At the outset I want to express our gratification at having the Minister of Finance present. We are very glad that he has recovered to the extent of being able to be present. As the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has observed, without his presence at a Budget debate it is almost like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark; but I think that as far as the taxpayers are concerned the analogy would be more correct if we say that it is like Hamlet without the Ghost. The Minister of Finance provoked a comparison of our national debt with that of neutral countries by referring to Sweden, and other hon. members on the opposite side thereupon continued in that strain. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) told us that had South Africa remained neutral she would have been bankrupt. He did not react to an interjection of mine: “In the same way as Eire.” Another hon. member, the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), went still further and said that no country in the world, whether belligerent or neutral, has had such a small increase in its national debt as South Africa. I want to take up that challenge, and I just want to confine myself to two neutral countries, viz., Portugal and Eire, countries much nearer the theatre of war than South Africa; and I want to indicate how the neutral countries have participated in the world prosperity which has resulted from the war, while those countries did not bear the burden in connection with the war. Eire has a population of three millions, somewhat more than our European population. Her national debt as at 31st March, 1939, was £61,500,000, and as at 31st March, 1944, it was £74,500,000.

That was two years ago.

I want to draw the same comparison in regard to South Africa. In quoting figures I want to be fair. These are the last figures available in respect of Eire, and in drawing a comparison I am taking the same figures in respect of South Africa. During the first five years of the war the national debt of Eire was increased by £13,000,000, i.e., 21 per cent. During the corresponding period our national debt increased from £278,000,000 to £474,500,000, i.e., an increase of 70½ per cent. during the corresponding period. Of course, today it is far more than 100 per cent., but I am taking the national debt as at 31st March, 1944. Let us go a little further and consider the position in regard to imports and exports. As far as Eire is concerned the position was that in 1938 she had a visible unfavourable trade balance of £17,500,000 by which 1943 she had converted into a visible favourable trade balance of almost £1,500,000. And what has happened in South Africa?

According to the hon. member for Vereeniging Eire should be bankrupt.

Yes, Eire should have been bankrupt. But I am taking a third comparison, viz., the taxes levied during the war years. Eire started off with an expenditure of £33,000,000 in 1938-39; more or less the same amount we were getting in taxes at that time. That increased to £45,000,000 in the case of Eire; that is to say, an increase of approximately £12,000,000 in taxes levied on the population during the five years, or in other words, an increase of 36 per cent. And South Africa? During the corresponding period, although they both began on the £33,000,000 notch, taxation in Eire only increased to £45,000,000, whereas in South Africa it increased to £92,500,000; in other words, an increase in taxation during the corresponding period of five years of 180 per cent. as compared with 36 per cent. in the case of Eire. But that is not all. There are other matters to which I want to direct attention, seeing that a comparison has been invited. We recently had a Sapa report in connection with the post-war position in Eire, which remained neutral and which, according to the hon. member for Vereeniging, should now have been practically bankrupt. The report says—

The report shows that the building up of reserves in Eire during the last seven years has been proceeding at the rate of £40,000,000 per annum, and goes on to say—

That does not look very much like bankruptcy. But Eire also made her contribution during the war. It is important that our Minister of Agriculture should also hear this paragraph from the report—

The report concludes by saying—

I wish we could say that in regard to South Africa. Let me take Portugal. She has a population of 7,750,000. Her national debt increased from 1st January, 1939, to 1st January, 1944, by 22 per cent. as compared with 70½ per cent. in the case of the Union. Portugal converted a visible unfavourable trade balance of 727,000,000 escudos in 1939 to a favourable trade balance of 793,000,000 escudos in 1943; in other words, her export has increased enormously—it has increased from 1,300,000,000 escudos to 4,000,000,000 escudos. Portugal has also had to increase her taxes just as any other country, but the increase in her taxes merely amounted to 955,000,000 escudos, or a 34 per cent. increase as against 180 per cent. in the case of South Africa. These figures speak for themselves, and I hope they will now finally put a quietus on the unadulterated nonsense we so often hear in this House that her participation in the war has been to the economic advantage of South Africa and that she would not have had these advantages had she remained neutral. Our participation in the war may possibly be justifiable on other grounds; that is still largely a matter of opinion, but the economic position can no longer be a matter of opinion. As far as her economic position is concerned the logic of figures and the inexorability of facts have clearly disproved the allegation that South Africa has benefited by taking part in the war. I hope this will finally dispose of the allegation that South Africa has benefited as regards her economic position. I now come to the estimates, and I must say that if you have £16,000,000 to play with you cannot but do the right thing some time. The Minister has done certain things for which we and the country are thankful, and we want to express our appreciation. For instance, where he tries to encourage scientific research, this side of the House welcomes it. Where he allows a deduction in respect of children between the ages of 18 and 21 years we welcome it. Where he abolishes the railway passengers tax—which he should never have imposed—he comes to his political senses; and where he abolishes the personal tax in regard to the lower-income group it also meets with our approval. These are things for which we have been striving the last three years or longer. A deaf ear has always been turned to our pleas, and that concession is made now only; nevertheless, we are glad that it has now been done, even though it has been done by this Government, because we consider it to be in the interests of the people. As regards the fixed property tax he has in part met our representations, and the same applies in the case of transfer duty and the excess profits tax. Unfortunately he did not go as far as we would have liked him to go in regard to those matters, but considering that he would not do so in the past we are glad that he has at least in this Budget given effect to our representations in part. But having said these things I have exhausted everything that can be said in favour of this Budget. All the things I have mentioned are things for which we have exerted ourselves, and these are the sound things in the Budget. Whatever you encounter further invites criticism. The hon. member for George rightly observed that where you have to do with a reduction of taxes there are only two tests you can apply. The first is whether the amount of the reductions is adequate, i.e., whether it should not have been more. The second test is whether the relief given with the amount on hand is spread over the whole population in the proper manner and whether the relief is accorded to people who are most in need of it and in a manner which will benefit the country to the greatest extent. As regards the first test, we submit that the amount should have been very much more than £16,000,000. The hon. member for George has already indicated certain directions which would have meant an increase. As alternatives there are few more I would like to mention. In the first place, it has already become customary for the Minister of Finance to underestimate the revenue derived from excess profits. During the past year, with which we are now dealing, he underestimated the revenue derived from excess profits by £3,000,000, and during the preceding three years he underestimated the revenue by £2,000,000 per annum on an average. In the new Budget the Minister is making his estimate on the old basis £1,250,000 less than the actual revenue during the past year. With this record of underestimates we are justified in saying that the Minister is underestimating his revenue from excess profits duties by at least £2,000,000. In other words, the amount of £16,000,000 should have been increased by £2,000,000 because it will in all probability appear that he has again underestimated by at least £2,000,000. And then we come to the saving on the war expenses account. That should have been much more. We are not complaining about the assistance the Minister is giving for post-war purposes, viz., the additional provision amounting to £15,000,000. I do not want to discuss that now, but a greater saving could have been effected on the war expenses account. After all, it is already nine to ten months since victory day, and the war expenditure should have been reduced to a much greater extent. I am putting it at £2,000,000 only, which I think can be regarded as a fair figure. Then there is an amount of £10,000,000 for the purchase of foodstuffs which are required as a result of the fatal policy of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance in not encouraging proper food production, in not following the example of Eire where food production has increased by more than 100 per cent. I am not sure whether this, £10,000,000 should be regarded as an amount for subsidies which we will have to pay on the foodstuffs imported or whether that is for the total amount of food to be imported.

Subsidy.

From where does the money come for the purchase of these foodstuffs?

It is financed by the Reserve Bank.

I think the hon. member for George and the other hon. members were under the impression that the £10,000,000 represented the amount for the purchase of foodstuffs. He did not know that it represented the amount of the subsidy. We are now being asked for £10,000,000 but the basis on which these subsidies are to be paid is unknown. But I also want to know this: If we have to pay the £10,000,000 in subsidies, is it the proper thing for the amount to be paid from the public’s income last year? Income tax and excess profits duties are always in respect of the previous year. I want to put that at a small amount but the £2,000,000 could in any event have been kept over for the next year’s account so that it can be paid from the incomes of those people who received assistance during the war. It would be fair to add another £2,000,000 to the £16,000,000 in this connection. That could have been done without injustice to anyone. Then we have seen the boom in shares on the stock exchange. The least the Minister could have done was to employ the boom to advantage. Had he imposed a duty of 1 per cent. only or increased the stamp duties on all share transactions he could have netted another £1,000,000. Finally, there is last year’s surplus of £3,300,000. The Minister is charging the £200,000 or £300,000 to the Department of Social Welfare, but why did he not use the remaining £3,000,000 for taxation relief during the present year?’ That has resulted from excessive taxation during the previous year. I agree with the Minister in many respects that we should strengthen our financial position and should try to reduce our national debt, but in the same Estimates he has already taken £11,000,000 as a result of the revaluation of our gold stocks and he has applied that towards reducing our national debt. He has applied another £1,500,000, viz., the balance in the war damage insurance fund, towards reducing the national debt. He has therefore already applied £12,500,000 towards reducing our national debt in an unusual way. I think we should not overdo things. We should not unduly impose the burdens of posterity on this generation; not even when we are posterity as the Minister of Finance has said here. We should impose a limit on that conservative financial policy so as not to follow that conservative policy to the extent of retarding the development of this country. That £3 million could have been utilised to give further relief during years when prosperity should be encouraged with a view to our peace-time economy. Those items together amount to over £10 million. These are alternative proposal to those suggested by the hon. member for George. I think that between the two one can reasonably assume that the amount which should have been available for taxation relief should have been at least £26 million and not £16 million. If the Minister of Finance were to come along now and say that if he had allowed all that money to circulate in the country it would have aggravated inflation, then I say that the additional £10 could have been kept out of circulation by means of compulsory savings so that it could not be spent by the public forthwith in purchasing consumable goods. The public could have had the benefit of that but it would not have been available to be spent on ordinary consumable goods but for goods of a capital and durable nature which would have contributed to future prosperity. It could have been utilised as reserves for business undertakings during the lean years ahead of us, for the years of depression when business undertakings which have had no opportunity to build up reserves during the war years could have been enabled to obtain the necessary reserves in this manner. The Minister of Finance should not tell me that had he allowed the £10 million it would have aggravated inflation in this country. The second point is in regard to the spread-over of the amount of £16 million which the Minister proposed as reductions. I think there are two things which merit priority on such a list. The first is relief for the lower and middle income groups who were squeezed dry during the war years, not only through additional taxes, especially indirect taxes, but also through increased cost of living. I say that we should have applied at least half the available amount towards granting relief to those people who had to endure the heat of the day; affording them relief not simply because they shouldered these burdens but also in order to develop our labour to the greatest extent in this country with a view to future production. The second item on this priority list should have been the encouragement of production; that is to say, the encouragement of investments where most needed. That is a very important qualification. We should encourage investments where they are most needed with a view to the future of the country.

I do not want to say too much in regard to the first item. There will again be an opportunity to do so. The indirect taxes are as high as ever. Simultaneously with the announcement of the Budget there appeared an announcement in regard to the increase in the price of milk, butter and eggs. That is all the poorer people in this country received. The same day practically no relief was announced as far as they were concerned, except the personal tax. But whereas no relief was announced for the ordinary income tax payer except in respect of the 5 per cent. levy, they learned that the price of essential foodstuffs had increased. There has been no reduction as regards clothing, tobacco and beer. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will say that these are things the people do not require. That is the poor man’s pleasure. He has no motor car to drive around with; the man who owns a car and drives about for his pleasure has received relief but no relief was accorded to the poor man who has to smoke a little because that is the only pleasure he has in life.

What about liquor?

Yes, there has been no rebate in regard to beer and wine. There will be an opportunity to discuss these matters further. We consider that at least half the amount should have been applied in that direction.

We now come to the encouragement of investments where they are most needed. I want to distinguish between the investment of savings in things such as fixed deposits, mortgages, shares in established companies, etc. Those are not really the investments I have in mind. The investments I have in mind are investments in durable things which are essential to the development of the country. Part of the national income is always saved; I am referring to that part of the savings of the public which is invested in durable capital investments such as machinery, the industries and improvement of the soil. That is an investment in durable things, and those are the investments which require to be encouraged—not to buy more shares in established companies; that does not encourage the development of the country. Those investments in durable things can be effected in various ways. The money can be invested in primary and secondary industries; it can be invested in mines; for the development of new mines or for the purchase of machinery for the better development of old mines; it can go towards the establishment of new industries or the purchase of new machinery for old industries; it can be applied to improvement of the soil and machinery for the more effective cultivation of the soil. I have no doubt whatsoever that of these three the one last mentioned is the most important. I am saying this in view of the world food shortage we have at present. I now want to deal shortly with investments in durable things, and I say that agriculture should rank for first priority. What is agriculture getting? Positively nothing. We consider that the excess profits tax should at least have been abolished completely in regard to food production in South Africa. There is nothing which hampered increased food production to a greater extent during the last six years than the excess profits tax. I do not want to repeat the figures I quoted in the debate on the no confidence motion. The Minister of Finance still owes me a reply on those figures. I say that it has hampered production in this country, and the least we could have expected was that the excess profits tax would have been abolished as far as food production is concerned. Then we come to the profits tax on fixed property. That should also have been abolished as regards the purchase price of farms where the farmer’s object was to produce and to make a living and where he did not purchase the farm for speculative purposes. That also applies to the special bonus on transfer duties. In the third place the least we could have expected in connection with the encouragement of agricultural production was that the Minister would have allowed all improvements which would have resulted in increased production, such as water and soil conservation, to be deducted from income tax—the full amount. As far as agriculture is concerned, nothing whatsoever has been obtained.

