think we must all bear in mind that so far as the hungry native is concerned today, there is nobody else to whom he can appeal. We, who are particularly concerned about him and others of the very poor classes, have nobody else to appeal to, either. One does, of course, understand that undeserved and unneeded charity will bring people down rather than lift them up, and we are against that as the Rt. Hon. gentleman himself is, but we stress the point that the present need is not grave, not nearly grave; that the present crisis is not a normal crisis, but that this is a matter of life and death. We appreciate very much the personal sympathy with which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister gave his reply, and I for one sensed in it something that I had missed in the speeches of other Ministers in the Cabinet. It seemed from my point of view too much of an academic question to the Government. For example, the hon. Minister of Economic Development this morning gave one or two suggestions for future policy. He said that the amount of flour made available to the bakers, and therefore to the natives and the other very poor people, would be cut by 20 per cent. He said, moreover, that the time during which bread would be sold would be reduced, that the hours during which bread would be sold per day would be less, and he seemed to me to consider that something had thereby been done. But nothing had really been done or will really be done by that except that the queues will be lengthened; they will be shortened in time but they will be lengthened in space. He does not give any more bread by cutting down the supply to the baker or by lessening the hours in which he may sell bread. That surely is not any sort of solution whatsoever. It is what is called passing the buck to the baker, and it is getting someone else to hold the baby. We do press not only for an agricultural policy, which is absolutely necessary, but also for a national food policy for South Africa, which is something different. The industry of agriculture was the first one in the world, and it will no doubt be the last one to survive also. We know that it is an “unregarded” industry; we know that it is the last one to be thought of in the ordinary way by governments. This is not the only Government which has not had a food policy in the years that are past —not by any means. Farming is an industry in which you can do the most work at most risk with the least return. We from the towns even know that. We know, moreover, that whether the industry is encouraged or otherwise, it remains the pre-condition of other industries; it remains the basis of other industries. Without agriculture the others cannot exist. It does not matter in the last resort what we have to pay for food. Food is a thing that we must have. The farmer must have enough for his product to make it possible, not merely worth his while—I do not think they look at it in that way—for him to produce. And that is what we on these benches wish the Government chiefly to consider. The people must be fed; at the present moment they are not getting food, and that is the purpose of our intervention in this matter on this vote. We say that the condition of a national policy of food production and distribution is absolutely vital and that we should be guilty in every vital way if we do not urge that as the first consideration of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. It is absolutely vital, and nothing that we say can be overemphasised at this minute.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in an excellent speech, referred, without any wish to be super-sympathetic, to the troubles of the natives living in the kraals. My trouble more than once of late has not been that of natives living in their kraals but of natives literally dying in our houses. Instance after instance has come to my notice in the past few weeks, and I feel that something should be done on a very large scale and done immediately. The hon. Minister of Economic Development also seemed to me to rely very much on a general feeling of goodwill. He said that this was a position in which the conduct of individual citizens would have a great bearing, but if everybody did not do his best we should be in very great trouble for at least the remainder of this year. There never was a time when everybody did his best. Some people will do their best, but it seems to me to be an extraordinary policy to put before this House that we are banking on the thoughtfulness of the one who has or the one who has not. I say that is not politics at all. The man who has been full of eggs and bacon in the past has not shown any consuming anxiety on behalf of the man who has been empty thereof. We have to face things as they are. Why should we expect a better spirit in the immediate future than we have experienced in the immediate past? It is not practical. In pressing for rationing we know that there is a world shortage; we know these things; we know that people overseas are starving. We merely want the best use made of what we have. We feel that we are not getting the best out of the supply we have. My information is that the output of loaves of bread in Johannesburg per day is 300,000. The total population of all races in Johannesburg is 667,000. If there were proper distribution, there is at the present moment—such is my information —enough for all, and yet thousands and tens of thousands are on the verge of starvation.

That is an absolute exaggeration.

If that is an exaggeration, the Committee must allow for the over-enthusiasm of my informer, but I must say at any rate that there are many thousands on the verge of starvation. My point is simply that if there are 300,000 loaves of bread made daily in Johannesburg, and if there are only 667,000 people in Johannesburg, it is possible that there is enough for all provided there is not any waste. There is another reason for our desire that there should be rationing. [Time limit.]

I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity just to say a few words again in regard to the matter with which we were dealing yesterday. Yesterday he seemed to be somewhat impatient, but I just want to draw his attention to the fact that the matters we raise here are matters that we have already brought to the notice of his Department and we got no satisfaction from the Department. We can only get satisfaction when we bring these matters to his personal notice in the House. The same thing happened in connection with the commission. He told us yesterday that a judicial commission had been appointed to investigate the cases of Germans. This commission was appointed more than six weeks ago and up to the present they have not yet started their sittings. It may not sound a great number but there are more than 1,000 people who are waiting for the commission to commence their sittings. These people are living under extremely difficult conditions today. If they were guilty, we would not say much about it, but I make bold to say that 90 per cent. of those people will eventually be found not guilty and released. The personal interests of those people are such at the moment that they cannot afford to be away from their homes. Their families are practically starving. This matter is urgent, and I hope therefore that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will allow us to raise it here.

I just want to take back his mind for a moment to the letter he wrote to the two emissaries of the German Government in 1923. He wrote—

May I just say that the words the Prime Minister used here are 95 per cent. correct as far as the old Germany community is concerned. I doubt whether after investigation we shall find that 5 per cent. or at most 6 per cent. of the old German community allowed themselves to be mislead, and it says a great deal for a nation such as the German nation in the circumstances in which they found themselves, that so few of them departed from the spirit and the terms of the agreement which the Prime Minister entered into with the German Government; and numbers of those people who are just as innocent as the Prime Minister are today in the internment camp, awaiting the first step on our part. I hope he will issue instructions that the work of that commission is to be expedited. And then I also want to ask whether he will not be good enough to issue instructions that the cases of those people who are innocent should be disposed of first, so that they may return to their homes. This is an important matter. The names have already been sorted out by the Department. The Department knows which cases are serious. They know who will possibly be considered for repatriation, and they know who will not be considered for repatriation. Cannot the cases of those people be disposed of first?

And then I want to ask whether a certain amount of precedence cannot be given to the cases of the old German community and those people who were born in South-West Africa. I want to draw the attention of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to the fact that this will be the last occasion that we shall have the privilege to discuss this matter with him, because the commission will be sitting in the near future, and when the commission reports the Government will have to decide, because the commission will make recommendations in regard to repatriation. But I want to submit to the Prime Minister that even where the Commission makes recommendations, the Government should still review the matter on behalf of this country as a final arbitrator or as a final body of appeal. I trust that no person will be repatriated who may eventually become a greater danger to us beyond our borders than he would be within our borders. We want to repatriate those people who are a danger to us in this country. With that I fully agree, but we must not send people out of this country who may eventually be a greater danger to us beyond our borders as instruments of some other Power, than they would be if they were kept in this country.

Then I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the onerous camp regulations which apply to those who are still being detained cannot be relaxed to a great extent. In actual fact, these people are no longer internees; they are merely being detained. They are in this difficult position, that they are still subject to all these onerous regulations, as far as visits are concerned. Their relatives cannot visit them freely. They do not enjoy that measure of freedom which people in their position should enjoy, and it only needs a single word from the Prime Minister to remove those irksome and annoying and onerous regulations so that these people will be able to breathe more freely and visit their relatives more freely. I want to tell the Prime Minister that the Germans whom he released in the Union have brought great joy to their families; it brought inexpressible joy in the homes of those who were separated from one another for more than six years. Those people are now back in their homes. The Prime Minister brought inexpressible joy to those families, but he should bear in mind that he released people in the Union who came from South-West Africa just before the war to take up employment in the Union. Those people are South-West citizens, but they were released because they were in the Union when the war broke out. But their brothers and parents, as the case may be, who were just over the border when the war broke out, are still being detained in the camps. The son may have come to the Union to seek employment; he obtained employment here and was then interned. He has now been released because he is a Union citizen, but the father just over the border is still in the camp. This is the last opportunity we shall have to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister. He will be proceeding overseas in the near future. He will contend before the United Nations Organisation that South-West Africa forms an integral part of the Union, and in that respect he has our support. He has released the Germans of the Union, but he is still detaining the South-West African Germans, and he is doing that in spite of the fact that we are all agreed that South-West Africa should be an integral part of the Union. We ask that this matter be expedited, and that the Commission should commence its sittings. The Commission was appointed more than six weeks ago, and up to the present they have not yet started their sittings. What is the cause of the delay? This delay is a serious matter. I just want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that those people are costing the State a great deal of money, for no reason whatsoever, and their detention in the internment camp is causing a tremendous dislocation in their families and to the country generally. Let us put a stop to that. [Time limit.]

Let me reply at once to the questions which have been put to me. I start with the hon. member who has just sat down. It is the earnest intention of the Government to expedite the disposal of these cases as much as possible; there has been delay. Quite possibly it is due to the duties of the chairman, who is a judge and who has had to dispose of other work. But the whole intention of the Government is to dispose of this matter as soon as possible; As far as we are concerned, it is just a case of costs and expenses, and it means prolonging something which one is anxious to finalise. This is one of the cases one would like to dispose of as soon as possible, and this matter will be expedited. The question of priority is, of course, a matter for the Commission to determine. We cannot say which cases should have precedence. Numbers of cases are being referred to them to deal with, but I may say that even after the Commission has decided there will be cases which the Government will possibly have to take into consideration. The Government cannot altogether rid itself of responsibility in this matter and quite possibly there will be cases which we shall have to take into consideration. As far as the camo regulations are concerned, I cannot see why there should not be a relaxation; and I want to go further. The Administration in South-West Africa has asked us not to send people to that territory who will cause great difficulties there. But that is no reason why, in the majority of cases, we should not release people in the Union. They can then remain in the Union until their cases have been decided. Perhaps it would be better for them to remain in the Union until their cases have been decided.