Then we come to mining. The Minister has applied a sum to the mines but it has been done in such a way as to encourage the wrong sort of investment. I admit the importance of the gold mining industry in our national economy, but that importance can easily be overrated. When one thinks of the propaganda made by the Chamber of Mines it is obvious that they have been overdoing it shamefully; and moreover it is clear that the Minister of Finance has fallen a victim to that propaganda campaign. In this connection the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), one of the foremost industrialists in this country, told us what great advantage accrues to the country from the gold mining industry. He said, inter alia, that almost all the secondary industries were dependent upon the gold mining industry. I wonder in what capacity he was speaking—as Mr. Hyde, the Sap-frontbencher or Dr. Jekyll, the industrialist; and I wonder what his fellow-industrialists are going to say about his speech. We already have an indication of that. In the latest edition of “Industry and Trade” the editor writes as follows on the topic of the propaganda of the Chamber of Mines—I just want to say here that the hon. member for Vereeniging should read the whole article, but I just want to quote one paragraph—

They are already saying that today. I am afraid the Minister of Finance is one of those people who succumbed to the propaganda of the gold mines and that he simply accepts that anything which is not in the interests of the gold mining industry must necessarily be deleterious to the national economy as a whole. We on this side admit the great importance of the gold mining industry as far as our national economy is concerned, but we view the gold mines in their proper perspective, in the perspective of the national economy as a whole; and when we do that we will not be guilty of such exaggeration.

We have no objection to the Minister endeavouring to reduce the cost structure of the gold mines. The abolition of the pass fees and of claims licences can be justified on that basis. I would go further; even the encouragement of new mines can be justified if it is actually used for that purpose. Where capital expenditure on new mines is regarded as costs for taxation purposes, it can be approved if it is applied to the purpose for which it is intended, viz., to promote the development of new mines. That is something one would feel inclined to support particularly, because it will not at once reduce the income by way of taxes from the mines, but only over a period of years. I say that something can be said in favour of that, and also as regards the treatment for taxation purposes of new capital expenditure on old mines; but where that relief simply encourages speculation in shares, there is no justification whatsoever for it. I am afraid that has been the immediate result of the relief given—not actually to encourage the development of new mines, but simply to encourage speculation in shares in existing mines or new mines which have already secured their capital, but which have not yet gone into operation. That has been the immediate result. According to a Sapa report from London, this has been the immediate result. The report appears under the heading—

It is interesting to read the report, because they figured out in London who was going to benefit by this relief; the mines do not require capital. Listen to this—

The report points out that the operational profits of the gold mines amount to approximately £33 million, of which the Government of South Africa has taken approximately £19 million, while the shareholders obtained £14 million. The report goes on to say—

Dividends will, on an average, be increased by 23 per cent.; but what encouragement is that for new mines? According to the figures given by the Chairman of the Stock Exchange, we find that the position is today that for every £1 required for the development of the mines, the value of the shares is £4. In other words, for every £4 invested by the public in gold mines, only £1 has been utilised for actual development of the mines, the remaining £3 having been paid to shareholders as profit on capital and not to the company for development purposes. This relief does not foster the actual investment we require. It is not the sort of investment we should encourage, and that is what this Budget does; that is why we have had the boom on the Stock Exchange. We want to encourage the proper type of investment, but not speculation. The special contribution of the mines has been reduced to an amount of £6,800,000, while the normal “formula” tax has been increased by approximately £4½ million. That means that relief has been accorded to the extent of £2¼ million, and it is nothing more than a windfall for shareholders, and it has done little towards encouraging the development of new mines. It has been calculated that £12 million to £15 million would be required for the development of gold mines in the Free State. The capital has already largely been found. Shares at 10s. are quoted at 100s. Thus, 90s. has gone, not towards development, but towards speculation in shares to the advantage of a few, but to the detriment of many others. The capital actually required for the gold mining industry is the capital originally put into the mine, plus that portion of unpaid profits which is used for capital purposes.

I have to hurry. In regard to the relief for the gold mines I would like to summarise that the mines had no need for capital encouragement. Prior to the budget speech there was a tremendous boom on the share market. The relief granted, which amounted to £2¼ million, did not make capital available for further development; it was swallowed up in dividends of producing mines as a basis for further speculation in shares. We say that the Minister could at least have profited by those speculations which he encourages in the manner which I suggested earlier in my speech. But I am afraid the position is that the Minister of Finance yielded to the clumsy propaganda of the Chamber of Mines. He again proved that he and his Government is bent on championing the continuation and the strengthening of the individualistic capitalistic system with all its evils, and that the Government does not intend taking over their control but is willing to allow that old system to continue as before.

As far as secondary industries are concerned, I would briefly like to say this. It is the third group in regard to relief which I have mentioned. As regards the reduction in the excess profits tax, I would like to point out that only the total figure of the tax has been reduced, but all the inequalities of which we have complained for years have remained just as much an obstacle in the way of investment as has been the case in the past. There is only relief in the degree but not in the nature of the tax. It might be that the Minister has such a great admiration for his own handiwork that he is not prepared to admit that it could be improved, because the evils of that tax as regards the uneven incidence thereof, remains unchanged as before. The Minister concluded by saying that in this Budget efforts were made to give the nation guidance. Where is the guidance in regard to increased production in the field of agriculture? Where is the guidance in regard to increased production in industry? There is nothing of the kind. Not one word has been said about it. What about the development of our Industrial Development Corporation into an industrial bank which could provide for the capital needs of the country? No mention has been made in the Budget about an investment arrangement to utilise the savings of the nation for investment in durable goods.

There is little in this Budget that might lead to the increase in the national income; there is little that might lead to increased employment or to a raised standard of living, or to a more proportional distribution of the national income. It is a Budget which merely cuts off bits and pieces of a number of war levies. It is a Budget without vision and without imagination; it is a Budget without guidance and that at a time when the nation is eagerly looking forward to guidance, to a solid and firm foundation on w;hich they can build peace economy. That is the tragedy of this Budget. It is a Budget of “might have beens.”

I would also like to express my pleasure in the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance is able to take his place in the House this morning. We know that he is one of the Ministers who is very rarely ill. We are glad that he has recovered sufficiently, to be able to take charge of his duties again. I can very well understand that the reference by the Minister of Finance to the war debt of Sweden was a very sore point for members on the other side. The hon. member who has just sat down (Dr. Dönges) in his turn saw fit to quote Ireland. We all know, and nobody knows it better than they themselves, what the position of Ireland is. We know that Ireland lies, as it were, in the bosom of England. It has a market right on its doorstep and there was no question in its case of having to safeguard transport.

What about Portugal?

I am now dealing with Ireland. I say that she has a market at her doorstep whereas we are a thousand miles removed from our market, upon which we are in the first instance dependent. No, that is not a comparison which will go down in this House.

You are insulting the intelligence of the House.

Nor will this comparison go down with the people, because it is not parallel. The future will still prove whether Ireland did choose the right course. What hon. members on the opposite side must also not forget, is that we fought this war and won this war also for Ireland. We also had a home front on our hands. That is why approximately £200,000,000 was added to our national debt as a result of having to fight the war. It is insignificant compared with what we received in return, and I am sure that even this Opposition will still be very grateful towards the Government for the success with which it has waged the war and for the great value obtained for our country, in return for this increase of our public debt by £200,000,000.

But what about Portugal?

I can deal with Portugal, too, but my time is limited and it can be done on another occasion. I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance on this Budget. It is undoubtedly one of the most favourable budgets that any country which has participated in the war could yet present to its Parliament. In addition to that it surpasses even the most optimistic expectations of any thinking person in our own country. That is a fact which you cannot deny. When we come to the criticism expressed by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), we find that he has merely made his customary speech. Let me say this, that his speech is something to which we, and particularly to which I, look forward. But the fact that the hon. member for George finished his speech this year within the forty minutes, is sufficient evidence that there was so little in the Budget which he could criticise, that we did not have the privilege this year of granting him an extension of time.

He did get an extension; you were probably not here.

The criticism of the Opposition is that this is a rich man’s budget; that this is a budget for the mining magnates and that it leaves agriculture in the shadows.

That it leaves agriculture in the lurch.

Put it like that, if you like. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) who seconded the amendment of the hon. member for George, tried to prove with figures that what he called the big capitalists received practically all the relief granted, namely, £14 million, whereas the masses of the people received relief only to the extent of about £2 million. We all know that, as the hon. member who has just sat down said, one can prove anything with figures. Let us assume that the hon. member for Kuruman gave the correct figures, but then he forgot to say the group which he called the big capitalists contributed at least 90 per cent. of the direct taxation to the State and that the masses of the people to which he referred, who only received relief to the extent of £2 million, hardly paid the other 10 per cent. of direct taxation.

Where did you get those figures from?

Those are the figures you gave.

I referred to the 90 per cent. and the 10 per cent.

That you can also get. If that is correct, it merely proves that the masses of the people received pro rata even greater relief than the group mentioned by the hon. member. If we take into consideration the respective contributions to taxation by the two groups, then the masses of the people received a considerably higher percentage of relief than the so-called big capitalists. Then we come to their criticism that agriculture has not been taken into consideration or, as the hon. member for George puts it, that agriculture has been left in the lurch. In this connection I can only say that those who are blind do not see and those who are deaf do not hear. If we take into account what has already been done for agriculture during these difficult years, probably the most difficult years we have experienced in the history of our country, then we can only hope that the Government will continue along the same lines and will carry out the same policy. We already have proof that every preparation has been made. The White Paper which has been issued not only sets out the further steps the Government intends taking, but it simply proceeds to build further upon the foundations already laid during the war years in respect of agriculture. What Government has ever done more to encourage production in this country than this Government? The results did not fail to follow. We were able to feed the people. Take agricultural machinery.

Tell us what the Government did.

I shall do that. What was the position with regard to agricultural machinery when war broke out? What did the Government not do to see to it that we obtained agricultural machinery and even to have it manufactured in the country? The Government assisted in the establishment of factories for the manufacture of agricultural machinery, so that today about 50 per cent. of our requirements are being manufactured in this country. So I can go on.

Do go on.

Take the fertiliser position. We know what the position was. There were no ships to bring it to us, and with the limited supplies available, we were provided in such a way that we could continue with our production, so that during the most difficult years and the period during which fertiliser was most scarce, our country could still achieve higher production than in any year before the war.

Do you think it was right that whisky was imported?

We can mention one point after another. If I had the time I could do so.

May I ask you ….

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) said that this White Paper was not even worth the paper it is printed on. The fact remains that hon. members on the opposite side are afraid that the Government will really carry out this constructive programme with regard to agriculture. We know it is a big task, but the Opposition members are afraid that this Government, which has already brought many big tasks to a successful conclusion, will also have success with our agriculture in future. Then their criticism will fall away, and they will not have a dissatisfied farming community on which they could live in future.

The farmers are now living on white paper.

The only direct taxation with which the agricultural industry as such is burdened is the ordinary Income Tax, the Super Tax, the Excess Profits Duty, with which any other section of the community is burdened, so that the relief granted here benefits agriculture to the same extent as any other industry.

To the same extent as the mines?

Take the wine industry.

You say it receives the same benefit as any other industry; the same as the mines?

If the hon. member would take into consideration the fact that my time is limited, I would be very glad.

You say that agriculture receives the same benefits as any other industries. I only want to know whether agriculture gets the same benefit as the mines.

Order, order. I must ask the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) please not to continue with his interjections.

The hon. member for Kuruman referred to the fact that even the wine and tobacco industries have received no relief. That may be true. We know that those are luxuries, but that is indirect taxation, and no relief has been granted to any other industry which is indirectly taxed. We have confidence—and I as a wine farmer, and as one who represents wine farmers, did not expect in the least that this tax on wine would be abolished immediately after the war.

Hear, hear.

I will defend what I am saying here before the wine farmers. The fact remains that we know that the Minister of Finance, as soon as he sees that the consumption is being affected by this tax, would be one of the first to come along and say: In this case I am going to grant relief; because he is the last man who would want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Hear, hear.

Furthermore, the farmer gets an exemption of 30 per cent. on all the improvements which he makes on his farm. That is quite right. It is the one industry in the country which is exposed to the vicissitudes of nature, such as no other industry in the country. We are told that there should be a 100 per cent. exemption in respect of improvements.

As in the case of the mines.

Let me say in this House that the agricultural industry does not ask for that.

You are talking nonsense.

He cannot do otherwise.

This 30 per cent. exemption which we have practically amounts to 100 per cent. which each farmer has received within one year of taxation. It is still more than 100 per cent. which every farmer spends on his farm within any one year of taxation, and the farmer who spends more than 30 per cent. of his gross income on improvements during one year is what we call a cheque book farmer, and he can afford to pay that tax.

Did you not propose 50 per cent. yourself at the agricultural congress?

No, he does not hear you now.

If the recommendations and the statement of policy contained in this White Paper are duly given effect to, as we may expect, then I want to express the hope that in the not too distant future the agricultural industry will not need even this 30 per cent., but that it will be on an equal footing with other industries and the mining industry in all other respects. We know that is the policy of the Government, and we have not the least fear that it will not be carried out successfully.

Hear, hear.

What we want is that the Government should actively carry out that policy, and what the agricultural industry needs is that it should have a stabilised price level for all its staple products, in order that we may know when we plant what the price of our products will be. That is all the agricultural industry needs in order to rehabilitate itself to the full extent and to raise itself to an equal footing with any other industry in the country. As we have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down, the one industry is being played off against the other. It is said that the gold mines receive all the benefit and that agriculture gets nothing. What is now actually the position with regard to the relief of approximately £2¼ million to the gold mines? Who are the shareholders in the gold mines? Are they exclusively big capitalists? I would like to know how many thousands of farmers are shareholders in the gold mines, who also share in this benefit. How many mineworkers are not also shareholders?

One per cent. of them.

Not even one per cent. of them.

The fact is that many of them are shareholders and they all receive this benefit. But if we take the gold mining industry and the agricultural industry, the two largest industries, and in my opinion the two industries which will have to support the country in future—and the one is dependent upon the other—then we find that every concession made in respect of the gold mines by way of dividends will benefit not only all the shareholders, consisting of the entire community and all classes of the community, but it will also benefit the agricultural industry. Relief is granted for the development of the existing mines and the limitation of the deep level mines, which we know are very valuable, and, further, the low-grade ore mines, and then also for the working of the Free State gold mines. We know that agriculture only obtained a market in the interior when the gold mines started, and we also know that the best market for agriculture has always been and shall in future be the interior market, and as long as the gold mines are maintained on a sound basis we know that they can provide us with that market. Why cannot we have a second Johannesburg in the Free State with an equally large market? It is in the best interests of agriculture that the gold mining industry should be maintained on such a basis that, together with all its associated secondary industries, it can provide us with that market which we need for our products in future. Before I conclude, I would also like to express some criticism of the Minister of Finance, and it ‘is this. I am very sorry that when the Minister quite rightly asked the Chambers of Commerce and the industries to meet him, or rather to submit a report to him, in connection with the taxation, that he did not also include the South African Agricultural Union. I hope that he will give us an explanation in this regard, It would in any case have contributed to bringing about the right understanding between these three large industries in our country. I may just mention to the House that a much better understanding already exists between the Chambers of Commerce, the industries and organised agriculture than existed some years ago. We already have a liaison officer between them, and if the Minister had taken this step, it would have done much to perpetuate this understanding which is so necessary for the successful co-operation between these three large industries in our country. I want to conclude, and I just want to say that the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) let the cat out of the bag the other day as to why they are criticising this Budget the way they are doing, and I just want to remind the House of what he said—

There he let the cat out of the bag. Our friends of the Opposition are afraid that the Government will also successfully carry out its extensive services which it has started and they are afraid that at the next election —just imagine, about three years ahead—the Government will be placed in too favourable a position in the country from the point of view of winning the election once again. Further criticism of those sort of remarks is not necessary. We have the proof that it does not go down with the people of our country.

First of all, on behalf of the Labour Party, I also wish to welcome the Minister of Finance on his return to the House. I hope he is well, and that the debate will not unduly exhaust him. Now, Mr. Speaker, in analysing the Minister’s Budget speech and his proposed taxation relief, I want to deal straight away with the statement that he is surrendering £16,045,000 revenue. When one looks at the extent to which the ordinary man in the street is going to gain, I can only find one item that is going to be of any benefit to the ordinary man, namely the elimination of the basic tax for married taxpayers. The other items, i.e., the repeal of the motor car tax on sales, the surcharge on telephone accounts, the repeal of the surcharge on railway fares, and the partial repeal of transfer duties, will not assist the man in the street generally, but only a limited number of them.

And the personal savings levy.

Even that is a very small proportion of this £16 million which will go to the benefit of the ordinary man in the street, and I think we have a perfect right to consider why it should be that after six years of war, when the ordinary man in the street has borne both in indirect and direct taxation the full burden of the heat of the day, now that the Peace Budget comes along there should be no consideration for him. He has borne the internal heat of the day in the factory, in the army and in every other direction, but yet the benefits given are benefits to the more prosperous members of the community. These are concessions to capital, and not directly to the individual worker. Therefore, I want to say that it is the right of the people of this country to demand that war taxation should be completely eliminated from this Budget, and that a new system of taxation, a new system of raising revenue for the Government with which to carry on the business of the country, should be considered. Therefore, if all war taxes were removed, I think to that extent one could believe that we have at last arrived at a position of peace. But I find that on top of that the Minister—and I would like him to give me his attention for a few moments—proposes to take £36 million from Loan Account, but at the same time he says that the reduced war expenditure is £18,350,000. After that he says: “The reduction was more significant in view of the fact that there would no longer be a Defence Force on the Loan Estimates”, referring to this £18 million. Now, last year, Defence expenditure was based on 50 per cent. Revenue and 50 per cent. Loan Account. Do I understand that he is abandoning that on this occasion, and that the £18 million will now all come from Revenue?

Yes, all of it.

That is a very serious position.

Do you advocate that we should go on borrowing for Defence?

The position is this, that it is still as the result of war commitments. The year before last, it was 45 per cent. and 55 per cent., 55 per cent. being on Loan Account and 45 per cent. from Revenue. Last year the balance was arrived at of 50 per cent. to 50 per cent., and now he is taking 100 per cent. from Revenue. The position is this, that he now proposes to take £36 million from Loan Funds, and he says that side by side with that the estimate of expenditure for the coming year, from 1st April, is reduced to £18 million. But we are also told that by the end of this month there will only be 22,000 men in the Defence Force. That then means that we have not yet come down to the pre-war position until we reach 12,000, which is in accordance with the Prime Minister’s own statement as to what the post-war army will be. I therefore say that he should have surrendered a great deal more to the taxpayer, particularly the small taxpayer, than he has done.

Hear, hear.

Another point I wish to take up with the Minister is this question of the increased amounts lying in the commercial banks. He told us that the increase for 1945 lying in the banks was £51,580,000. I take it that that brings the total deposits in the banks up to a sum considerably over £300,000,000. That money is idle capital. The Minister told us last year that this money would be available for expansion purposes, for industry and for the purchasing of further goods, but he does not tell us how he is going to guide that money in that direction. We had also the position of millions of that money being used for speculation on the Stock Exchange to a substantial extent. It is speculated. That creates, in a sense, inflation. This very speculation on the Stock Exchange is creating a form of inflation. Therefore it is essential—and that is the point I wish to put to the Minister—that we must have a system of guiding investment. I know it may sound an extraordinary proposition to put to the Minister, but I want to tell him that in his book, “General Theories”, Lord Keynes put forward the same sort of thing. He put forward this argument that the incidence of interest charges was a very sound thing if it could be brought down to a minimum, which he suggested should be between one and two per cent., and that that interest should in a general sense only be applicable to matters like housing and promoting durable production, that is, the production of means of production like machinery. To that extent interest charges were sound, effective and helpful, but when it came to other matters, producing consumers’ goods that are quickly consumed, then the position was not so important, and the question of interest, whether it was 1 per cent. or 3 per cent. or 4 per cent., would have very little effect on investments in that sense, and therefore it is essential— and he strongly recommended it—that Governments should guide the investment of surplus capital in certain directions; and, of course, we have seen that since then the Chancellor of the Exchequer has referred to the same thing and has tried to avoid money being used to form companies for race tracks and dance halls and such things which are of no immediate advantage to the public, and in many cases are actually a danger to the public. Therefore, one could put it this way to the Minister, that he must consider taking powers to guide that investment of capital.

Guide or control?

It must be compulsory guidance, of course, otherwise it would be useless. You must use the word “guide”, but when you read this book, you will see that his idea of guidance is to make it compulsory. You must guide surplus capital in a direction which will achieve the greatest good for the country, for industry and for the consuming public. On that basis there is no doubt that that is essential in order to avoid greater difficulties and a certain amount of ruination in this country. In the suggested development of gold fields in the Free State, you have development which ordinarily would be the occasion for a certain amount of speculation, as all mining propositions are up to a certain stage of development, but today we have this position where these shares of gold mining and other companies have gone far beyond anything that is justified by results or by the ordinary expectation from interest. What does, that convey? It conveys this, that this money not being available for any other investment at the moment, is therefore being wildly speculated with, and when the crash comes, as it must do, there will be many people ruined, and who will they be? They will be the smaller people, who have gone into this speculation because they have heard that money is being made on the Stock Exchange.

But control would not cover that.

It would, because you would then be compelled into guided investment, whether it is in mining or in any secondary industry. The guiding of investment would prevent that wild speculation.

It is not only a question of preventing speculation, but the following: We all know that the banks have substantial amounts of money lying idle. When the Reserve Bank has accumulated its £61 million extra reserve funds, the private banks are encouraged, by the very nature of things, by the increase in their own reserves, to be more liberal in giving credit, and therefore they also create what is known as secondary inflation. I am sure the Minister is aware of that position, and that he will do something about it. All these huge idle sums of money are a potential danger, tending to inflation, unless that money is guided into the right investments. There is another matter to which I want to draw the Minister’s attention, namely, the inclination towards forming huge combines. The other day reference was made by one •hon. member with regard to a milk combine. I do not wish to deal with that, because it is still before the House, but there are other combinations being formed for the purpose of practically forming cartels. Outstanding amongst these there is at the moment a certain transportation scheme. There was one formed some time ago in Johannesburg called the Public Utility Transport Services. That concern, as members know, paid a very high price to the owners of the bus service between Johannesburg and Alexandra. When we realise that today transport licences are being hawked at an exaggerated figure, licences costing £4 being sold for fantastic figures running into thousands of pounds, we have to take it that the payment of those sums will raise the cost of transportation to the user of the transport. Transportation companies, I understand, are allowed 8 per cent. before their profits are subject to taxation. If on top of all these expenses incurred by these companies for which the person using the transport has to pay there is added the position that as these cartels grow such a concern may also control motor cars, motor spares, rubber, etc., all that being supplied to the utility transport company thus making extra profit on it, it will be seen how serious the position is becoming. I understand that at present in Cape Town there is a bus service owning 37 buses and having 11 buses on order. I am informed that a new company is going to take over this company at a very high figure indeed, which will again mean added licences at exorbitant figures, if the new company expands, with the result that the poor travelling public of Cape Town —where there are many poor people—will have to pay more for their transportation. I put it to the Minister that that is a very serious matter. The same applies to many other industrial concerns. We have the position today of some of the mining holding houses, originally started for the purpose of holding gold mining shares, now holding interests in bakeries, cement factories, the distributive business, and many other things. I think it is essential to see that there is no exploitation, and I hope the Minister will deal with these matters. He will ask me how he can deal with them. I think the time has come when we should have an anti-cartel law in this country which will undertake to secure that where companies are formed or amalgamated for the purpose of exploitation, by excluding competition, that sort of thing will be prevented.

Start with the newspapers.

There are so many of these things that have to be dealt with. The tendency today is to have bigger and bigger concerns with more and more exploitation at the expense of what we may call the • more solid members of the community. We have often heard it said that the backbone of the nation is the producer, the worker and the small distributor. I want to say that they are being penalised. They are in danger of being still further penalised as the result of the formation of these companies, and I think such a law is absolutely necessary. I wish also to put this position to the Minister, that when he gave this House the figures by which he reduced taxes, he did not concede one favour to the ordinary population of this country, but in actual fact he has been rather mean and stingy with regard to these people. I would say to the House and to the country, as I said in the beginning, that they have the right to claim surrender or cancellation of all war taxes, and I want to quote to the Minister, who is a Greek scholar, the Greek proverb saying: That they who sleep on their rights forfeit them. I want to say to this House and to all members of all parties in the House, not to sleep on their rights, and compel the Minister to surrender all war taxes: they are in danger of forfeiting those rights, and I want the Minister to tell us what his policy in taxation is. We want him to bring in taxes based on peace conditions for the purpose of securing our social security, our national health service, and all the other things which, in principle, the Government has promised, but in practice has been so slow in giving effect to, and in so far as they have given effect to it they have shown meanness and stinginess. I have not much more time at my disposal, and I therefore say in conclusion that the Minister must adopt a completely new outlook. He must realise that the old system of taxation will no longer work, and that the people of this country will not any longer accept the old system of finance. The humbug of finance is becoming increasingly apparent to the people of this country, and they want a simplified system whereby all shall be taxed in proportion to their incomes, and particularly the small man who bears the burden and heat of the day shall be the first concern of any Government when it comes to taxation proposals.