On what grounds is South-West Africa asking that they should not be sent to that territory?

No, I do not know. They merely say that it will cause great disturbances and difficulties if these people were to go there.

Is it not a question of economic competition?

No, the hon. member can put that idea out of his head altogether.

I would not say it if I did not have proof.

They have no reason to do it on that ground.

You say they have no reason; how do you know?

Because the property of the internees falls under the Custodian of Enemy Property. It does not fall under South-West Africa. The hon. member may therefore put that idea out of his head. The question of economic pressure or of selfishness will not enter into the picture. It is a question of disturbing public opinion in South-West Africa and we do not want to make the position unnecessarily difficult, and the Government is therefore complying with the request which has been made to us. But as far as the Union is concerned, this request is not applicable and we are prepared to relax the regulations in respect of those people who still have to be detained. I think the vast majority can be released in the Union until their cases have been decided upon and I think it would be better for them to remain here.

The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) has asked the question whether it is not possible for the Government by declaration to declare the war formally at an end so that certain contracts and other matters dependent on the formal ending of the war, can be resumed. The answer is this. It is a most complicated case. All sorts of cases in the Union and over the world depend on that act, the formal declaration of the end of the war, and the time has not really come to do it. We have all sorts of difficulties. We have just had the difficulty in regard with the strike on the gold mines of the Rand, where a step had to be taken dependent on the declaration of the end of the war.

Is it not the end of hostilities? The hostilities have ended.

That is taken to be the same thing. We have not been able to overcome the difficulty, because you may be helping people in one direction and creating very great difficulties in other directions, and it is a matter also not for the separate consideration of the Union, but for international action, and it is a matter which requires a good deal more discussion before any action can be taken; so I am afraid there will be cases of hardship which will be unavoidable.

*The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) has referred to certain questions with regard to our external representation. In the first place he raised the question of our representation in Paris. This matter is now in order. The usual permission has been granted and we hope to appoint a Minister there in the near future. In the meantime I am sending a Chargé d’Affaires to Paris to look after our interests until a Minister is appointed. Relations have now been restored and the formal steps have been taken, and the next step will be the appointment of a Minister. In the meantime the matter is being proceeded with and Mr. Paberton, who is a very suitable person and who spent a great deal of his time in French Equatorial Africa will go to Paris.

The other question in regard to Greece was dealt with in this way: The Government is desirous of establishing relations with the Eastern Mediterranean countries— Italy, Greece and Egypt—all countries with whom we have considerable dealings, and we want to expand out relations with those countries. There is a great demand in Egypt to expand trade and other relations with this country, and the Government has therefore appointed Gen. Theron as our Minister in that zone.

Is that in Italy?

For all three countries. His headquarters will be in Rome but he will also have under his jurisdiction Athens and Cairo. In the meantime a Chargé d’Affaires is being appointed at Athens and Cairo to look after our interests there in the absence of Gen. Theron. I think that is the best procedure. It would be too costly for us to appoint a Minister in each of these countries. It would become an unbearable burden to a small country like South Africa, and we shall have to group together certain parts of the world so as not to make the burden of external representation unduly heavy for us. That has already been done as far as Holland and Belgium are concerned. In Holland and Belgium we are also being represented jointly by one Minister. We are going to apply a similar principle in the Eastern Mediterranean theatre and we are going to group together Italy, Greece and Egypt. That is the plan which is now being put into practice.

And Switzerland?

We have taken no steps in Switzerland as yet.

What is the position there?

We have not yet taken steps there. Our trade relations with Switzerland are not on a very considerable scale and, of course, we must also bear in mind the question of costs. We are on very friendly terms with Switzerland; we are on the best footing with that country. During the war Switzerland looked after our interests when all the other countries were in trouble, and Switzerland represented our external interests. The relations between the Union and Switzerland are of the friendliest.

Our trade in Switzerland has expanded considerably.

It has, and I hope it will continue to expand.

Are we trading at all with Greece?

I do not think we do at the moment, but we may do so in the future. Greece has had a representative in the Union for years. We could not reciprocate, nor was it necessary to do so. We are now grouping together those three countries and we are appointing one person to look after our joint interests. Then the hon. member asked why the expenditure in connection with our representation in the United States has increased so considerably. No one in the House knows better than the hon. member himself how rapidly our relations with the United States are expanding. The United States are rapidly becoming the greatest country in the world, not only with whom South Africa trades, but as far as the political sphere is concerned. The United States are more and more becoming the centre of the diplomatic world. The United Nations Organisation is established in the United States; the majority of the big conferences are held there. The United States are rapidly becoming the hub of general world interests, and our relations with the United States are increasing on a tremendous scale. The financial questions affecting this country and the United States have been expanding on a great scale. Our trade relations have expanded, and the hon. member should not compare the position which obtained years ago when he looked after our interests in the United States, with the present position.

Even so, the expenditure is still high.

These matters are being carefully investigated, because we would like to keep the costs of our external representation as low as possible. In the United States the position is simply that we have no alternative. We must take the steps we are taking. In Nèw York it is largely a question of trade expansion, particularly with regard to the acquisition of supplies. We are buying supplies in the United States on a surprisingly great scale and not so much on the Continent of Europe or in Britain.

Is this not a matter which should be undertaken by the exporters themselves?

No, we have discovered that it is in our interests not to leave interests of this kind in the hands of private interests.

But the costs of the Supply Commission are borne by that Commission— an amount of £200,000.

The war position is coming to an end, and we must place our relations of the future on a firm footing. As far as the Information Bureau under Mr. Moolman is concerned, we regard that as absolute essential. When I was there in connection with the establishment of U.N.O. I satisfied myself of the importance of expanding our information service in the United States. Public opinion in the United States is a mighty factor in the world, and it also affects us in South Africa. Those people are fairly ignorant about South Africa. They do not even know whether there are Europeans in this country.

Those days are past.

No, they are not. It is absolutely essential in our own interests to do our utmost to acquaint America with the conditions in South Africa. Take the native question and similar questions which affect us very closely. This is a question in regard to which they are not only ignorant but they have entirely erroneous information, and it is essential to have a bureau there which will continually enlighten the newspapers and the public and look after our interests in that way. The hon. member can also take it from me that I satisfied myself that it is in our interests to continue with that service in the United States. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) stated that we should act a little leniently as far as the sifting of meal is concerned. The officials concerned have listened to his speech, and I hope they have noted his remarks.

In connection with food wastage, I should like to quote from an authority I am bound to pay deference to. According to the “Cape Argus” of yesterday, Dr. Bok has been speaking on this very important matter, and he alleged on the one hand that natives themselves who did manage to get bread were throwing portions of it away, and others, better placed socially, were using necessary bread for the feeding of pigs. Surely central control would be sufficient to avoid waste of this description.

I want to catch the hon. member’s point, but I do not know what he is objecting to.

What I have said is Dr. Bok has alleged that the very instant we are speaking food is being wasted, bread is being wasted, and my suggestion is that a central control would obviate that waste; at least, we hope so.

What central control?

Any form of Government control or rationing is what I have in mind. There are two other suggestions I would like to put through the Prime Minister to his colleague, the Minister of Native Affairs. It has been stated in this discussion that the illiteracy of the native and the nature of his dwelling makes a rationing scheme impossible. I would suggest that is not so, and rationing could be carried out through the machinery of the officials of the Native Affairs Department. There is one other request I would like to make, and which he may pass on as a direction to his colleague of the Native Affairs Department. We are all agreed that natives are at least on the point of starvation, while some are actually dying from lack of food. Long before the present crisis developed, I wrote to the Minister of Native Affairs calling his attention to the very large supplies of army biscuits we had stored in many parts of South Africa at present. I suggested and resuggested that there is a limit to the period under which army biscuits could remain fit for human food, that there came a time of dissolution, and I suggested that the best use to put these army biscuits to was to supply them to the starving natives. I was told the Government had the matter in mind. I am not now so greatly concerned with what the Government has in its mind, but we are concerned with what the native is going to put in his stomach. The Minister told me the native did not like that sort of food; but a starving man is not particular, surely, to that degree. Anyhow, it is a good food, a balanced form of food….

It was good enough for the army.

It was. I am very glad to have the support of the Prime Minister, who seemed to think that, being good enough for the army, these biscuits are good enough for anybody, even if they were not at the point of starvation. That was the answer I received, it was not the sort of food the native wanted. Perhaps the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister would be willing to place the desirability of some such arrangement before his colleague.

I will take it up with Defence and with Natives.

I apologise to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister for also raising this food issue, but I feel although I like the hon. members of the Labour Party I cannot let them get away with the food issues they raised here. Last Friday there was a debate on the Ministry of Food.

I hope the hon. member will bear in mind the previous ruling given by the Chairman as to the limits of discussion on the Prime Minister’s Vote.

I am not going to discuss it generally, but I felt there was the opportunity to talk objectively on the food issue, and one of the members of the Labour Party asked for an adjournment of the debate for the purpose of going over to a debate on a municipal bank rather than discussing the food problems of the country. Hon. members have endeavoured to indicate that our food policy has reached a very bad stage. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) struck the right note when she indicated it was a culmination of things happening one after the other during a period of years. But I say the Government has tackled the immediate food position in a most commendable way, though I have been one of the sternest critics. In regard to the consumption of maize, the maize consumer has been looked after by the Government to a tremendous degree. First of all, and here I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern, in ordinary circumstances the price of maize would have gone up so much as to be outside the pocket of the nonEuropean consumer if things had been allowed to develop in that way. Instead of that the Government has subsidised maize to the extent of 5s. a bag. I guarantee that seven or eight years ago no one would have thought that any government could do that as far as the consumer is concerned. In connection with importing supplies it has had to subsidise to the extent of 15s. a bag, and probably £1 a bag, but it has not only imported half the quantity needed, it has given an open chit to the Cabinet Food Committee to import as much as it could. The extent of subsidising of maize alone to the consumer will probably be in the neighbourhood of £8,000,000 this year, and I think that in itself is quite a commendable policy as regards the consumer and the lower income groups. On the wheat issue we have also had a policy of subsidisation. Although 37s. 6d. a bag may be considered by members a very high price the country has only produced 3,000,000 bags of wheat compared with 6,000,000 bags in the past. Climatic conditions were against our food and the producer, but even then this Government has imported tremendous quantities of wheat, and if it was not for the personal intervention of the Prime Minister at a very critical stage in our wheat supplies we would have had famine. There is no doubt that by his own personal efforts the Prime Minister secured an allocation of 1¾ million bags of wheat. One does not know the price, but I expect the subsidy will run to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 30s.

[Inaudible.]

Surely the hon. member will admit as a consumers’ representative on the Maize Control Board by allocating maize as they are doing there is an attempt at least to allocate it to the poorer people and the natives.

The allocation is hopelessly inadequate.

I agree that the issue of 1½ lb. per person may not be adequate, but if there was more maize it could be two or three times that. The maize has to be rationed as far as possible, and if there had not been rationing particularly in the rural areas the maize would have been drawn to the cities, and in the Ciskei and the Transkei we would have had starvation and deaths by the thousand. My complaint is that over a period of years this has been allowed to develop, and that is where I agree with the hon. member for Cape Eastern. On the Maize Board she was a most excellent consumers’ representative and I am sorry she has left.

No, she will go back.

I understand she left on general principles, because she could get no further, and I say she should have had a little patience and something might have developed. I have been on the board a little longer and have had dealings with it over a period of ten years, and I can assure her tremendous changes have taken place. There is great room for improvement, and if we tackle the problem as the Prime Minister indicated possibly we can solve this food problem, not immediately — that needs drastic action—but build up for the future so that we may not have a recurrence of the position we are faced with at the present moment.

I want to deal with quite a different subject, and this is a very important subject. It affects the department of another Minister. We have made representations in this House from all sides to the Minister concerned, but particularly from this side, and our representations have fallen on deaf ears. We thought it advisable therefore to bring this matter to the notice of the Prime Minister. Latterly the Prime Minister has often spoken about the critical times through which the country is passing. Here we are also dealing with a crisis through which we are passing, and although the crisis is upon us and in spite of the fact that we make representations to the Minister of Lands, he pays no attention to us on this side of the House, nor does he care what happens in the country and how the interests of the settlers are affected. For that reason we on this side thought it fit to bring these matters to the notice of the Prime Minister personally. There are two cases. The first is the case of the temporary tenant farmers. We on this side have repeatedly told the Minister of Lands that his instruction that people who have been on holdings for years as temporary tenant farmers must now leave those holdings, has very disastrous consequences. It has always been the rule that if a temporary tenant farmer remains on a holding for a long time, he is eventually given an opportunity to become the owner of the land. We understand that it is the policy of the Government to place returned soldiers on these holdings. We are not opposed to it, but according to the information at our disposal and which has been furnished to this House, it appears that the number of holdings previously occupied temporary tenant farmers who were called upon to leave their holdings, exceeds the number of soldiers who are going to occupy the holdings in question. I want to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that the Minister of Lands refuses to give information to any members of this House concerning the number of tenant farmers who have been given notice to leave their holdings. I am given to understand that there are only five registration offices in the country, but this is being kept secret. In my area, Gordonia and the north-western parts, there are numbers of people who had to leave their land. They had to leave their land in the most deplorable circumstances, and I brought it to the notice of this House that those holdings are being neglected because there is no one to look after the lands and the orchards. I also want to tell the Prime Minister that he knows what the policy has been of all governments in the past, namely, to give the people an opportunity of hiring land and eventually when they have found that they can make a decent living on the land, the Government goes so far as to help them to buy the land. The Minister of Lands now states that that was never the policy of any government, and that it is not the policy of this Government. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give this matter his serious attention. We cannot simply give land to people in a new area and abandon them to their own resources. We must first enable those people gradually to acquire knowledge of the area in question so that they can find out for themselves whether they can make a decent living in that area.

Then I come to another case. We are living in difficult circumstances today. There are certain parts of the country where it is extremely dry. In adjacent areas there may be Crown land where there may be good grazing and where it may have rained. The farmers are in dire need of that grazing, but the Minister of Lands does not want to allow any farmer to send a single animal to those parts by allowing them to hire grazing there. That land is lying idle in spite of the fact that we are experiencing a crisis. I feel that the Prime Minister should view this matter in the light that where there is land which will not be distributed at present nor in the next few years, but which borders on the holdings of farmers who need grazing, he should allow these people to make use of such grazing. In this connection I want to touch upon a letter I received from a farmers’ association in the Kalahari. There are certain parts of the Kalahari and the Kuruman district where there have been good rains and where the grass is fairly high. The farmers are not allowed to make use of the grazing on Crown land. There are settlers who have so much grazing that they feel that they are in a position to help other farmers, but they are not allowed to do so. I want to tell the Prime Minister that this is becoming a serious matter in those parts. This farmers’ association wrote to me to say that many of its members are willing to help others with grazing, because they have had rain, but in terms of this regulation of the Minister of Lands they are not allowed to provide grazing facilities to others. In certain parts there is no grazing, while there is grazing in other parts, and the one person who can meet these people is the Minister of Lands, but he turns a deaf ear to them. One would say that he does not care what becomes of those farmers. It would seem that he has hardened his heart against those people. He does not want to allow the people to help one another. Then there is another matter that we want to bring to the serious notice of the Prime Minister, namely, the restrictions which are imposed on the holdings. We want to ask him to give his attention once again to this matter.

That would require an amendment of the law, and the hon. member cannot discuss it now.

It is a question of policy.

But any change would require an amendment of the law, and it cannot be discussed now.

I have made a note of it.

I hope the Prime Minister will consider these two cases to which I have referred, namely, the position of the temporary tenant farmer and the question of grazing on Crown land, and since the Minister of Lands refuses to allow farmers to make use of grazing on Crown land, the Prime Minister should regard this matter from the point of view of the position which obtains in the country at the moment. The ’ third point is in connection with the settlers who are prepared to provide grazing to others, and who are not allowed to do so. It will be a great concession to people in the severely inflicted areas if the Prime Minister will meet them in this respect.

We have listened with great interest both to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Economic Development in regard to the food position. I do not want to pursue the matter further except to this extent, that I appreciate very much the Prime Minister’s statement with regard to the steps to be taken, and also what the Minister of Economic Development said, but we break down at the final issue, namely, the distribution to the consumer. That is where the trouble starts. Both the Minister and the Prime Minister appealed to the good spirit of the people, but the unfortunate thing is that that is just leaving the position where it was. The Minister himself warned us that during the whole of this year the position will be bad. We have had figures from Sir Ben Smith, the Controller of Food in Britain, who has stated that the minimum requirements for the world for the next period is 18 million tons of wheat, of which they will only have 12 million tons, thereby showing that there is a shortfall of one-third on the minimum requirement. That shows at once that the position is going to get worse. I appreciate the Prime Minister’s warning, and his appeal to good spirit, but I want to tell him that our experience, particularly on the Reef, is that all the good spirit in the world will not give the people food. They are in a difficult position. The poor people have no accounts with the retailers, and are probably not known to the retailer, with the result that they do not get their ration. The Minister also said that if the retailer does not play the game, we will deal with him, but that is exactly the point. The position will then be greatly worse. He says he will deal with the retailers who do not act properly. I do not know how he will do that, but what is going to happen to the customers of those traders if their quota is taken away? They will have to go to other butchers or bakers who cannot even supply their own customers. I appeal to the Prime Minister before he leaves, to leave some instructions to his colleagues to apply the only measure which will save us from disaster, namely, the system of individual rationing to the consumer himself. We know what the difficulties are, but it can be done. It has been suggested that even the Native Affairs Department can assist in that direction. After all, in the Free State and the Transvaal, where you have the pass system, they can ration every native who comes to the Rand with passes, and therefore one presumes they can also ration them with coupon books. I think that can be done, especially in the urban areas. In the country areas they will have to approach the problem from a different aspect, but they have had famines in the country districts before, and food was distributed through the magistrates, and the country was saved. They did it in the Transkei some time ago. Before the war we also had a position of famine. I agree with the Prime Minister that the present position has arisen through no fault of our own, but we appeal to the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that we see grave dangers ahead in regard to the weaker and poorer people, to see to if that at least they will get their fair share. We are all prepared to go on short rations provided the distribution is satisfactory. I want to make a final appeal to the Prime Minister. It is not sufficient to say what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) said, that the Maize Board has not made sufficient progress in ten years. We cannot wait another ten years. However, I think we can waive aside the absurdities of the hon. member for Orange Grove, and apply ourselves to the problem. No one wishes to obstruct the Government by frightening the people, but it is better that they should be warned, because if they are not warned something worse might happen to them. It is therefore the duty of every member to try his best to make the position as good as possible. I appeal to the Prime Minister not to leave the position as it is, because it is far too serious.