In dealing with our amendment, I wish to confine myself mainly to the fourth part of the amendment, namely—

First of all, I just wish to refer to what the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus) said. He told the House that the £3 million received by the mines as relief in the form of reduced taxation would be used for two purposes. The one is, he says, for deep-level mining, and the other is for the mining of low-grade ore. It is strange that a responsible member can make such a statement in this House without advancing any proof for his point of view. As far as low-grade ore is concerned, I have nowhere seen that £3 million will be used for mining it, and secondly the hon. member knows just as well as I do that there is already a Bill in connection with deep-level mining before the House. We cannot go into this, but the Bill provides whence the funds are to come. The two statements of the hon. member are, therefore, without any foundation.

In dealing with this very important amendment, I am prepared to state readily that we on this side of the House are fully aware of the difficulties and implications and intricate nature of a Silicosis Act, and the difficulties of getting it placed on the Code, and of making it of such a nature as to give adequate security to the miners. We realise the difficulties, but, on the other hand, I also wish to assure the Government that we also fully realise the great importance of the mining industry in the economics of our country. I should very much like the Government, therefore, to realise that when I deal with this amendment, and where we wish here to act in the interests of the miners, that we do not wish to act in a spirit of hostility towards the mining industry. We fully realise the great part played by the mining industry in the economic life of our country, and the great value of the mining industry. Since the Consolidated Miners’ Phthisis Act of 1925, quite a few amending Acts have been passed. I just mention this to indicate why we insist on the Miners’ Phthisis Bid. In 1930, in 1934, in 1936, in 1938 and again in 1941, amended legislation was introduced, but in 1941 the Government, under pressure by the miners and in the realisation of the ruling conditions, took the right step and immediately nominated a commission, namely, the Stratford Commission, to go into all the aspects of the matter. This commission completed its very important task in 1943. Then its report was ready. After that the Minister of Mines year after year made solemn promises to the miners that he would introduce legislation to protect their rights fully and to see that adequate compensation be paid to them and their dependants. I must say that they merely remained promises, and that is why we have to exert pressure on the Government today to get such a Bill. As late as 1944 the Minister came and told the House, despite the fact that he had been sitting with the important findings of the Stratford Commission for a year, and that he had numerous other reports, that he did not have the data to introduce an amended Act. To our astonishment, he made that statement. If we look at the thousands of pounds that have already been spent on commissions of enquiry in connection with the matter, and we see how the Government sleeps on these important facts and that it does not move forward or backward, then we feel that the time has come now to bring an amendment before this House. In 1944 the Minister again made another statement and said: Look, we do not have information, not sufficient data, but I promise that in the 1945 Session I shall have this Bill placed on the Statute Book as one of the first. What became of it? Towards the end of the Session the Minister came to the House with a Bill in connection with which he had decided beforehand that it would not go further than the second reading debate. The Minister has openly acknowledged this.

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

When activities were suspended, I was busy pointing out the fact that although the Government had already for the past three years had the necessary time at its disposal and had all the necessary information to introduce a decent Silicosis Bill here in the House, in which provision would be made for sufficient benefits and other facilities for the miners, it has failed to do so. I have pointed out the Government’s policy of delay for which we can find no reason. Now I just wish to say this. Last year we told the Minister in this House that we considered this matter of such an importance—we look upon it as a national matter—that we appealed to the Minister to consult people who are interested in the matter, and we also showed our willingness to collaborate in connection with the matter, because we realised how important it is. But the Minister simply refused and went so far as to say that he would find a solution for the matter with the aid of his party. I say that as a result of the delaying policy of the Government, the time has arrived for us to come with this amendment that we have now proposed. In this amendment we ask that the Government should make provision for pensions for silicosis victims and their dependants, and in the second place for improved facilities for the miners. I should like to point out a few aspects of the matter. When we ask for such a Bill, we do it in the first place because we have to do with social evil; in the second place, we do it because in connection with this matter we have to do with something that is of urgent and serious importance because of the large number of miners affected by it. In the third place, we do it because, as the Minister has conceded in the House, the benefits at present existing for the miners are inadequate. Then I should like to turn to certain statistics to indicate that the mines are well able to grant the miners these benefits. Last year and in the past years the Government has given only one reason why increased benefits and facilities cannot be granted. This was that many mines would have to close or that they could not bear the burdens. Because of the fact that the Minister of Finance has now made provision to meet the mines with approximately £3 million, I wish to show that this objection of the Minister that the mines will go bankrupt or will cease to exist, does not exist any longer. Then I also wish to turn to what the hon. member for Johannesburg (South) (Mr. Christie) has said. He spoke about cartels that are being formed in the country. I wish to point out that one of the largest cartel systems formed in the country is found in the actions of certain gold mines that are protected by the Minister of Finance. I have said that we ask for this Bill in the first place because this matter is a social evil. Here we fully agree with the findings of the Stratford Commission where it states the following in paragraph 5 on page 3—

Here we have to do with a large class of working people who are suffering seriously. It is described as a social evil, and I think that the whole House associates itself with this today. The second is that because of the large number of workers concerned in this matter we ask that this legislation be introduced immediately. In this report certain statistics are given. I refer hon. members to page 34 of the report, paragraph 192—

I have tried to check the figures in order to see how far the report of the commission is correct. I think we can assume that the average number of European underground workers is 20,000. The report states further—

The report continues—

These figures are also correct according to certain data the Minister of Mines gave me in reply to questions I put. We have to do with 20,000 underground workers and, according to this report, and this is so, we must assume that many thousands are today affected by this matter. It is said that these 5,000 victims of miners’ phthisis have 13,000 dependants, so that this matter does not merely affect 5,000 men, but it really affects the existence and even the life of 18,000 Europeans in the gold mines. It is, therefore, a very serious matter, so that we can no longer put it off. I said that I would point out the numbers given in the statistics.

One thing we all realise, and the Minister has also admitted it, and that is that there is great dissatisfaction amongst the miners. The first reason for this is that the benefits received by the miners under the present Act are absolutely inadequate. If you will allow me, I just wish to refer to the first stage of miners’ phthisis. A miner drawing a wage of £25 a month—that is the average miner —has to be satisfied in the first stage with a small amount of £315. We consider, and so does the Government, that this benefit is inadequate. If a miner is in the second stage, when his condition is much more dangerous, then he has to be satisfied, if he has already drawn benefits, to receive £180, and that is the end of it. But further, if he reaches the third stage, you find that the miner with the same salary has to be satisfied in the secondary stage (we now call it the third stage) with £11 and something a month. On that he has to live. He has devoted the greatest part of his life to the production of gold, and after being 100 per cent. incapacitated by silicosis, he has to live on this inadequate pension. We consider that the benefits are not adequate. The Minister has said that the gold mines cannot bear a heavier burden. Then our reply is that where the mines have now had £3 million a year written off in taxation, there is no reason for the Minister to wait longer with the legislation on which we insist. But, as far as the benefits are concerned, there is one thing that dumbfounded us all, and that is that any insurance company, for example, that fixes a scale of premiums has to be guided by actuaries, but this Government has never had the courage to lay before the House a report of actuaries who have given the Government guidance in fixing the scales for victims of miners’ phthisis. We insist that such a report be tabled. We wish to know on what basis they have been fixed. I think that the whole House will agree with the Stratford Commission that any scale that is satisfactory must be based on the loss in wages to the miner. In the first place, we must have a scientific basis for the initial stage of silicosis, and in the second place a scientific basis for the amount as such that is fixed for the different stages, and here my objection is that we find the different scales, but that nobody knows on what they are based, and the Minister must surely have reports of his actuaries that guide him in determining the scales. When the Minister replies, I should like him to lay such a report on the Table. Then there is another point. The report of the Stratford Commission says, after having worked out its scales, under the guidance of actuaries, that an amount of £1,200,000 will have to be imposed on the mines in order to give the miners the extra remuneration. I do not say that we accept everything in the report of the Stratford Commission, but one thing is as plain as a pikestaff, and that is that it will be a great improvement on the existing Act. The Stratford Commission says that the additional amount will be £1,200,000 as far as Europeans are concerned, and another £972,000 as far as natives are concerned. Now we ask the Minister what excuse he still has today not to introduce legislation. There is no reason whatsoever. Then there is another matter about which the miners are dissatisfied, and when we ask for the legislation the Minister must bear in mind that we wish to know why, if a miner has been certified as a victim of miners’ phthisis, and he still continues working underground, the person cannot then draw a pension. It is abominable exploitation. A man has already been certified as a victim of miners’ phthisis. He has already contracted the industrial disease, his employer is responsible for his labour disability, but despite the fact that he has been certified, he does not get a pension if he works underground, he does not get a pension until he leaves the mine. Here my party says this: That the people should get a pension, and that if it is not paid out at once, it should be placed to the credit of such a person in a fund, and the fact that capital doubles itself in 17 years by bearing a few per cent. interest, makes it essential that the money of the miners, when it is placed to their credit, should also bear interest on behalf of the miners. Here we come again to what the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland said in connection with the £3 million received by the mines as relief from taxation. He stated that there are numerous miners who are also shareholders and who will have the benefit of the reduction in taxation. I wish to challenge the hon. member that not 1 per cent. of the miners are shareholders in the gold mining companies. If we take 1 per cent., then it amounts to 200, and the 200 will perhaps only have £1 or a few pounds in shares, so that it is worth nothing to them. But what do we find? No data have been placed before the House that low-grade ore mines, as the hon. member asserts, are assisted by the reduction in taxation. All that we have learnt is that foreign shareholders can expect 23 per cent. more on their dividends. If that is the case, it is a wicked exploitation of the people of South Africa, and that may not be allowed. That is the only indication that we have so far had as to where the £3 million goes. Now I should like to give a number of proofs. I wish to prove that even if they had not received the £3 million, the mines could have afforded it to pay increased benefits to the miners. I have before me certain figures taken from statistics, authoritative figures, and I should like to discuss them. We know that the mines get various benefits. There are, for example, certain mines that are allowed first to subtract £20,000 from their taxable income before they are taxed, something that no other industry or individual will ever dream of getting.

Then there are the capital expenses that may be deducted from the gold premium in order to determine the taxable amount. From 1936 to 1942, in these few years, no less than £33,752,035 was deducted as such. This was deducted only from the gold premium before the taxable income was calculated. In 1943 it was allowed to deduct an amount of £1,439,883. The price between the standard value of gold of £4.24773 and the recent price of 168s. per fine ounce produced the following premiums: In 1936, £31,342,025 in premiums. That is only the gold premium. For 1937 it was £32,711,300. So we find that from 1936 to 1940 the gold premiums alone reached a total amount of £201,870,007, and on the premiums the total taxation was only £52,073,925. We adopt the attitude that the gold premium does not belong to the Chamber of Mines as such, but to the nation. Here we have an amount of over £200 million that belongs to the people of South Africa, but the people receive only £52,000,000 of it in the form of taxation. That is how the gold mies are treated. In addition, the taxation on normal profits was £4,182,753. I merely point out a few of the enormous concessions that the mining industry receives. Now we come to another matter, namely, the value of production, and at the same time we come to the dividends. It is so strange to me that we hear that the mines are bleeding to death, and if we look at the dividends paid out, we are dumbfounded. Let us take the figures for 1941. The value of the production was £121,024,251, and in that year £19,399,645 was paid out in dividends—that is on a production of £121 million. In 1943 the mines came and, with a pistol to the head of the Government, said that if their taxation would not be reduced, they would have to close down. The gold production was then smaller, namely, £107,556,873. That was a decrease, but the wonderful thing is that the dividends rose in that year. As the production decreased, the dividends rose to £19,553,985. Here again you find something that you will find in no other industry. The poor mines.

How did the shares rise in price?

We are coming to that. The Government Mining Engineer has calculated that up to 31st December, 1940, an amount of £80,942,833 capital was invested in the mines. But we find that from 1936 to 1940 the dividends amounted to no less than £93,211,268. That is only for the years 1936 to 1940, on which the Mining Engineer gave a report. In a period of five years the dividends paid out to shareholders amounted to more than the total capital invested in the mines.

That was ten years ago.

No, I am now referring to the position up to 1940. The other figures are still worse. The hon. member is always asking why we do not buy shares. That is not the Question, but we have the statistics here, and I challenge the hon. member to deny the figures. If you take the dividends over the period of the last five years in respect of which the figures are available, then you find that it was on an average £18,642,213 a year. On the capital invested in the gold mining industry, this is 23.04 per cent. of what the shareholders receive in the form of dividends. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) laughs. He cannot disprove these figures. All that he can say is “Ha”. Here Reuter’s financial editor comes, and what does he say? He says that as a result of the tremendous concessions to the mines to an amount of £3 million, the dividends are still going to increase by 23 per cent., i.e., 23 per cent. on the present 23 per cent., or 5.29 per cent. That means that the dividends for the shareholders will go up to 28.3 per cent. Would the Government have allowed any financial institution in our country in the recent war years to suck a rate of interest of 28 per cent. out of the nation? The Minister of Lands almost got convulsions because Volkskas asked an interest of a few per cent. on loans. But here they allow the gold mining companies to pay out a dividend of 28 per cent. Dividends talk. No company will declare a dividend before all its costs have been deducted. After deduction of all the costs, the gold mining companies declare their dividends. Now one of the speakers has asked how many of the shareholders are overseas. I should like to come to that. In 1936 £6,983,808 was paid in dividends in South Africa and £10,449,563 overseas. In 1937 £6,975,944 was paid in South Africa, and £10,248,608 overseas. In 1937 £7,001,983 was paid in South Africa, and £10,329,362 overseas. In 1939 dividends amounting to £8,687,566 were paid in South Africa, and £11,311,434 overseas. We find that from 1936 up to the end of 1941, dividends amounting to £48,741,258 were paid in South Africa, and that to foreign shareholders £63,869,655 was paid out in the same period. These are figures from which you cannot get away. In 1943 we find that more was paid out to shareholders in dividends in South Africa than to shareholders overseas, namely, £10,754,691 in South Africa and £8,799,294 overseas. It is my opinion that a number of shareholders fled to South Africa from overseas when the war broke out, and now the dividends are being paid out in South Africa. But these enormous amounts go overseas. The hon. member for Hospital is laughing again. His own people laugh at him. That is sufficient evidence to us that where the gold mining companies are still paying 23 per cent. in dividends throughout, there is no question of bankruptcy, even if they grant increased benefits to the miners. And then the report of the Stratford Commission comes and states that only £1,200,000 is necessary for Europeans and £900,000 for natives to introduce the increased scales. The mines have received a great concession in the Budget of the Minister of Finance, and therefore we have a double right to claim that the miners be given their rights in South Africa.

What were the dividends in 1944?

I have not yet been able to obtain the figures for 1944. I wish to tell the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock) that in the time of the old National Party the dividends never amounted to more than £9 million, and the mines did not go bankrupt, but flourished. We can no longer allow a section of the population to be exploited. In a period of five years the shareholder gets his whole capital investment back at a dividend of 23 per cent. That is nothing else but profiteering, and it cannot go on like this any longer. I have given the figures, and they cannot be contradicted.

Now I come to miners’ phthisis itself. I also have a number of statistics in connection with this. Since the miners’ phthisis legislation of 1911 up to 1940 a total amount of £20,596,204 has been paid out in damages under the Miners’ Phthisis Acts. In connection with victims of silicosis and tuberculosis, £15,905,031 has been paid out from the 1919 Act up to 1940. That is all, that is a total of £36,501,235. But in only two years, in 1939 and 1940, £41,222,000 was paid out in dividends. [Time limit.]

I listened with attention to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) with regard to the dividends paid to shareholders. I do not want to go into that. I leave that to the hon. the Minister, who is in a better position to deal with the matter. I would like to talk about the Miners’ Phthisis Bill with which the hon. member dealt at great length. In the first place, I remember when the former Minister of Mines during the last session brought a Bill before this House. That Bill was deferred as a result of representations from this side of the House urging that the Bill should be held over, as it did not make adequate provision. The former Minister of Mines got up and said that he would not proceed with the Bill, but was going to hold it over in order to afford an opportunity to interested persons to make representations and proposals during the recess in order to see whether we could not arrive at a solution and make some improvements. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Westdene whether any member of his party took the trouble, since they show so much interest in the miners’ phthisis sufferers, to go to the Minister and make proposals for improving the legislation.

That was not our job. Were we invited to?

My question still stands. On behalf of the former Minister of Lands, I want to deny that any person of the opposite side made any proposal towards a solution.

That was not a duty which was incumbent upon us.

The former Minister of Mines put this obligation upon us and upon you, and also upon the Labour Party. Did they come forward? Members of the opposite side now try to make political propaganda and demand things which they do not want. They come here and demand these things, and tonight they pray that it will not be granted, so that they can play upon the emotions of the mineworkers. The speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) surprised me. He is suddenly interested in the miners’ phthisis sufferers.

You are asleep, and so I have to do it.

This is the first time that the hon. member for George is so very much interested that he included in his amendment a paragraph dealing with miners’ phthisis sufferers. Why? I say, without beating about the bush, that even the constituents of the hon. member for Westdene know what the position is.

Will you vote for our amendment?

We know what the hon. members have in mind.

Are you going to accept it?

The hon. member should rather confine himself to importing karakul sheep from South-West. He does not know anything about this. He will still learn a lot about the miners’ phthisis legislation during this, session, but I am not talking to him because he has no knowledge of these things. The hon. member for Westdene returned to the report of the Stratford Commission. He wanted to know why the report had not been adopted and said that it would be satisfactory as far as the miners’ phthisis sufferers were concerned.

I said it would be a great improvement on the existing legislation.

You said that it was acceptable to you.

I said that it would be a great improvement, but I also said that I did not agree with everything.

I call the House to witness that the hon. member said that the report was acceptable to him.

You are twisting his words.

He said that it was an improvement.

I said that it was a great improvement on the existing position.

Order, order.

May I point out, on a point of order, that the hon. member was asked a pertinent question. May the hon. member not reply to that? Is that out of order?

There were quite a number of members who wanted to reply at the same time.

On a point of explanation: I did not say that I accepted the report of the Stratford Commission; I said that it was a very great improvement on the existing Act as far as miners’ phthisis legislation was concerned.

I accept that the hon. member said that, but then I want to put a further question to him. He said that in terms of the report of the Stratford Commission an amount of £1,200,000 per annum would be required to bring the rate of benefit to the level which the Commission recommends. I want to ask the hon. member whether he will be satisfied and whether his party will be satisfied if this amount of £1,200,000 is accepted.

There are many other points.

I assume that the standpoint of the hon. member is that £1,200,000 is an adequate amount, because he says that it is a great improvement. He wants to add that to the compensation received by the miners’ phthisis sufferers.

I said that the Stratford Commission recommended £1,200,000 and that the mines could easily afford that, since they are receiving taxation concessions amounting to £3 million.

I was amused when the hon. member asked the question why that amount could not be given to the miners’ phthisis sufferers since the mines were receiving taxation concessions to the amount of £3 million. It is a most important matter for the country and for this House. I want the hon. friend who is speaking here on behalf of the mineworkers, to reply to this question. He mentions in the first place the £3 million and then again the £1,200,000, namely the recommendation of the Stratford Commission. Together it is an amount of approximately £4,200,000. Now if the Government would make this amount available as benefits to the mineworkers, would he be satisfied with that?

You have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

No, I am afraid my hon. friend is making a mistake. We have now got hold of him. He must go to the mineworkers of the West Rand, since they have now made a political issue of the miners’ phthisis in this amendment, and give a reply to them on this question. He must tell them what his intentions are.

What do you suggest?

He must tell those mineworkers whether it would be sufficient if this £3 million or the £1,200,000 is made available.

Let the Minister introduce his Bill and I will tell him what I want.

Now the hon. member wants to know whether the Minister will introduce the Bill. If he had listened to the speech from the Throne, he would have known that the Government intends introducing this Bill.

They have promised it for the past six years.

I cannot speak on behalf of the Minister, but I do say on behalf of my party that this Bill will be put before the House this year and that it will also be passed. My hon. friend knows that it was promised in the speech from the Throne, so why does he doubt it now? He now tries to evade the point by saying that we should wait for the Bill and then he will say what he really means. He is now getting scared of his own story. In the first place he came along with the £3 million and after that with the recommendation of the Stratford Commission of £1,200,000. Now he is running away and he does not want to tell us precisely what he meant. I just want to tell him this that he should also go and explain to the mineworkers why he and his party ran away when the former Minister of Mines invited them to give their support to the Miners’ Phthisis Bill. Their position is that they do not want the Government to give the miners’ phthisis sufferers anything that would satisfy them, in the same way as they do not want the Government to give anything to the poor section of the public to make them satisfied, because then they would no longer be able to play on the sentiment of those people and to use them for their own political ends. I only want to tell the hon. member for Westdene that he should go to the West Rand and I will see to it that the question is put to him about his reaction when the Minister of Mines invited them to give their assistance.

I will go and I challenge you to come along.

Now he will run away.

It is no use making a challenge. Without any challenge whatsoever I want to give my hon. friend the assurance that I shall be there and that I will see to it that he replies to that question.

I shall do so.

As far as running away is concerned, I just want to say that members on the opposite side should not talk about running away. When I and others stood firm to save the country, they ran away, and now the hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) comes along and talks about running away.

Do you want to suggest that I ran away?

No, the criticism which has been expressed here in connection with the Budget has only one object, and that is the by-election in West Rand. I now want to examine further the criticism which has been expressed and I want to come to the great economist on the opposite side. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) got up here …

You are not fit to untie his shoelaces.

I would not want to do it. I think too much of myself to untie the shoelaces of an economist who can use such an argument. His whole argument about the reduction of taxation boils down to this: that he is criticising the Government because it did not make beer cheaper so that the poor man could drink more. That is the great argument of the economist on the opposite side, that beer and tobacco should be made cheaper. Let him go and tell the families living in the rural areas that his criticism of the Government is that they have not made it possible for the men to drink more. Then he comes along with a comparison between Ireland and the Union of South Africa. Ireland has a population of about three million and the Union has 2½ million European inhabitants, but with the other 9½ million consisting of coloured people and natives he was not in the least concerned. He gives the figures, but he only takes the European inhabitants of South Africa. If the policy pursued by Ireland had been so particularly advantageous to her, why did Ireland then, in spite of her neutrality, also increase its national debt by such a large percentage during the war years. I admit that to a certain extent the war debt in our country has accumulated, but let me ask the members on the opposite side whether this war debt has not been worth while for the sake of the honour, freedom and independence of South Africa. Let him tell me that.

Look ahead.

We must also look back a little. I do not blame those members, however, for not wanting to look back a little. We can quite appreciate that as a party they are anxious to be rid of their past. I would like to know what the position in South Africa would have been if we had not declared war. They ask why the Union would have been attacked and why it was that Ireland could remain neutral. Ireland had nothing worth attacking except a number of fools. Compared to that, we had 360,000 armed Italians on the British borders in the North. They have mentioned Ireland and also Portugal. Why do they remain silent about the taxation reductions granted by those two countries in this year? Why are they keeping that a secret and why do they not tell us what the taxes amounted to in those countries last year and what they are this year? As far as I know no government has succeeded since the end of the war in reducing taxation to the extent to which our Minister of Finance has reduced it this year. I want to congratulate the Minister on that. Then the members opposite also mention the war debt. They forget that millions of pounds are included in respect of allowances, increased pensions and other assistance for the European poor in the country. Take pensions alone. Just see to what extent; our pensions have increased during the past few years. They do not want to mention those things because they do not want the public outside to know about it. Millions of pounds in this way must be included in the war debt if we want to assess the true position. We must subtract that if we want to know what the actual war debt of the country is. Look at the country’s financial and economic policy. If we take into consideration that out of a public debt of £570 million only about £9 million is outside the Union, then we immediately feel convinced that the Government is pursuing a sound financial policy.

The mines are a great hobby-horse of the friends on the opposite side. The mines must be destroyed. It does not matter who the shareholders are, whether they are overseas or in our own country. I regard the gold mines as one of the industries which we should protect with all our power for the benefit of the, European poor section of the people and of the national income. Members opposite also said that the £3 million will not be of any benefit to the workers in the mines but only to the shareholders. I want to refer them to my own constituency. There are five mines there which will be considerably affected by this concession. I was one of those who agitated for it. These five mines and at least seven or eight on the Rand, which have to mine ore of 1¾ dwt. in order to be a paying concern in view of the production costs, are being met in this respect. I think that, for instance, a mine like the New Modder will now be able to mine ore of 1½ or 1¼ dwt. That means that 1,100 Europeans and 12,000 natives can be provided with a living. As long as we can provide decent employment to the European poor section of the population, it is in the interests of the country to see to it that the mines are kept going. These people can then make a living; the purchasing power in the country will be greater and there will be a market for the products of our friends on the opposite side, whether they want to admit that or not. The Government’s policy is sound and it is acceptable. Our country is in the fortunate position that we can say that our public debt is £570 million, but except for £9 million everything has been borrowed in our own country. What other country which took part in the war can boast such a financial position, and then these members criticise the Government’s policy as being unacceptable. No, the people of South Africa are grateful that the Government stands for this policy and we can leave the criticism of the Opposition there.

Now I come to my friends in the Labour Party. A few days ago the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) made the remark during the course of his speech that the policy of the Labour Party now apparently is that they want to do away with the colour bar provided equal wages are paid to coloured people and Europeans. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) replied that that was not so. He got up afterwards and tried to explain what their policy was. I see that one or two evenings later a meeting was held in Cape Town at which he and the member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) were present. I want to read what the hon. member said about this point on that occasion. According to the newspaper report, it was described thus—

I want the hon. member to tell me now what the position is.

Is there one in your party?

I am now discussing the policy of the Labour Party. The next day I saw a letter in the same paper from a great supporter of the Labour Party—

Who said that?

Mr. Charles Pearce, of Sea Point.

We kicked him out.

This is all political propaganda which is being made in view of the by-election. I want those friends to tell the public straightforwardly what their policy is in connection with the colour bar. But they must not only say it here. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), who has just returned from the West Rand, must go back there and tell the mineworkers what their policy is with regard to the colour bar. The time has come when we should know where we stand in regard to these questions, just as we should know where we stand with regard to the attitude of the hon. member for Westdene in connection with silicosis. These are things which the people outside want to know; and they should go to the mineworkers and tell them what their attitude is with regard to these matters.