Under this vote I should like to bring up the question of policy; I refer inter alia to the Secretariat and the General Planning Council. The subject I wish to broach in this connection is the whole of our state organisation as it exists today. During the recess I wrote to various Ministers in order to learn from them regarding the various boards constituted under their departments, and in the course of my enquiries I discovered that we have between 45 and 50 of these boards. In addition to that, as hon. members know, we find that in connection with almost every Bill that has been adopted by us provision is being made for a new board, and the result later on will be we shall have an impossible number of boards. I had a motion on the Order Paper directing the attention of the Prime Minister to this matter but unfortunately it did not come up in its turn. It seems to me that one thing is very clear, namely that the whole of our governmental organisation has today become so complicated, and governmental activities have become so expanded that it is virtually an impossible task to have business done through the ordinary machinery of the State, that is to say through Parliament, the ’ provincial councils, the local authorities, and public servants. I brought up this matter before and the Minister of Finance replied to it, and on that occasion I suggested that members of Parliament might serve on this sort of commission and that more use might be made of them. The Minister of Finance stated that you could not do this, because in the first place it would necessitate an alteration in the constitution, and in the second place, he said though it might be made applicable in the case of large municipalities, that it would operate in the interests of the State. As far as the first observation goes I feel, and I think the Prime Minister will agree, that if we have expanded to such an extent that we have practically gone beyond the limits imposed by the constitution….

The hon. member may not advocate an alteration of the law.

I am not asking for that. I am only mentioning the alterations that have been discussed. I would only say this, that I have made enquiries into the American system. There they have committees under Congress, and members of Congress —members of Parliament in our country— serve on them and do good work. But, assuming for a moment that this would not be applicable in our country, I still maintain that our whole governmental system must be so designed that the boards appointed under various departments must carry out Government policy. We must be absolutely certain of that when we adopt legislation. But, and it no doubt has frequently happened in the case of other hon. members, when you get in touch with the secretary of such a board he simply tells you “that is our policy”. He does not talk of the policy of the Government but of their own policy. It is perfectly clear that gradually these bodies are becoming small independent governments within the State. What are we going to do to assure continuity of policy in these various organisations? We adopt an Act and we institute an organisation. When we adopt an Act in this House we have certain objectives before us and we desire that certain things should be carried out in conformity with Government policy, but it appears to me from my study of the subject that no method exists to ensure that such a board, when appointed, will at once carry out the policy of the Government. It has often been said, and there is much truth in it, that some members of boards, especially of agricultural boards, are entirely unsympathetic towards the Government, and governmental policy counts for nothing at all.

The Government appoints them.

Many members are appointed by farmers’ organisations.

Nominated, but not appointed.

It appears to me in any case some sort of liaison should be created between the Government and the various boards, and perhaps one way in which this can be done is for members of this House to be employed on such boards to form a connecting link between Parliament, the Government and the boards. Bearing in mind the fact that the allowances of members have been improved I think it can also be expected that members of Parliament should serve on such boards in an honorary capacity without remuneration. But something must be done to provide a link between the Central Government, this House and those boards. Perhaps the Prime Minister may be able to suggest something. He is an authoritative person in regard to these constitutional matters, and I shall listen with interest to any suggestions that he may offer. But I do feel there should be a link, and perhaps it can be formed by members of this House, from all parties, who really know what is meant by a Bill. When we adopt an Act, it is only the broad framework; the real spirit of the Act is revealed in its administration. In other words, you place the Act in the hands of people who have had nothing to do with the passing of it, and it is the easiest thing in the world for them to destroy the spirit and intention of the Act, and as far as this is concerned, to go very wide of the mark. Unfortunately the Prime Minister has had his hands full. In the war he had to concentrate all his attention on the war effort, and unfortunately he had to give further attention to matters incidental to it. But now the war is over we shall have to pay attention to internal difficulties. There are defects throughout our whole administration, and these defects must be removed. It has been suggested that under-secretaries, ministerial secretaries, can be appointed, as in England, where they have parliamentary secretaries, ministerial secretaries, but apparently this idea does not find much favour in our country. The Prime Minister will agree that his Ministers are overworked, with the result that more and more work must be entrusted to people over whom the voters of the country have no control, and it does not admit of doubt that the public are sometimes very annoyed by these persons and then the Prime Minister and other Ministers of the Cabinet are blamed. In the short time which has been available to me I have endeavoured as a plain member of this House to give my impressions, and I wish to express the hope that, perhaps even before the present Parliament comes to an end, some means or other will be found to improve the position in regard to our State organisation.

Far be it from me to endeavour to withhold credit from the Prime Minister and/or his colleagues in the Cabinet. I do not wish to do that for one moment. On the contrary I give them every credit for having made every effort to increase our food supplies, and particularly the grain supplies, and I say that notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). I am also one of those who realise that this is the culmination of long years of neglect, but what I am trying to drive home is that we now have to tackle the position as we find it. We find that we are in short supply as regards food, despite the very laudable efforts of the Cabinet. Taking a bird’s eye view of the whole world, as the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) has stated, our grain supply is one-third short. We therefore have to face the fact that we have only two-thirds of our grain requirements in this country. How can we distribute that two-thirds in the best possible way? The Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Agriculture—and I sincerely regret the fact that the Minister is not well —and anticipated by the hon. Minister of Economic Development, has given us one method, or two or three odds and ends of methods of making this distribution, and they seem to pin their faith to ration through the retailer. The producer then will be told to deliver so much to the miller and the miller will deliver so much flour to the baker, who will deliver so many loaves to this, that and the other retailer. Our point is that we have had experience of that method of distribution, and it has been a complete failure. Retailers have their favourite customers. I have instanced in this House before my experience with regard to meat, where the person who has an account could get meat, whereas I, who was a cash customer could not get any. When selection is made by the retailer the credit customers have preference. I want to bring this point home to the Prime Minister. We have tried retailer rationing and have found it wanting, and not only was it wanting because there was unfair distribution, but we have the right to expect, as the result of our experience, that the mass of poor people in the country will be deprived of their share altogether; because we have that most inequitable thing, that most cruel thing possible, a black market in bread. We have it already where retailers—I must repeat this for emphasis—are already offering bakers far above the price fixed. The price fixed is 6½d., and they are offering 7½d., which means that when the customer comes in to buy a loaf of bread, he will be told that it has all been sold, whereas in fact it is under the counter, but the trader knows his mark, the man will pay him 8d. or 9d. or a shilling. There will be a subterranean auction sale behind the scenes. Is that right?

The other method suggested by the Minister is that there shall be this one breadless day a week. I say that that means a foodless day a week for many people, and I hope hon. members will realise it and not be prejudiced because I mention it, but look at the merits of the case fairly. The same thing applies to the restriction of bread after 5 p.m. The Prime Minister can appeal with all his strength and eloquence for a good spirit, but when there is famine just as there is a black market, so you will have people who will disregard all appeals to decency. There is only one thing left, official rationing. Several times I have heard it said that you cannot ration, but I have not heard any arguments against rationing. I have not been told why you cannot ration, and I challenge the Minister and the Prime Minister to tell me why you cannot ration. If you say it is difficult I will agree, but please tell me why you cannot ration if every other country does it.

And they ration mealies.

They also have experts now.

Never mind the experts. Let us bring common sense to bear; what are the insuperable difficulties in the way of rationing? I am afraid that the difficulty is largely that they do not want to do it. They will try everything, even some of the things that have proved failures, but not rationing, and I appeal in the interests of the starving population, not those who can buy on the black market, but the large mass of people, white and coloured, who cannot afford to fight the black marketeer.

There is not the slightest doubt that if the Government is going to try rationing, as it did in the case of meat, it may as well leave it. One of the members on the other side who is a trader has explained the position. If you give the retailer only 80 per cent. of his requirements because there is a shortage he will naturally give preference to those people who are his clients. The trader must look to the future when there will no longer be a shortage, and if he wants to retain his clients, he must meet their demands as much as possible. That was the position in connection with meat. The retailer was rationed, and he gave meat to whom he pleased. One goes to a city like Pretoria, perhaps in connection with a meeting, and one finds that some people have meat every day, while others tell one that they have not been able to obtain meat for the past eight or ten days. The trader will first satisfy his regular clients, and he will sell the balance as soon as possible, because it is a perishable product and it cannot be left over. Let me say to the Minister of Economic Development that if he wants to adopt this system he may as well drop the whole thing. Similarly, he can abandon the whole scheme if he is going to rely on the goodwill of the retailers. One cannot say that those people are wilful, but, after all, they are in the trade; and one of his own members has already told him what the position is. I envisage many difficulties in connection with a coupon system, too. The difficulty will not be in connection with the Europeans, but in connection with the natives and the coloured people. The farmers of this country have always helped the country out of difficulty, where they could do so. They will do it again; they will produce sufficient wheat if they are offered a sufficiently attractive price. The Minister will see that in the case of the Langeberg Co-operative Society. The production of tomatoes, vegetables, fruit, etc., increased enormously when these people obtained a decent market for their products, but today the farmers are being expected to produce wheat for 35s. per bag, while the Government is prepared to pay 70s. per bag for imported wheat. It would be much better for the Government to pay our farmers 45s. It would be cheaper than to import, and in that case the subsidy will go to our own farmers and not to the farmers of the United States, Australia and the Argentine. Today the people are quibbling about the question whether production costs have increased or not. We are experiencing the same difficulty in regard to milk. The people in the towns cannot get milk for drinking purposes, and cheese milk has to be imported at 2s. per gallon, while the farmers in this country are getting 1s. per gallon for cheese milk. It will be cheaper for us eventually to make the price attractive so that these commodities can be produced in this country, and, moreover, our own people will then benefit. It has been recommended that the price of first-grade wheat should be 45s. per bag. The Department says that the price was 37s. 6d. last year, and that they cannot make it more than £2 per bag. I want to point out to the Minister that there are many areas where it is not a very payable proposition to produce wheat, and the price must be fairly high, otherwise the people in those areas will not produce. In my constituency the farmers have said that the Government may as well ask someone else to produce barley. They cannot produce it at 12s. 6d„ while the Government is importing at 37s. 6d. Give these people a fair price, and all these difficulties will then be overcome. Then I also want to ask the Minister of. Economic Development and the Prime Minister to try to obtain substitutes for bread. In Ireland bread is being made of potatoes. In this country we could also encourage the cultivation of sweet potatoes. The poorer people use sweet potatoes on a considerable scale, because bread and meat are expensive commodities. If we have not got bread for the shepherd, we can give him a few sweet potatoes, and he would be quite satisfied. Then there is another matter. If the Government is going to fix a breadless day—I do not think it will do so—it will place the poor people in a very difficult position. Many of them live on bread and coffee, and they will simply be forced to buy sufficient bread the previous day to last for a couple of days. A measure of this kind would be workable in the hotels and the boarding houses. Why should these people have bread three times per day with their meals? They could have one or two meals without bread. Then there is a further consideration if a breadless day is instituted or if the time during which bread may be consumed is limited. In the towns the people have their main meal in the evening, whereas the people on the platteland usually have their main meal at midday. That must be taken into consideration when these times are fixed. I want to tell the Government that with the best will in the world it cannot allow rationing to take place through the retail trade. It will not succeed. I do not say that these people are not willing to co-operate, but they are not in a position to do it. I do not think there will be a great black market in bread, because it will be an easy matter to detect black market dealers. One cannot charge a native a shilling for a 6d. loaf of bread. In the first place, he will refuse to buy it, and the man who sells it will be caught easily. We shall only have a black market in the hotels, where the well-to-do people will buy bread. We need not have great fears of a black market, but we cannot expect the retailers to do the rationing for us. Some plan or other will have to be made to overcome the scarcity by obtaining substitutes. The Prime Minister should draw up plans well in advance, and he must not think that he can leave this matter to the goodwill of the retailers. They cannot do this work.