I think that this country has been presented with a very healthy Budget. Every section of the community, particularly industry and commerce, have had relief. We have had an even deal and taxation has been placed well above the pre-war level of taxation, and that is how it should be. It is true as the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said, that the Minister could have given remission of a great deal more taxation. I feel that this Budget is a very conservative one, but rightly so, because nothing would have increased the danger of inflation more than if more money was released. In the absence of consumers’ goods, and people not able to spend their money, it would be a dangerous principle to have an increase in the remission of taxation. It has been stated by most of the speakers that the poorer and the middle classes of this country have not received that relief to which they were entitled. There we must remember that the lower income groups have always been lightly taxed. It would have been very difficult for the Minister to concede still further benefits to them. We have to consider that during the war the poorer section had a great deal of relief. They have the benefit of the distribution of food right throughout the country on a sub-economic basis. They had many other advantages, and still more will accure to them when our social security programme is introduced, where provision is made for health services, education, etc. So the poor man in this country who has paid very little in the way of taxation has not been relieved to a very great extent, but 130,000 taxpayers of the middle classes have been relieved of taxation by the abolition of the savings levy. That in itself is a very great relief. As I have said before, food distribution which cost the country a good deal of money has been going on and will continue. But here I would just like to ask the Minister why this food distribution has been transferred from Social Welfare to the food control organisation. The poorer classes were helped under Social Welfare. Social Welfare has come to stay, and now the bulk of that service has been transferred to the food control organisation. I hope that this transfer is merely a temporary arrangement. I would like the Minister to tell us why this change is brought about. The middle classes have further been relieved of taxation through the abolition of the surcharge on railway fares, the abolition of the surcharge on telephone accounts, and cheaper petrol, etc. The mines have been looked after, and commerce and industry have been given their share of relief. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) had a great deal to say about the windfall of £3,000,000 to the mines. Perhaps he will be able to persuade the mines to pass on this £3,000,000 which they have got so unexpectedly to the lowest paid group on the mines, i.e. the underground native workers. Let him persuade the mines to pass that sum of money on in that way for the benefit of these particular people. The farmers, who have always been a privileged class as far as income tax is concerned, have also had relief all round, so generally speaking everybody has been looked after. I would like to say to the hon. member over there that bread is still being sold in South Africa at 6½d. per loaf.

Do you call it bread?

Bread is being sold more cheaply in this country than in most other countries in the world. I want to congratulate the Government on getting additional food supplies from overseas so promptly when we were faced with the threat of famine. While on the subject of relief, may I point out that there are some forgotten people in this country, and those forgotten people are the Government pensioners. They have been forgotten right throughout the war. These people have given good service to the country; they have played their part in the past, and they should have been given a cost-of-living allowance in the same way as other civil servants. I do feel that they are the people who have suffered most. They are the ones who have felt the pinch of war most, and I want to make a special plea to the Minister to see that all these Government pensioners get some relief by way of a cost-of-living allowance. It is true that those in receipt of pensions up to £300 are entitled to relief, but they are subject to a means test, and I say that the means test is humiliating to these people, and it is a test which should not have been introduced. It is because of the means test that there are so very few of these people applying for relief. I think the hon. Minister of Transport announced the other day that he is going to increase the cost-of-living allowance in respect of railway pensioners up to £300, and I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance to be liberal towards the pensioners and give them a cost-of-living allowance irrespective of the amount of pension on the same basis that the civil servants get it at the present moment. Let me refer briefly to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) who advocated in his speech the abolition of the excess profits duty and the trades profits special levy. It is all very well suggesting the abolition of a particular tax, but it is necessary to suggest some other tax which might take its place. The hon. member must remember that the bulk of the excess profits tax is being paid by companies who can afford it better than the ordinary taxpayer; if that tax were abolished we would in all probability have to double the scale of ordinary income tax. The country would not allow that because it would not be fair on moral or financial grounds. Another fact which must not be overlooked is that the payment of this excess profits duty is subject to refund if the pre-war standard of the particular taxpayer is not reached. Considerable amounts have already been refunded, and one must look upon this extra profit levy as a sort of insurance. It is definitely in the interest of all these taxpayers to continue with the excess profits duty; they will be entitled to a refund when bad days come along. It is an insurance against unemployment. I feel that this excess profits duty should disappear gradually but not all at once. So long as these refunds continue to be made so long we will have to continue to contribute to this fund, but I think the time has arrived when the Minister should tell us how long he intends these refunds to remain in operation. It is a very important point as far as commerce and industry are concerned. The main objection to this excess profits duty was that new businesses are handicapped, that professional men who come back to their practices are unduly taxed. That was the position but happily that grievance has now been abolished by raising the pre-war standard for this class of business for this type of professional person. We do not hear a word of appreciation from the Opposition now that the Minister in his wisdom has now abolished this particular hardship. Then the hon. member for Durban (Berea) expressed some doubt about the country’s capital resources for future development. The fact that resources are available is shown by the statement of the Reserve Bank in the unemployed capital amounting to nearly £300 million. Those reserves have been built up by commerce and industry. Most business concerns have managed to rid themselves of old bonds and debts, and that money will also be available when the time for development arrives. What we have to remember further is that the public debt today is held internally which prevents an outflow of capital and the country is in a happy position to supply all its capital needs for many years to come. The want of capital in our development or capital itself will not be the bottleneck in bringing about reconstruction. The House must realise that mining and agriculture are not the leading industries that they were in the past. Today secondary industry is beginning to take a leading place and for many years past has been taking a leading place in the economy of this country, and that is why our main effort must be towards the establishment, the maintenance and the increase of our secondary industries. I have figures here to show the contribution of the various industries to the national income of South Africa, and these figures are very significant. Under farming they have included fishing but I do not think fishing accounts for very much. It is shown that while the contribution from farming to the national income during 1942-43 was £71,000,000, the contribution of mining to the national income was £92,000,000, but the contribution of secondary industries amounted to no less than £212,000,000.

Where did you get those figures from?

I got these figures from the Department. They are the very latest figures. It must therefore be recognised that secondary industries are taking the first place in our economy, then followed by our primary industries such as mining and agriculture. We have to remember that there will be a great deal of competition for manpower for our primary and secondary industries, and we will then find that the manpower will have to be spread out so as to satisfy the demands of all sections of our economy. To meet the demand for manpower, all sections of the community, particularly the natives and the coloured people, will have to be fully employed. I cannot stress that point sufficiently that the country must realise that we cannot depend on the future development of our industries unless all the available manpower of this country is fully used. And I do not even exclude the Indians in Natal. The Indians, the natives and the coloured people will have to take their place in our economy. That will mean, of course, that a large proportion of our African population may become permanently urbanised. From an industrial point of view that is a natural and a desirable development, provided of course that opportunities besides employment shall be given to the natives and the coloureds to lead a healthy communal life. This can only be accomplished by providing decent housing, health and other amenities for them. It has been recognised that the future of our secondary industries in the Union depend to a considerable extent on the expansion of our local market. Faced as we are with increasing competition from a highly industrialised world, we can only depend on developing our domestic market. The prospects of establishing an export market are very vague, of course. Industry must therefore rely upon the Union’s own population for markets, and this can only be brought about by raising the standard of living and thereby the purchasing power of our non-Europeans. With the possible tapering off of the number of natives to be absorbed in mining and the gradual mechanisation of agriculture, it falls to the secondary industries to employ large numbers of our non-Europeans. I regard that as a desirable process. With the employment of greater numbers of non-Europeans in our secondary industries, we can hope to expand our local markets through raising the standard of living and the purchasing power of the non-Europeans. The Social and Economic-Planning Council and industry-: generally approves of this, and I hope that that will be the policy of the Government in connection with our industrial development. In that respect it has occurred to me that the recent Cabinet shuffle, by assigning mines to the Minister of Economic Development may be a mistake, because the interests of mining and commerce and industry are definitely conflicting interests. Many years ago we had the administration of mines and industries under one Minister, but that was done away with. It was done away with probably for very good reasons. I do not know what the reasons were, but it strikes me that the reason was because these two departments should not be under one portfolio, because of their conflicting interests. The mining interests are out for cheap labour and cheap stores, whereas our industries are subject to fair wage determination. Our industries cannot prosper without protection, and that is where these interests clash. In the mining taxation report it is stated, inter alia, that customs duties should not be imposed lightly for revenue reasons, and that the effect of a protective duty on marginal ore should be carefully considered. Here the question arises whether we are going to protect the industrialists who produce the consumers’ goods, or are we going to protect the lower-grade mines by free trade. That, of course, is very important to know. It is in this connection that the Minister will have his difficulty in reconciling the interests of these groups. I would further like to point out that in the development of our industries there is another snag, and that snag is in connection with our immigration policy. It is true that our first duty lies to our own national manpower. We have the manpower, but it is clear that a certain amount of skilled artisans will have to be imported from overseas. When we come to the importation of skilled labour, the immigration laws, but particularly the Immigration Selection Board, come into play. Our experience before the war and at the beginning of this war shows that many industrialists from Europe came to this country and wanted to establish their industries, but these desirable people were not allowed by the Selection Board to take up permanent residence. Those very people went over to the Argentine and Brazil and established their industries there, and it is an anomaly that during the last few years we have been importing from the Argentine and Brazil from the very people who wanted to establish their industries here, but who were not allowed to stay. The development of industry in the Argentine and Brazil and in the South American countries has been enormous of recent years. I could mention the names of half a dozen people who wanted to settle here, but were not allowed to do so, and who have set up industries in South America. Not only does it mean that money which might have been employed here has been lost to South Africa, but it means that we lost many extra avenues of employment. Another important point I would like to make here is in connection with the difficulty that our own nationals find in entering into trade and industry. The Apprenticeship Act that was passed in 1944 was supposed to apply to all sections of the community, irrespective of race and colour. But what do we find? The greatest discrimination takes place today against coloured apprentices In Cape Town we have had cases where the Apprenticeship Board has even refused to apprentice coloured youths to a coloured employer. We find that there are hundreds of coloured youths today who wish to go into industry, but they cannot get their apprenticeship. That is a serious matter that should be gone into. If we want to make progress industrially, we must use all available manpower. I would like to appeal to the Minister of Labour, who is fortunately in his seat, to give his earnest attention to this matter. The grievance I have mentioned is a legitimate one. These coloured people are good artisans. They have played their part in our industries in the past, and I think they ought to be permitted to continue. Let me say in conclusion that the hon. Minister has steered this country’s finances well during the war years, and I suggest that if the same energy and will is displayed in the future, we in this country shall make a great deal of progress industrially and generaly, and I think as time goes on this country will be one of the most solvent countries in the world.

I, too, would like to add my quota of praise to the Minister of Finance for what I regard as a reasonably fair budget. I quite appreciate that there are some members in this House and some people outside who will not be quite satisfied with everything in the budget, but I am satisfied that those people would be in the minority. There is one outstanding feature of the budget to which I attach very much importance and which attracts me very much, namely, the complete setting free of 130,000 people of the lower income group from taxation. I am also of the opinion that if the Minister of Agriculture had not made such an inroad into the Treasury we would most certainly have received further benefits. I must say that I have a shrewd suspicion also that the cupboard of old mother Hubbard is very far from empty. As a matter of fact I would not be surprised if it is fairly well stocked, so this time next year the country can look forward to greater benefits. There is, however, one tax upon which I would like to offer some comment, and that is in connection with the fixed property profits tax. I can speak freely on this because I possess no property other than the modest house in which I live. We were led to believe that this tax would stop the inflationary prices in the property market. I suggest that it has not only failed to do that but that it has had the reverse effect. In Cape Town property is being sold today at practically 100 per cent. over the municipal valuation. People will grow up, people will get married and people will need homes, and therefore those people will buy homes, and we know perfectly well that it is never the seller who is inconvenienced by this tax, but the purchaser, and therefore I would have preferred to see the Minister of Finance slay this tax outright. Instead of this he has submitted it to a long lingering death of ten years, and I have no doubt that the process of decomposition will reek in the nostrils of the people for many years to come. It is quite possible that many of these people who have bought houses (a) will either die before the ten years are up or (b) will have to leave those houses, and therefore I am sorry that the Treasury did not say that that tax should be abolished altogether. Furthermore I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg). I was hoping that the pensioners would be considered. I am informed that it is a costly process, but I also know that these pensioners must live and I also know that their pensions are very small and that the £ is barely worth 10s. today. But the Treasury has seen fit to omit to increase it, and therefore we must be satisfied. Apart from those two aspects, I personally am satisfied with this budget. But this is the time of the Walrus, and I do not want to offer any further comments upon financial matters. I would like to speak on something which is nearer and dearer to my heart than financial matters, and that is a matter to which I have given a considerable amount of thought. I refer to the future of my beloved country, South Africa. I have cogitated over this matter in the confines of my study quietly and calmly and dispassionately, and, as a scientist, when I assess the trend of modern development, I am somewhat apprehensive. Jan Brand said: “Alles sal reg kom”; it was Browning who said: “God’s in His Heaven, all’s right with the world.” I disregard both. This is shallow optimism. “Alles sal nie reg kom nie” and “all will not be right with the world” unless those to whom the destiny of this country has been entrusted do their duty. I am of the opinion that our efforts fall short of those required for a prosperous South Africa. Daily I observe constructive and destructive processes at work, and I am not yet quite satisfied in my own mind which is the more powerful of the two. The greatest progress-prohibiting factor ip any country is lack of co-operation, and in South Africa that is particularly applicable, and unfortunately lack of co-operation has for its foundation stone mutual distrust. It is not pleasing to submit oneself to self-examination, but it is only along the road of selfexamination and by studying the results obtained therefrom that we can receive guidance for the future. Let me submit to you and to this House some facts with which even the street urchin is acquainted, but on which we do not ponder sufficiently often enough. In our country we have a total population, including white, coloured, native and Indian, of hardly more than the city of London, and that in a country which is four times the size of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland put together. The white population of South Africa is just about the same as that of Liverpool or Glasgow. From a scientific point of view we must confess that we cannot consider ourselves as any more than a small cog wheel in the universal clock, and the sadness of it is that we can be of so much more on account of the vastness of our country, on account of the potentialities and the resources of our country, on account of the climate of our country, and lastly, but not least, on account of the great strategic importance of our country, and yet we seem to be static. What are the facts with regard to our industries? The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) said that we have our mining industry; we have our agricultural industry and we have our secondary industries. He says those are our three main industries. The hon. member for George, of course, of all members in this House, will realise—although it is not pleasant to confess it—that our most important industry, probably the only important industry and probably the only one worth talking about is the gold mining industry, and where does that come from? Are we responsible for it? No, it is God-given. All we are doing is to take out of the soil what has been placed there by geological processes. I must say that from what I read and from what I see and from what I hear agriculture and secondary industries pale into insignificance in comparison with the importance of the gold mining industry. Day by day we merely collect the gold out of the holes in Johannesburg and ship it to America. We hoped that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research will show us the way in the future of making the best use of our other possible industries. It is a milestone in our development that we have at last seen fit to appoint a body of scientists to help us along this road so that agriculture may come into its own and also secondary industry. It is a sad thing to suggest that, but for the gold industry, South Africa would be likened to a third-rate South American republic.