In view of the impending departure of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the probability of his meeting representatives of His Majesty’s Government and of Dominion Governments in London before proceeding to the conference of the United Nations Organisation, I want to refer to the discussion that recently took place in this House on the subject of the High Commission Territories. There was some discussion when the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote was opened this year as to the question of the Union seeking to bring about the transfer of the Protectorates from the Government of the United Kingdom to the Government of the Union. I think a suggestion was made by the Leader of the Opposition that a petition should go forward to the Government of the United Kingdom requesting that the Protectorates should be transferred to the Union. I dissent entirely from the desirability of any such course of action, and I want to show that the native policy is being carried on in manner which will be bound to destroy the confidence of the natives not only in the Union itself but in the Protectorates. To begin with I wish to refer to the Native Representative Council, a body that was recognised by the Prime Minister in 1936 as one forming a very important part of our machinery of Parliament. In those words he referred to that body at the time it was brought into being, and he pointed out what responsible work was being entrusted to it. What is the position in regard to the treatment of that body by the Native Affairs Department? There is a request in the last abbreviated report of the proceedings of the Native Representative Council to this effect—

There is no reply of any kind recorded in the report from which I am quoting to show that the Department of Native Affairs took the slightest notice of this reasonable request but, as I propose to show later, the report in question affords proof of serious wilful omissions, which go far to vitiate the value of the report itself as a source of fairly recorded public information.

Before I leave the request made by the Native Representative Council may I quote a resolution passed by that Council relating to its gratitude to the services of the Prime Minister. It said—

This Committee will be surprised to hear that so far from the proceedings of this body being placed before Parliament the verbatim report of the proceedings was suppressed. I myself asked questions of the Minister of Native Affairs on 27th March, 1946, desiring to know why and upon whose authority certain reports in which the Native Representative Council had expressed its views very forcibly in regard to the native policy of this country and in regard to the treatment of African tribal natives had been withheld from publication in the report of the Council’s proceedings. The Minister of Native Affairs, if you please, when I asked my questions, referred me to a paragraph which is printed in the report and which reveals how deliberate the suppression of the information in the proceedings was made. He referred to a paragraph in the report which reads—

I appeal to any member of this House, of what value is a statement of that kind when the report itself is completely suppressed? Every word contained in that report is kept back from us, and we are not permitted to know, and when I requested that the information should be supplied the Minister in the House said that “the hon. member will be permitted to see the report” if I went to his office. By what right has the Minister to request I should go to his office to see a report which is the property of this House? Not only was a deliberate request made for that report to be placed before this House by its authors, the representatives of the natives throughout the Union, not only is the request ignored, but the report itself is most carefully suppressed so that it never reaches this House at all and is apparently not to reach the House, even though its deliberate suppression has been commented upon. That report was a most outspoken document. It said, inter alia—

That is a very strong statement, but it seems to be very strongly supported by the facts quoted in the report. The report also refers to the appointment of chiefs and headmen under the Native Administration Act, 1927, and it says—

In a case which I brought before the House myself last year it was proved that where a chief had been superseded without notice, his place had been handed over to another man who had not a shred of justification for his claim. A period of thirteen years elapsed before the injured parties were informed that their tribe was, in the lighthearted language of the Department of Native Affairs, “amalgamated”—the chieftainship being conferred upon one who had no right to govern. If these disclosures by the Natives’ Representative Council represent the measure of the policy of Native Affairs towards Africans, it is a policy that calls for very strong condemnation. Last week again I drew attention to the fact that two Pass Office officials of the Native Affairs Department had been convicted at Johannesburg of an attempt to hang a native in the Pass Office. The Natives’ Representative Council had made this reference to an incident that had taken place in the chief native pass office at Johannesburg, which is controlled by the Department of Native Affairs. The Council said this—

[Time limit.]

I just want to bring a serious question to the attention of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he realises that the 18,000 mine workers who work underground can take with them no other foodstuff but bread. If he wants to introduce a breadless day, then in their case he will have to make an exception. Those people cannot take any other form of food with them. Either we shall have to expect those people to work without food for one day in the week, or we will have to grant them exemption, or those people will have to violate the regulation. I hope that the Prime Minister will give his attention to this point, for I do not know of any other way out. They may not take cake with them, and we cannot expect 18,000 mine workers to go without food one day in the week when they are underground. It is impracticable. Then there is also the position of school children and of workers who can only take a piece of bread to work with them. Above ground one can perhaps take something else along, but you cannot take a bucket of porridge or the like underground. Only bread can be taken underground, for other food does not keep there. Meat may not be taken underground. It does not keep there. Only bread can be taken, and what are these people going to do? I mention this point to indicate to the Prime Minister that the matter is impracticable, for he will have to grant exemptions one after the other, and it will render the project completely impracticable.

I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister in regard to the Polish Consulate and its relationship to the de facto Government in Poland. I understand there is a camp near Outdshoorn in which there are a number of Polish soldiers, refugees, and this camp is under the administration of the Polish Consulate here. I think the Prime Minister will understand the point I am getting at, is this, that the British Government and the United States Government recognise the de facto Government in Poland, whereas the Consulate here, which is administering this camp near Oudtshoorn, is responsible to the London committee. I have had complaints that there is a certain amount of more than persuasion, almost persecution of those people in the camp who favour the present Government in Poland and who are not acceptable, therefore, to the representatives of the London committee. It is a very serious question because complaints have come that they have even endeavoured to deport Polish ex-soldiers from the Union to Fort Jameson in Northern Rhodesia, where there is another camp. They went so far as to have an ex-captain of the Polish Army arrested in Johannesburg. Fortunately the police or the Government department concerned had sufficient sense to take action and he was only under control for half a day. Why was this man arrested? Because he refused to go to Fort Jameson, because he feared if he went there he would be under the control of people who are hostile to his political views. The people controlling that camp represent the London committee and, as the Prime Minister knows, there is a great deal of hostility between the two sections. I would like to know where we stand in regard to the camp, and when we are going to recognise the Government of Poland as it is and come into line with these other countries.

I may tell my hon. friend we have not recognised as yet the Polish Government, the Warsaw Government. The South African Government has not done so; the United Kingdom Government has done it and the United States Government has done it, but we are still deferring the decision. In the meantime we have a camp of Polish children at Oudtshoorn whom we are taking charge of. It is not under any other body; it is run by our Welfare Department, and we are keeping matters in that position until we have finally decided whether we shall recognise the Warsaw Government or not. We are keeping the matter in our own hands. The hon. member need not be afraid we are likely to take a sudden decision which would jeopardise the position of people who have been faithful allies and who have fought for us. We shall give the matter every consideration.

Let me refer to a number of points that have been raised. There is the point mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), the omission of the Native Affairs Department to lay before this House the verbatim proceedings of the Native Representative Council of Pretoria. It is a matter I have no information about. I have not followed the discussions which have taken place to which my hon. friend refers, so I should not like to enter into a discussion on that matter at this stage. No doubt further consideration will be given to it later on. Of the other hon. members a number have referred to the question of rationing. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) has explained that if we introduced legislation to have a breadless day then underground miners on the Rand would have to go without food — a very good reason for not making such a regulation. We are not committed yet, and no doubt the Minister concerned with these matters will give this very careful consideration. We cannot send down 18,000 to 20,000 miners underground without food. It might lead to another strike. [Laughter.] We had enough of the last one. We shall take care of that point.

A number of other hon. members have referred to the question of rationing. The hon. members for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), South Rand (Mr. Christie) and Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) have put up a strong plea—at least, two of them, the hon. members for South Rand and Benoni—for individual rationing as the only method likely to succeed, that rationing through retailers or in any other way has failed and will fail again. I can only say this, Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I have already said in the House this afternoon, that the Government is going to investigate these methods of rationing to which I have referred. We have the experts now here. They have arrived, and we ourselves, even apart from the experts, have a good deal of information at our disposal which requires searching investigation. We shall have this problem for the rest of the year on our hands, and we are anxious to find a way out of this tangle. The investigation will go on, and I hope that some way will be found. I know the difficulties to which my hon. friends refer, and we shall have to bear those difficulties in mind and see whether there are not some ways round these difficulties in which we may overcome this question of rationing and of looking after the lower income groups of this country, be they natives or coloured or Europeans. The investigation will take place, and therefore I do not want to pursue the matter further.

*The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) has urged a suggestion that has been previously mentioned by him, namely, that the administration of the country should be conducted more on municipal lines, that is to say, by Boards on which the services of members of Parliament can be used, or by liaison between existing Boards and the Government. It has already been made plain to the hon. member that our constitution has been modelled on different lines, and that this would entail a radical alteration in our constitution, and that we shall not be able to carry out his suggestion as far as the Government of this country is concerned without altering the South Africa Act. I am aware that we have great difficulty in the administration of the country. The administration of the country is continuously expanding, it becomes greater and more arduous, and much of this work is carried out by Commissions and Boards. The difficulty to which my friend refers will be mentioned more and more. We shall have to find a way out of these difficulties. I do not think that his suggestion will help us. It would be a constitutional change accompanied with many difficulties; but we shall nevertheless have to find a way to ensure that closer supervision may be kept over these Boards. Whatever Board it may be, there ought to be a Minister in the House who can be attacked and held responsible, and we shall have to see that this is the position, that there are not Boards in the country that function like miniature governments and follow their own course and their own policy. This is something that cannot be allowed, and we shall have to keep before us the danger mentioned by our hon. friend, and we shall have to see to it that the general policy of the country is carried out, and that there are Ministers in this House under our existing constitution who can be held responsible for those acttions. That is the only way in which the proposal he has made can be carried into effect.

The hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has brought to my notice a certain difficulty in connection with the administration of the Lands Department. There are a number of lessees whose leases have been terminated so that their holdings may be made available for returned soldiers. Crown land has also been leased which the Minister of Lands will not make available in the dry season.

Some of them have not been leased. They are simply lying idle.

The point my hon. friend makes is this, that more holdings are left lying idle than there are returned soldiers to cultivate and occupy them. I can only tell my hon. friend that I shall discuss the question with my colleagues and learn whether there are such cases.

What we desire is this, that Crown land with grazing should be given out to people who have no grazing.

I know that the grazing question arises, especially during the dry season that we are now experiencing. In the meantime, lands are lying idle and not being used.

And the cattle die in the meantime and the barley rots.

The Minister of Lands intended that these lands should be reserved for soldiers who are returning and who may not return in time or who have not returned in sufficient numbers to occupy the land. I shall discuss the question with him. The hon. member will understand that I would be making a mistake if with my limited knowledge of the matter I went into it further. We have now been occupied for a fairly considerable time with this part of my estimates and I trust that all members of the Committee will now agree to our winding up the debate and passing this vote.

I hope, Sir, that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has given consideration to the statement I was making with regard to the neglect of the Minister of Native Affairs to comply with his obvious obligations in regard to certain matters occurring in the Department under his control. The Minister of Native Affairs was asked the following questions by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) on 11th February, 1944—

The reply was—

Then the next question was—

The reply was—

Two years have passed since that matter occurred.

What was the result of the appeal?

The Department is silent about what happened subsequently. The Native Representative Council, as I have said, passed a resolution drawing attention to this case and asking for the dismissal of these officers. There is no information as to what action the Native Affairs Department either took or proposed to take in regard to this resolution passed by a body of natives representative of the natives in South Africa. But in addition to that one finds a series of other matters referred to by the Native Representative Council of a very serious kind. They refer to the methods of administration in the countryside as applying to the natives and they complain in bitter terms of the fact that no sort of relief is granted. This is a body that most of us referred to, when the Act was passed regulating their affairs, as a body which will be regarded as largely advisory in legislation that is brought before this House. But the Council points out, quite truthfully, that during the last year taxation was imposed upon them without any consultation whatsoever and that they had no opportunity whatsoever of voicing their opinion at all. They said—

The present Prime Minister referred in the following terms to the Native Representative-Council when it was brought into being—

There has also been a complaint, respectfully and properly made by this body, that the Provincial Council is permitted to tax them, although the Act of Union vests in the Government of the Union of South Africa the control and administration of native affairs. The Provincial Council should not be permitted to tax the natives, and I think at one time the Government realised that— to levy taxation upon natives whose control is not vested in the Provincial Council, but whose control is vested specially by our constitution in the Government itself. Those are among the grievances that are rife and very strongly held by the Natives’ Representative Council and its members, and may I say that among those who have expressed the views I have quoted are men of education and men of observation and training. You have a professor, Z. Matthews, of Fort Hare Native University College; you have Dr. Moroka and others of similarly good qualifications who take a leading part in the affairs of the Council, and I feel that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will realise that a body of this kind cannot continue to be suppressed and ignored by those who are relied upon to guide the policy of native affairs in this country.

There is another matter to which I want to refer very briefly, and that is the question of the Union’s attitude towards Imperial preference. Some years ago in 1926 on the discussion of a new Customs tariff introduced by the Nationalist Government, the Prime Minister, then in opposition, indicated his dissatisfaction with the sweeping away of so large a number of Imperial preferences by the Bill which was then under discussion, and he said that if ever he returned to power he would regard it as his duty to restore as far as possible the preferences that had been swept away; and I am sure that all of us who have followed this question will agree with the Prime Minister as to the wisdom of the reversal of such a policy which would, had it been further developed, have resulted in injury to this country in the long run.

You are not including me in expressing that view.

The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) does not wish to be included in that view, and I do not for a moment venture to be so rash.

And all the rest of us here.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) talks about the rest of us here, but his following of antipreference enthusiasts must be very small and ill-informed. The Ottawa Conference was a landmark of the improvement that was brought about in a somewhat lean period of our financial career. At that conference the principle of mutual preference was embodied in a series of inter-dominion agreements. Today if you were to examine the effect of the Ottawa Agreements on our trade in normal times you would find that it has been one of the best instruments we, in South Africa, have had for the marketing of our wool, and if those agreements were cancelled there would be a demand in South Africa for their renewal in toto. There have been a number of discussions on the question of their widely beneficial effect. [Time limit.]

May I just say a word in reply to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I do not object to my hon. friend raising this matter of native administration and the complaints of the Natives’ Representative Council here in this House, but I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the proper place would be when the native estimates are dealt with, when these matters can be thrashed out. One of the points he makes is quite important, and I think it deserves discussion here, and I hope my hon. friend will raise it at the appropriate time. I do not want to enter into it now.

As regards the last point made by the hon. member, namely, the abolition of Imperial preferences, that matter will come up for discussion at one of these early conferences that are going to be held in America. The committee knows that a big international conference is going to be held to deal with the question arising out of lease-lend, and the restoration of free trade all over the world, and in connection with that question all Imperial preferences will be raised and the question of trade barriers. I agree with my hon. friend that we here in South Africa, as in other parts of the Commonwealth, have derived very solid advantages from the preferences which we have enjoyed hitherto, given at Ottawa and elsewhere, and it will be the policy of this Government, as it will be the policy of other governments in other Dominions, to stick to these preferences until we have a distinct and adequate quid pro quo, until American tariffs and other trade barriers are removed to such an extent that these measures of protection for our trade are no longer necessary. We shall naturally watch this matter with the closest attention as it is very vital to our interests, and I do not think the hon. member need be prematurely alarmed about that. I think there will be a very high barrier of defence put up against any attacks. But we do want world trade restored and we do want tariffs lowered. We want world trade restored so that the world may once more sail into calmer seas. On that policy we are all agreed, and we are not going to give up Imperial preferences for nothing. We are certainly not going to do that. That is not the policy of this Government, and if anything is done in this connection, this House will be consulted in advance.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 5.—“Defence”, £18,350,000,

I should like to avail myself of the half-hour rule. After six years of war it is agreeable for this House to find that the Defence Vote has been specified as it was before the war, and we can again enquire why large sums have been spent and will be spent. The amount asked for here under Vote 5 is £18,350,000. This is £64 million less than was asked for the vote last year. That is a remarkable decrease. It is, of course, not yet on a peace basis. I assume that a large proportion of the amount will come off in the future. I have looked up the estimates of previous years. I have looked up the estimate when we began with the Defence Force. In the year 1913-T4 the amount asked for Defence was £1,200,000. Immediately before the war the amount asked was £2,200,000, and this year when we again have peace the right hon. member asks for £18 million. I take it his intention is to come next year with a reduction under this vote, that he will come next year with a considerable reduction. It is obvious that as demobilisation progresses the vote will be decreased.