That is an old-fashioned idea.

The best tunes are played on old-fashioned fiddles. But unfortunately there is another very important industry in this country, and that is the industry of politics. Politics which is the science of ruling a nation is noble and divine but racial politics is ignoble and Satanic That is our fourth industry. We have just seen the complete elimination of three of the biggest powers in the world who also thought that they were superior to their fellow-men —extra-nationally not intra-nationally—but I do not apportion the blame to any particular party in this House. We are all to blame. We all have our shortcomings, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser degree, but the question I ask myself is whether this need be so.

Of course not.

It need not be so. But we have a country here which is faced with many problems, problems which are very complicated, but at the same time we are grateful to realise that our country has great possibilities. We have in our country two-and-a-third million whites, and of those two-and-a-third million whites we are divided into six political camps. In 1924 of these two-and-third million of my stock 20,000 were classified by that obnoxious term “poor whites”. Today we are in the year 1946 and the poor whites number 298,000. That number has grown fifteen-fold in twenty-one years—almost 100 per cent. per year. Those are not pleasant facts but they are scientific facts. Does that mean nothing to us? Does it mean nothing to us that we are divided in the realm of sport. Does it mean nothing to us that we are divided in our family life, and does it mean nothing to us that we are divided even in the House of God? Do those things mean nothing to us? What progress can we hope to have here unless we retrace our steps? After all said and done, I reflect now chiefly on the Afrikaner section of which I am proud to be a member, we are the folks who are so divided and we are the people who are drifting away from each other. If we are drifting to a desirable goal one could understand it, but we are not drifting to a desirable goal. I say we are slowly but surely drifting to an irreparable catastrophe. That is where we are drifting, and that must be quite plain to anybody who has an interest in his native land and who examines the position in its true perspective. We are fiddling while our country is being consumed with the flames of wrath and hatred. I am informed that 62 per cent. of the white population of South Africa is engaged directly and indirectly in agriculture. I stand corrected, but that is my information. Does it mean nothing to us that, while 60 per cent. of our Afrikaansspeaking people are engaged in agriculture, we provide milk for four million people, cheese for two million and meat for four million? Surely these are not figures of which we can be proud. What do we do to combat soil erosion? We hear a lot of talk, that we must do this and that. I know that South Africa is the oldest country in the world, geologically speaking, and because of that we are faced with severe problems, but at the same time we are actually doing very little to combat soil erosion. What do we do about irrigation? We make a little pool here and a little pool there, but what do we really do about the water running away to the sea in winter? Very little indeed. What do we do to combat pests? Very little. But we do a great deal to combat our fellowman. I say it is high time that we should give a blood transfusion to our anaemic agricultural system. Our agriculture is lagging far behind, not on account of the inability of our people, but on account of numerous factors, a few of which I have enumerated. We like to reap where we have not sown. But we may go further, we may reap where we have sown. We may reap disharmony and discord, or as is said in Afrikaans, “Twis en tweedrag, haat en nyd”. It is not only in our communal life and in our agricultural life that we are lagging behind. I see the Hon. Minister for Health in his place. Just recently he was the leader of ambassadors who were sent throughout the country and to our shame, they came back and told us how rotten our national health was, and not only rotten but reeking with putrefaction. And what an indictment that is for the year 1945. What did we do in the past decade? We did a little, but very little.

Practically nothing.

Yes, practically nothing. We have been combating each other, instead of combating disease. I do not want to go into the details of that report, but there are certain revelations there which are enough to make one’s hair turn white. We are busy now revising our penal code. I presume that is being done because it is not good. We also have rumblings underneath in regard to our educational system. That does not, of course, affect the Minister of Education, because it is primary and secondary education which is concerned, which does not fall under him. But when in this hon. House we must pass a law to keep students out of our universities, things have gone • too far. Three per cent. of our people go to universities, but when they come there, we cannot take them, and unless they have a certain academic status, they must go. In other words, they cannot be educated in their fatherland, but must go overseas. That need not be. It is due to lack of foresight. We could have had bigger and more universities. I do not wish to say much about this in the time at my disposal, because it is a matter dear to my heart, but there are hundreds of sons of South Africans crying to get into the universities, and the doors are shut because the universities are too small. No one may have foreseen it, but the fact remains. We have so many problems in our agricultural and communal life, in our penal code and education that must be solved—problems too numerous to mention. Moreover, do we realise how dependent we are on the non-European, and do we take cognisance of the fact whether we are treating him as we should treat him? When we stand at the bar of our own conscience, I hope we shall be pleased with the verdict we get. How often have not we on this side and on that side of the House shouted “Barabbas, Barabbas”, and fought for a thing which was desirable, although wrong? We should face the fact that a thing is either right or wrong, apart from whether it is desirable or not.

Say it, say it.

I am telling everyone that. We are all equally guilty. Much has to be done. We have neglected a certain portion of our community. I say that advisedly and with all the emphasis at my command. I have indicated that we have many difficulties, and I do not think there is a single member in the House who will contradict me. It may be that the plan of campaign will differ from party to party, and from man to man, but the realities are the same. We should get to the realities of these difficulties, and expend every ounce of our energy towards solving them; and the only way we can do it, in my considered opinion, is by pooling our energies. We are tired in this House of platitudes about the divisibility of the Crown and the rights of nations, about the concentration camps, whether in Buchenwald or in the Boer War. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) shouted “Kyk vorentoe”. Certainly we must look forward. But so many of us are like Lot’s wife who looked back. So many of us look back and live in the past, and try to make political capital out of the sentimental things I have mentioned. I prefer to press on and to forget certain things of the past. We must forget many aspects of the past. There are many of us on this side of the House who look upon London as the capital of the world. We must forget that. Many look at flags and are concerned with the divisibility of the Crown. They must forget that We must look to this country which is so beset with difficulties which will be almost insoluble if we do not devote our full energies to their solution. It would be Utopian to expect members on this side or on that side, the Dominion benches or the, Labour Party, to see eye to eye on every point. It is impossible to expect that, and perhaps it will not be desirable, but I submit to you, Sir, that we have one thing in common in this House, namely, to work together for the harmony and progress of this country. There must be a process of give and take, even if there is more giving than taking. If it is in the interests of South Africa, that must be done. I have read a few things in my time, but I have yet to read of any country which has progressed while being divided on racial lines. A country which is divided on racial lines is doomed socially, doomed politically and doomed economically. Its destruction may be slow, but it is sure. I emphasise that we should let our watchword be co-operation. Do I talk theoretically? No, I speak practically, because this is the one country in the whole Commonwealth where we have had this experience of racialism, but where for one period we agreed to sink our differences. I refer to the period 1933-1939, which was the high water mark of progress and prosperity in the history of the Union. Then we had co-operation. The time is again ripe for it. Why not repeat that experience and let us see what progress we can make, and how we can foster the welfare of South Africa? I say that it should be given another opportunity. We have every reason to give it an opportunity. I would then like to use the words of the late Gen. Hertzog when he said: “Never, never again shall racialism separate us to the detriment of the welfare of South Africa.” A country that is divided on economic lines can still stand on a firm foundation, but a foundation of racial hatred is unsound and detrimental. There are many things in life which are desirable, but not attainable, and there are many things in life which are attainable but not desirable, but co-operation in this country is not only highly desirable, but readily attainable. Why should we not take that opportunity? We sing “Ons sal antwoord op jou roepstem.” We sing that in public. I hope that when we sing that in future, we shall endeavour to make these words not the words on our lips only, but also the meditations of our hearts.

We who represent the African people and indirectly the non-European are particularly interested in the speech during this debate of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), during the course of which he is reported to have said: “The Labour Party would be willing to accept natives in industry if they were paid the same wages as the white worker. If the native was paid the same Wage as a white man, social equality must follow. What would the white worker think about that?” He goes on to say: “Anybody with business experience realised that it was only because of the difference between the wages of the native and the white worker that South African industry was able to compete with overseas industry. The only way in which we could compete and pay the native white wages would be to bring down white wages and raise the native wages until they were the same. Would white workers be prepared to accept that?” The hon. member entirely failed to show how the payment of equal wages for equal work would bring social equality, and I doubt if he could prove such a statement. I felt that the expression was used not to indicate a fact capable of proof, but to make the flesh of the Labour Party and their supporters creep. Social equality is a matter of individual taste and the social contacts of white and black will not occur, no matter what wages are paid, unless the white and the black desire it, and, speaking personally, I do not think either black or white does desire that consummation. What we who represent the natives have said on more than one occasion is that “equality of opportunity” should be given in industry. There should be no colour bar, but that is a very different thing from social equality. We have urged that the gap between the skilled and the unskilled worker should be lessened. As to equality of opportunity I refer to a leading article in the “Cape Times” of the 9th instant, in which it is said, inter alia—

If this is true of the coloured people, how much more so is it true of the African worker. Again the leading article states—