The first point I want to make in connection with this vote is this: I think it is the general desire that we should return as quickly as possible to peace conditions, also in regard to the Defence Force. The outside world is not doing so, the outside world is reverting with great difficulty to peace conditions. When one looks at the defence expenditure in other countries, one fears it can be described more as an armed peace than a true peace. I notice, for instance, that the British Government envisages raising by the end of this year a force of more than a million men—1,100,000. That is big for peace time. I note that America within a few months will have for the three main divisions of its defence some 1,500,000 men. I see in a report that America will within a short while provide for a fleet greater than those of Britain, Russia, France and Italy combined. That does not look like peace. It looks more like armed peace than anything else. It does not look as if the big countries have much faith in the peace. I think we in South Africa want to believe in the peace, and that we all wish to revert as quickly as possible to peace conditions as far as the Defence Force is concerned. There are no very attractive indications of that. But let us live in hope. The signs in this country give rise to the thought that our Defence Force will never revert to its prewar strength, that we shall have to maintain a better and bigger Defence Force, with more modern equipment than before the war I do not wish us to share this idea of an armed peace, but what I wish to say is this —and I can say this on behalf of this side of the House—that as a result of the war and as a result of circumstances that prevail internally today, we shall find it necessary to have a stronger and better equipped Defence Force than before the war. Our military preparations in time of peace have always been made on a very modest scale, at times on such a modest scale that the Department has complained. I recall the days immediately before the war when the Defence Department complained of more than an absence of military policy. In their report to Parliament before the war, they complained more than once that they were in the delicate position of having to manage without a clearly outlined military policy on behalf of the State, and they complained of the deplorable state of our military equipment and about the financial limitations which resulted in the military preparedness and military value of our Defence Force existing only in name. I do not believe one can agree entirely with that description of the position, but the point I wish to emphasise is that our military preparations in peace time were always on a modest scale. These were peace conditions, and no one anticipated the conditions that exist today. South Africa is a poor country; there is a limit to the amount the Union can spend on defence; but in dangerous times such as these it would be insane for South Africa not to bring its military machine to a state of proper efficiency. Take the external position and the internal position. Take first the external. Newspaper reports say that UNO wishes to create an army of two million. Incidentally, I should like to learn from> the right hon. member if it is the intention, when that army of two million—it is really called a police force—has been established, that South Africa, too, should have to make a contribution, or provide men for the land, sea and air forces. The following report appeared a few days ago—

I do not know whether that report is correct or not. It was published the other day in the “Cape Times”. But in reference to this report I wish to ask the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to enlighten the House regarding the matter and to state whether South Africa will also have to provide a part of that force. In spite of this preparation that U.N.O. is making to institute a world police force these countries, and especially the Big Five, are engaged in arming to the teeth. It is a very remarkable and alarming phenomenon

But now I come to our internal position. With the disquieting conditions existing in South Africa in would not be wise to abolish our Defence Force. There is for instance one alarming report. I do not know whether it is correct. The report states that the British Government recently sent a commission to South Africa, to Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland, to recruit 10,000 natives in order to institute a defence force for those territories, and the report states that the 10,000 natives they are recruiting will be trained in the use of modern weapons, rifles, bombs, hand grenades and other explosives. And then there is added to the report something that sounds very dangerous. The report states that these 10,000 natives will be trained by the British Government in a military camp in Durban, at Clairwood Camp. But I ask the Rt. Hon. member to enlighten the House in connection with this matter. Is there any truth in it? If this is so South Africa is moving in more dangerous waters than one realises today. If in these British native territories in our midst, Swaziland, Basutoland and Bechuanaland, a large military force of 10,000 native soldiers is being created by the British Government, then it is dangerous in itself and still more dangerous when you take our internal native population into consideration; and even more dangerous if facilities are to be created inside the Union for their training.

In these dangerous circumstances it is South Africa’s duty to maintain a military force which, however small, must be well equipped. It must necessarily be small because we are poor. It is indispensable that the force should be equipped with modern weapons so that it ean carry out mobile warfare and, especially as far as internal defence is concerned, that they should not be tied down with the heavy weapons used on overseas battlefields. Before I proceed further I should like to tell the House what is more or less the policy of this side in connection with the matter, and I wish to sum up in a few points what our ideas are on post-war defence. I wish to put it with the realisation that as a result of circumstances new danger signals are to be observed at home and abroad. The first point I want to make is that South Africa needs a clearly defined military policy. That military policy must be elaborated. There was a sort of military policy at the time of the war, but the complaint is frequently heard that before the war—the Minister’s Department complained’ about this itself—there was no military policy and we are now entering a period of peace but hitherto we have been without military policy. We maintain that our military policy must take into consideration South Africa’s sovereign independence, its geographical situation, and its needs for protection such as may arise from time to time. We maintain further that in the dangerous world in which we live neutrality must remain South Africa’s first line of defence, and as far as attacks on South Africa from outside are concerned we must be bound neither directly nor indirectly to take part in any war. That puts in a nutshell the policy of this House as far as regards external defence. As far as considerations of defence affecting us internally are concerned, as well as externally, the Union must obviously be responsible for its own defence; the interests of South Africa must be placed first, and these factors must be studied that have special application to South Africa.

The next point we want to make is that as far as defence is concerned South Africa must not take part in a scheme of imperial defence. I shall return to that later in detail when I have the opportunity. The application of overseas solutions to South African problems is undesirable. In connection with defence it is definitely dangerous. Consequently each department of our national defence must be regarded purely from a South African viewpoint. The Union’s Defence Force on land, in the air and on the sea must be given a purely South African character, it must have a definite South African character it must cease being unilingual, it must be bilingual and it must begin building up in accordance with our own South African traditions. Despite the policy of the Department of Defence, the war has been instrumental in convincing our soldiers who served in the north that our Defence Force should have a South African character. When they come back, we hear from them that in spite of the policy of linking our Defence Force with the British Army our people are beginning to impart a distinctive South African character to the Defence Force. It is our opinion that South Africa must build up its own defence force tradition and not remain as it is today an appendage of the British Army. When we equip our forces it must be with armament that in every respect complies with the modern demands of national defence. It is no use carrying on with antiquated weapons; you must build up in conformity with modern armaments. Then we consider it is an important point that all Union harbours should be equipped, manned and defended by the Union itself. It is necessary to review the Smuts-Churchill agreement as far as Simonstown is concerned. This Parliament never approved the agreement. That Government could not bind its successors for all time as the Smuts Government was bound in 1922 by the Smuts-Churchill agreement.

Another point we wish to put is that the arming of our Defence Force should be planned for Europeans only.

Another point bearing in mind the importance of the Defence Force—which became so important in this war—is that we should enlarge our flying schools, that civilian flying clubs, especially small flying clubs, should be subsidised and that parachute training should be an important feature of any plan in connection with our air force. South Africa must have naval and mercantile services of its own, and their equipment should not be inferior to that of the air force, although the air force will have to be larger than our naval force.

A last point: The training of the South African Police must be tied up with the military training of the permanent force so that co-ordination of all our combatant forces in time of trouble can easily be arranged. In regard to this we must therefore revert to where we stood at the beginning when we instituted our Defence Force. The permanent force was then really supplementary to the Police Force. I read, for instance, in the Year Book this description about the commencement of the permanent force—

At that time we had a modest standing force of 2,500 men. I see from the Press reports that the Minister of Defence intends to have a permanent force—land, sea and air—of about 8,000 men. I want to say that in our opinion that is too modest for these times. The time may arrive in South Africa when the permanent force can be reduced, but in these dangerous times South Africa ought to have a permanent force of between 10,000 and 15,000 men in its three divisions, land, sea and air forces.

To turn to the internal working of the Defence Force I wish to express the hope that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will cease being also Minister of Defence. It has been the custom in South Africa ever since Union that the Prime Minister should not be Minister of Defence as well, except perhaps in time of war. When General Botha was Prime Minister he had his Minister of Defence in the person of General Smuts. At that time General Botha was also Minister of External Affairs, but he was not Minister of Defence. When the present Prime Minister took up that post in 1919 he appointed his own Minister of Defence, the late Col. Mentz. He did not himself remain Minister of Defence. There are reasons for that. When Gen. Hertzog came into power in 1924 he did not assume the portfolio of Defence, but he appointed Col. Creswell. Wheh a new government was formed under Gen. Hertzog in 1933 he again appointed a Minister of Defence, Mr. Pirow. It was only when the war broke out in 1939 that the Prime Minister of today also became Minister of Defence. In time of war this may be right.

Other countries did the same.

But we are reverting to peacetime, and I wish to make an appeal to the Prime Minister in view of the duties with which he is charged, he should drop the portfolio of Defence. As Prime Minister he has his hands full, but in addition to that he is Minister of External Affairs. I do not see how he can also look after the duties of Minister of Defence. I mention this particularly because in the times ahead of us special attention will have to be devoted to the Department of Defence. Things will have to happen in the Department of Defence; better supervision will have to be maintained over the Department, and the Prime Minister cannot bring that about. I hope he will give his attention to this suggestion.

There are some disquieting features in regard to the composition of our Defence Force. I have already stated that I feel the Permanent Force should have a strength of from 10,000 to 15,000 men. In times of unrest you do not want to dislocate normal business and activities when you need men for your first line of defence. You do not want this dislocation unless it is absolutely necessary, and consequently a strong and modernly equipped Permanent Force is necessary which will be available at any time without any dislocation.

Our Citizen Forces, I consider, should also remain as they are. I think it is a sound legislative provision that all citizens of the country between 17 and 25 years af age should undergo a compulsory four-year course. I think that is wise. I also consider it right, as the law lays down, that businesses and other concerns must give these lads leave when they report for training during the four years they serve, without making any deduction from their holidays or any deduction of wages. I think the law is good as far as this is concerned, except that greater discretion should be used to take into careful consideration the various interests of South Africa when the lads are called up.

But, as far as the Citizen Forces are concerned, we had some time ago a disquieting announcement by the Minister of Defence, where he stated that he was going to cut down the Citizen Forces from 140,000 men to 30,000. I do not know whether the report was correct. If it is correct, I hope he will give us an explanation. Why, just at this stage, should the commandos be reduced from 140,000 to 30,000? Furthermore, I think that the National Reserve ought to remain as it is, namely, that all the Europeans in our country between the ages of 17 and 60 should constitute the National Reserve. This was the case, and I think it ought to remain at that.

But what is also disturbing is the statement that appeared recently in the Press that the Permanent Force will be enlarged to its full strength—but how? According to the official announcement published in February this year, it is stated that the recruits for our Permanent Force will in the first place be taken from men who have returned from the war. I do not wish to raise serious objection to that, except to say that we are back to peace time, and the Force ought to be thrown open to all European lads. But what I do object to is the second point in the statement, which says that subsequently the recruiting will be from men who remained at home but who contributed to Defence by signing the Africa general service oath. What has the red oath to do with enrolment in the Defence Force? The red oath was introduced for this war. We criticised it strongly. Now I cannot understand, seeing that we are back to peace, that preference should still be given to people who signed the Africa oath. It is a strange development that the Prime Minister should apply in peace time something that he instituted for the war. In other words, he is going to exclude quite a number of lads in South Africa who, for reasons of their own, very good reasons, would not sign the oath. He is penalising them by excluding them from the Permanent Force. In any case, according to this statement, the others will have preference. I think that the hon. Minister owes an explanation why he made the official statement so late. The red oath was for use during the war. An explanation is consequently necessary. In the statement it is stated that those who held key positions and who consequently could not go to the front and who signed the Africa service oath will be given preference. Many lads who would like to join were not disposed to sign the red oath. Now we suddenly have an official declaration of this sort from Pretoria.

I turn to another matter in connection with the Defence Force, and that is the post of Chief of General Staff. Personally, I have nothing against Sir Pierre van Ryneveld, but it was a disappointment to me in the past few days to learn that the Prime Minister intends to retain Sir Pierre van Ryneveld as head of the General Staff for a further period. There are some reasons why Sir Pierre van Ryneveld should rather stand down for someone else at this stage, seeing that peace is back. I wish to mention three reasons for what I am saying here. The first is that during the years he has been head of the General Staff the Defence Force has been more closely linked than at any other time since Union to the British Army. I do not think that will be denied. Persons in the Defence Force complain: We are a part of the British Army; the sooner we can get away from that the better. During the war this was the case to an even greater extent than perhaps at any other time. The second reason is that the Defence Force during this period was practically a completely unilingual force. Why should an Afrikaans-speaking lad have to ask to have his training in his own language in the Defence Force, whether it is the Air Force or the Navy or the land forces? This is not expected of the English-speaking people. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to the future of the Wentworth Camp. I know it is a matter on which the Prime Minister has already been approached. I think he will gather from the fact that he has been approached more than once on the matter that it is of some concern to Durban. Let me say in the first place that the camp is a magnificent institution, and it served us well during the war. It is a collection of buildings which are really excellent and the equipment there is of a very high order. Altogether it is a credit to the responsible military authorities. The future of the camp is of course the subject matter of a tripartite agreement between the Government, the Admiralty and the Durban Corporation. As I understand the position, in terms of that agreement the Durban Corporation were given certain rights which they could exercise in respect of the camp after the conclusion of hostilities, but on consideration the Corporation finds that it does not suit it to exercise these rights. The question therefore now arises as to the future of this magnificent collection of buildings in which a lot of skill and money has been invested. It would be a great pity if the amenities which have been established there were allowed to go unused. But there is a need which this camp can fulfil, and that is that it should serve for the future as the military headquarters in ‘Durban. From almost every point of view the camp at present could serve that purpose in an ideal manner. All that can be said against it at the moment is that we have headquarters at Snell Parade. But the fact of the matter is that the headquarters at Snell Parade are generally regarded as unsatisfactory from almost every point of view. It was the handiwork of an ex-Minister of Defence, and it is in keeping with the reputation which he now enjoys. It is most unsightly and it is badly placed. It hinders the natural development of the area in which it is situated. In that particular area there would be, but for this unsightly building, in time to come, development in line with what is to be seen higher up on the Beach. That is the natural development of Durban, but it will be obstructed and prevented by the presence of this unsightly building. For that reason the answer to the problem seems to be the transference of headquarters to the Wentworth Camp. It is true that the camp is not in the heart of Durban. It is a matter, I should say, of perhaps 15 or 20 minutes at the most by motor transport from the present headquarters, and with motor transport restored to normal that surely cannot be any problem at all. I hope the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will find it possible to say that after due consideration it has been decided to meet what I know is the wish of the Corporation of Durban, that this change should be made.

I wish to identify myself entirely with what the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has said, that while peace has returned it is a peace that causes us anxiety in South Africa. If ever there was a time when our defence system should be placed in a state to afford further protection to South Africa it is today, and I think that the Minister of Defence and the Government should not for a moment flinch from spending large sums of money to enable our defence organisation to be in a state to defend our country properly against any attack that may come. We observe how the pots are already on the boil and the biggest menace I see today is within our own ranks. Although we were not in favour of the war we have on every occasion tried when it has come to a question of the defence of our country to give our best and most loyal support to the Government. That is why we feel today it is our duty to support the Minister of Defence from this side of the House just as it is in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member for Moorreesburg rightly said that we did not want to model our defence system on any imperial plan of defence, but that we should take what is good out of the past and build on it for the future. The waging of war today is nothing like it was in the old days. The circumstances are entirely different. Even out of this war that has just passed we must look for the best methods and the most efficient system to bring the defence of our country into order. Therefore I say that even out of the imperial defence plan we must take what is best for South Africa. If we annex things without them suffering at all and if it is to the benefit of South Africa it will mean much for us.

I wish to touch further on what the hon. member for Moorreesburg has said over the way in which our Defence Force is trained. We feel that we, as Afrikaans-speaking people, have been ’ brushed aside, but the circumstances may have been of such a character that this was difficult to avoid. We trust now, however, that the policy will be changed, and that the training will no longer be given in one language only. That must now come to an end. It must be bilingual training. We are in favour of bilingualism. We admit the rights of the English-speaking people in the country, and as a result of that we feel it is the duty of the Minister of Defence to see to it that we are not neglected. In the past we had the system of Defence Rifle Associations. I know that the Minister of Defence is frightened because he said there was a commandantgeneral with 60,000 men behind him, and that that would be a terribly big danger. I think the Minister of Defence knows what happened in the past. He is also not one of those people who is easily scared or takes fright at a shadow. The injustice that was done to people who did not agree with him in the war was very regrettable. They were disarmed, and with all the alarming crimes that are now occurring in the country we feel that the system should be revived. We must arm the people properly. That is why today I do not take part in shooting competitions when members of Parliament are invited to compete with the navy. It is ages since we last fired a shot, and now we hardly know how to aim. When I was an officer I tried to train my men properly and to make them efficient in musketry. As a result of that, we have never hesitated about taking part in shooting contests, but when we are invited as members of Parliament to take part in these contests we are totally unprepared.

No doubt your eyes are bad.

No, that is not the difficulty. If the Minister of Defence will allow me to use a rifle, we shall see whose eyes are better, that hon. member’s or mine. The point I want to make is that we should revive the Rifle Associations and that we should be subsidised in a better way so that we can train these men properly. The training should include a course with machine-guns. I know that this would involve a tremendous organisation, but it is necessary. We must also train our soldiers on the mechanical side, so that they can handle tanks There ought to be a proper course, and it is possible because we have people of various ages in our Citizen Force and in our Rifle Associations. It is necessary that they should be properly trained today for modern warfare. The horse has had its day, although most certainly we shall never abandon the mounted system entirely in the interior. It is a tradition of which we are very proud. Our wapenshaws are to us something grand, and I know that the Minister of Defence still takes pride in them. But, in addition to that, I feel that we should make use of the Rifle Clubs to train men for modern warfare.

Then there is the Essential Services Protection Corps. We have seen that without that sort of service we could not manage in regard to our internal security. It is a system that we ought to develop. We should not hesitate, as in the past, on account of being afraid to persuade the taxpayer to make provision for his own safety. The security of our white civilisation is at stake. We must be properly equipped and properly trained to be able to defend ourselves within our own borders.

Then I come to another matter that is of supreme importance to us, namely, the strengthening of our Air Force. The atomic bomb is a very dangerous thing, and therefore we must strengthen our Air Force. We must train our men and let them practise, so that they may quickly learn to handle any sort of aircraft. This war has shown that our young men are men of steel, and their achievements have been distinguished. We hope and trust that the Government will not hang back, but give proper training to these men, because our young lads are anxious to take that course.

I wish to associate myself with the request made by the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg) for a reply from the Minister of Finance with regard to the utilisation of the H.M.S. Assegai Camp at Wentworth as the future headquarters in Natal. The camp at Assegai is not only eminently suitable but it is a camp which has cost over £1,000,000, and has come to be regarded by experts as one of the best, if not the best, military camp in all the Dominions. My concern perhaps is not so much with the desirability of these premises being taken over by the Government, but rather from the point of view that the present headquarters are eminently unsuited for this particular work, so much so that I want to put it to the Minister of Defence from this point of view, that in the consideration of a policy for the future defence headquarters of Natal he should seriously consider removing the headquarters from the present site. My reason for making that request is that the present headquarters are holding up the town planning of Durban. I do not want to deal with this site from the point of view of the buildings thereon except to say that I have served in this particular building, and half the walls are propped up with poles. My main concern is not so much with the unsuitability of these present premises but from the point of view of the town planning of Durban as a whole. There can be no doubt in connection with the development of the foreshore and beach in Durban which is taking place this is indeed a blot on the landscape, and I think it would be to the credit of Durban if the Minister could see fit to remove these defence headquarters to some other part of the town, and in that connection it seems use might be made perhaps of H.M.S. Assegai. There is another point I wish to raise. It has been brought to my notice that a number of young men who have been invited to join the Permanent Force have been given application forms; these forms have been sent in, and there is serious complaint from these men that some considerable time elapses before they receive any reply to their communications.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

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