I have said enough, Mr. Speaker, to show that the question is not equal pay for equal work, but equal opportunity of becoming skilled in work, an opportunity which is being denied to non-European workers. The question of pay is one for consultation, and I have no doubt can easily be solved. I lay particular stress on the statement attributed to the hon. member “that anybody with business experience realised that it was only because of the difference between the wages of the native and white worker that South African industry was able to compete with overseas industry.” Was there ever a more naive confession that South African industry is a house built on sand— that it is top-heavy — that in effect its existence depends upon the willingness of the non-European workers to continue on the existing basis? Mr. Speaker, he is not willing, and to continue to build industry On that foundation is to live in a fools’ paradise. Several things emerge from this consideration. Firstly, industry cannot live without African labour; secondly, that that labour force must be integrated into the industrial machine on a just footing, and thirdly, it cannot continue to depend on underpaid migratory labour. Is it not better for the European worker to accept a rate of pay which enables the gap between skilled and unskilled labour to be bridged, rather than to depend upon a top-heavy industry which will capsize at the first industrial upheaval by the unskilled labourer? Better pay for the masses means a more intelligent and efficient worker, and a general improvement in the standard of living and the establishment of a real home market. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I ask a question which I feel I have a right to ask in the expectation of an answer of an authoritative nature. Is the voice of the hon. member when he suggests that the Labour Party dissolve so that employer and employee may join to exploit the unskilled coloured and African worker, the authentic voice of the United Party? The hon. member said “that there was room only for two parties. The natives were the real workers, and while they did not have the franchise, there could be no real Labour Party. The Europeans should be the guardian of the natives and treat them justly and fairly, but it should go no further than that. If the natives had sufficient food and were treated well they would always acknowledge the superiority of the white man. The Labour Party was now beginning to say what the natives should and should not get. Probably they were trying to ally themselves to the natives in case they should want to force anything in South Africa. The Labour Party was playing a dangerous game.” These words, coming from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, a leading member of the United Party, and a leading industrialist, are of importance. It gives me the impression that it is an attempt to destroy the Labour Party, to tell them that there is no room for them in the country. They are told that as the natives have not the franchise they have no power, and they were asked why they did not join up with the United Party. That is the impression left upon me, and I say it with considerable regret. I have considerable respect for the hon. member in question, and I regret that he put the matter before the House in that light. If capitalism is going to conduct itself in that way, I am afraid the country will be in for a bad time. But I do not believe that the Labour Party will fall for that sort of thing and allow itself to be led astray. It is their job to see that the labourer is paid for his work and given every opportunity of attaining the skill he requires. In view of the fact that the speaker in question holds the position he does, I think I am entitled to ask the Government; to ask the Prime Minister, whether in fact the hon. member for Vereeniging, speaking in that way on this occasion, was voicing the authentic sentiments of the United Party.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. the Minister suggested that we should not view the Budget merely as a tax-reducing instrument. Its chief aims were to stimulate production and maintain a high level of employment. Now, I am prepared to accept the Minister’s own criteria in judging this Budget, because they seem to me to be of paramount importance. In recent years under the influence of economists like Lord Keynes, we have acquired a new conception of the role of the Budget in the national economy. The Budget is, so to speak, the governor of the economic machine. It ’is at once dynamic and regulatory. Its function is to ensure that the economic machine will run smoothly on all cylinders. According to Keynes, an economy must spend all it earns at any given level of production if employment is to be maintained. This means that we must constantly put back into circulation the savings accumulated during current operations. If this is done when production is high, employment will continue to remain at a high level; but if we fail to do this, production and employment will fall and savings will decline, until they are no larger than we are able or willing to invest. We simply cannot produce beyond the point where savings exceed investment. Now, in the light of this analysis the role of the Budget becomes clear. We all know that the volume of private investment is never constant. It is subject to cyclical fluctuations. Therefore it devolves upon the Government, which controls a powerful fiscal machine, to use the Budget as a means of deliberately influencing the total volume of investment. The Government can repair the fluctuations in private investment by compensatory action. In simple terms, it can expand public works when private investment contracts, and contract public works when private investment expands. In this way it can ensure that the total volume of investment, both private and public, remains constant. According to the British White Paper on employment, the British Government has accepted responsibility for maintaining employment at a high and stable level by means of this compensatory action; and our Government is committed to much the same policy. Let us see therefore if this Budget complies with our requirements. Our national income is now approximately £625 million per annum. At this level we have full employment. Now, assuming that the proportion of savings is equal to our best recorded experience, i.e. approximately 14 per cent., then our savings from current operations should be nearly £90 million. This will have to be offset by £90 million of new capital formation if production and employment are not to fall from their existing level. Now, £90 million is an unprecedented sum. It is certain that it must exceed all private outlets for investment in the ensuing year; but under the stimulus, provided by the Budget, to industry and especially to gold mining, £60 million for private investment, would not, I believe, be too high an estimate, and the Government by public borrowing will largely if not completely absorb the balance. Thus, in my view, practically the whole of the £90 million will be accounted for. My conclusion, therefore, is that the Budget has been skilfully constructed to ensure that the whole of our savings from current operations will be put back into circulation and thus maintain the general level of economic activity at least as high as in war-time. If the Minister continues to give us Budgets in this pattern, then I am confident that we shall have a period of sustained prosperity. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in denouncing the so-called extravagance of the Government, said that we laboured under the impression that we had only to borrow and spend with our eyes shut to create national prosperity. Well, I certainly do not believe in doing things with my eyes shut, but I must confess I do believe in the principle of borrowing and spending. I believe that we shall never be able to finance a broad programme of reconstruction, involving housing, education, nutrition and health services, unless we are prepared to borrow and spend on a large scale. I certainly do not subscribe to the orthodox doctrine that borrowing is a sure sign that we are spending more than we can afford. The only limit to what we can afford is the extent of our resources in manpower and materials. As long as any substantial part of these resources is left unused, or is wastefully and inefficiently used, it is idle to pretend that the limit of what we can afford has been reached. A distinguished American economist, Mr. Stuart Chase, has coined a remarkable maxim: “What is physically possible is financially possible”. The most striking illustration of the truth of this maxim was our war effort. Had we adhered to the orthodox practice of calculating the cost in advance in order to ensure a balanced Budget, we should inevitably have stayed out of the war on the grounds that we could not afford it. But fortunately we realised that the issues involved in the war transcended all other considerations. We did not stop to count the cost. We did not hesitate. We went into the war literally with bare hands, but we had the resources in men and materials. We had brave men to man our tanks, our aeroplanes* and our little ships. We had willing hands to create the implements of war. Out of these elements we built up our war effort. What was physically possible became financially possible. The Minister of Finance had no difficulty in finding the money; and if it had taken us another five years to reach the indispensable goal of peace, he would still have continued to find the money. In organising for war the Government has proved itself capable of great achievement. It can achieve equal distinction in the work of reconstruction, provided it meets the challenge of peace with the same high resolve as it accepted the challenge of war. We shall not build the peace, any more than we could wage the war, on balanced Budgets. We must rid ourselves of the notion that a Budget deficit is a sort of gaping wound in the body politic, through which its life blood is ebbing away. The physical resources that were available for war are equally available for reconstruction after the war. The money will come from the same source as the money to pay for armaments came from. Can there be any doubt that if we could successfully finance the employment of these resources for the destructive purposes of war, we can equally successfully finance their employment for the constructive purposes of peace? And let us not be impressed by the argument that we could finance the war only for a limited period and that we have piled up an immense burden for future posterity in doing so. This argument seems plausible, but is in fact quite fallacious. It is physically impossible to make the future pay for current production. By no financial magic can you get one grain of wheat from next year’s crop or one lock of wool from next year’s clip. And you may rest assured that any device, even the piling up of the national debt, which enables us to use our productive resources to the full is increasing, and not diminishing, the national wealth, and must continue to do so indefinitely.

I will confine myself mainly to one feature of the estimates as indicated in a passage in the amendment proposed by this side, namely the relationship of the budget to agricultural matters and to production at this juncture. As I am doing so I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. Carinus). He stood up here and tried to bring this House and the general public under the impression that a great deal has been done for agriculture and agricultural production. Now I should like to dwell on a few points to which he referred. He has dealt with the position in connection with the deduction for income tax purposes granted to farmers in respect of permanent improvements on their farms. The position before the war was that every farmer was allowed to deduct those costs entirely. In 1944 that privilege was curtailed by the Minister of Finance. From all sides of the House appeals were made on the ground that the Minister was hampering agricultural production and it was pointed out that he was striking a deadly blow at agriculture. Then came the concession by the Minister, that he would allow a 20 per cent. rebate. On pressure from this side of the House that was increased to 30 per cent. But the same member for Hottentots-Holland who stood up here and said that it was such a good step to allow that deduction proposed as I learn at the congress of the Agricultural Union, after it was granted, that the deduction should be 50 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. Have we now to listen to the arguments of the member who indulges in this sort of talk here and then makes these proposals cutside? Then he comes here and says he hopes the day will arrive when the deduction of 30 per cent. will also disappear. We recall that in this House a debate was in progress regarding the excise on wine. The representatives of the wine farmers felt that that taxation would press very heavily on that section of the population. The hon. member for Hottentots-Holland then rose and said he gave us the assurance that that tax was only a war tax. He said that, rightly or wrongly, money was necessary for the war and in the circumstances he voted for the measure. He said in the first place he voted for it because in the circumstances money was required, and in the second place—

Can we attach any other significance to that than that it was a war tax which would be repealed according to him as soon as the war came to an end? The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) then interjected to ask why an increased tax was not imposed on whisky, and the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland replied that he expected the Minister would take the tax into review when circumstances justified it. Today he is absolutely silent over it all. The war is over, the tax is still there and the member remains silent about it.

Let us now turn to this important point for which not only South Africa but the whole world stands. During the last few years of the war the words “reconstruction, social security and freedom from want’’ were on the lips of almost every nation in the world. Those phrases about security became the war-cry of humanity. Now the war is over, the clouds of dust raised by the war have rolled by, and that cry has now made way for a still more serious cry, a cry that is on the lips of all—where shall I get sufficient for my people and myself to eat and live tomorrow and the next day? The world is confronted with a situation such as it has never known in its history, and seeing this is the case it is necessary that we in South Africa should expect from the Government of the day that it should tell the people what are our prospects for the immediate future and what they intend to do to resist efficiently the conditions we expect. In recent years an appeal was made to the whole country, the Government knows about it, that a Food Ministry should be given to South Africa. Where did that demand come from? It was a demand that came from the general public, people who had stood in queues in hundreds and thousands with their money in their hand trying to get food and who could not get that food. So demand was set up for a Food Ministry so that they would have an opportunity to obtain those things that they require for consumption every day. The answer that we received right through the country regarding this Food Ministry was that it was not necessary and that the Government would see to things. I notice the Minister of Native Affairs is sitting pretty and eating sweets while I am talking. I do not know whether it is biltong or sweets. Let me just say this, that right through the war the people received the answer from the Government that no Food Ministry could be set up, that they could not devote attention to these things because the war was the primary consideration. But the demand became so strong that the Government later appointed a commission to institute enquiry into the position of agriculture and into our productive capacity, especially in reference to post-war conditions. This commission was appointed. It completed its labours and presented a report to the Advisory Agricultural Board. At that conference there were present representatives of all the control boards and the report of this committee in connection with agricultural reconstruction in which very important recommendations are made in regard to the food position, and the improvement of production in our country, was presented to the farmers’ organisations as far back as 28th January, 1944. It was presented to the representatives of the Control Boards and, so we read, it was adopted lock, stock and barrel in principle. How much importance must be attached to this report is to be judged from these words in the preface—

This report was prepared specially to afford guidance in connection with post-war needs. The post-war period has now arrived. The preface continues—

This report is for the immediate period after the war. In dealing with this position that the commission investigated they indicated what the plan should be for the agricultural reconstruction of South Africa if we wish to make provision for increased production to fulfil the needs of the people. The commission laid down certain points. Let me mention a few of them in connection with the productive capacity of agriculture and the necessity for increasing it. The first is: Farming provides subsistence to far and away the larger proportion of the people of the country. This is an established fact. No one can argue it away. It is the industry which gives a living to the larger part of the community.

The second point is the farmer holds in his capacity as producer the key position in our national life, because the task rests on him to provide the country with food. For years and years on end that proposition was denied by people who had not an adequate knowledge of the position of the farmer and the population of the platteland. Even today we heard from the member on the other side that the farmers are a privileged section of the community. If people did not realise it in the past both farmer and townsman realise it today because everyone sees how indispensable it is for the country that the farmer shall produce so as to be able to provide the food requirements of the people. That is a fact which is no longer argued today, because the position has been brought home to everyone in the country.

The next point is that since 1918, since that war, the farmer in South Africa was always in the position to fulfil the food requirements of the country. Never since 1918 have we had the position in South Africa that the farmer was unable to meet the demands of the country in regard to food requirements. From 1918 until today many difficulties have arisen which have been surmounted by the farming community. We have suffered many serious droughts; we have passed through depressions; we have experienced market fluctuations and a legion of factors which hampered the productive capacity of the farmer. But notwithstanding all this during that period there was never a time when South Africa could not produce enough to satisfy the demands of consumers. Now this commission comes to a conclusion as to what should be done in the present circumstances. Today we are faced with the position that we cannot provide the food requirements of the country, and with this in mind the commission comes to the following conclusion. It is necessary that an improvement should be effected in South Africa in regard to agriculture, and the commission comes to this conclusion—

It was stated by people who have long been engaged in dealing with every aspect of the position in connection with agricultural production, and with the position we are now faced with, that there has been such a setback that agriculture cannot provide the food requirements of the country. I want to say this, that it is now plainer than ever, and this commission also recognises it, that if agriculture is not sound, a great deal of the national life will not be stimulated and retain its strength. In regard to the circumstances that led to this production being inadequate, I should like to mention the following. There are always retarding factors in operation. In 1944, with the cognisance of the Cabinet and the Planning Council, certain retarding factors were mentioned which should be removed. I will refer to a few of them. For the umpteenth time it was stated by this committee that there is over-capitalisation in farming, and this as a result of the absence of a sound system of short-term credit which would put the farmer in a position to obtain money for the financing of the normal and just development of farming. That is now taken as gospel in this House. For years we have been pleading strongly that provision must be made for proper short-term credit facilities for the farmer, so that he can properly finance his agricultural activities. This commission alludes to the same matter—to the over-capitalisation of farms caused by the absence of a proper system of short-term credit, and the conclusion is that such a system for short-term credit is necessary to meet the daily needs of the farmer in financing his work. Do we find in this Budget that has been presented to us that the Minister pays any attention to this matter? We find not a single jot or tittle to give effect to this important demand for short-term credit that is stressed by the Government’s own committee.

The next point is that the price of agricultural products in many cases remains inadequate. We know that in many instances prices have been fixed, but in many other instances the farmer knows what his production costs will be while he is in ignorance of the price the product will fetch. A general feature during these years is that the production costs of the farmer have increased tremendously. We have a recommendation in the report of this commission to the effect that if agriculture is to be made sound, stable and efficient, attention must be devoted to the increased costs of production. Let me mention a few things. Labour on the platteland was the cause of an increase of from 100 per cent. to 200 per cent. Ask any practical farmer what the position is, and he will tell you that he has to pay from 100 per cent. to 200 per cent. more than formerly.

No, 80 per cent.

The hon. member pays perhaps 150 per cent. or 199 per cent. more, and now he says it is not 200 per cent. The fact is that the costs of production have increased. It is admitted from all sides of the House that they have increased, and in face of that increase not a finger is stirred to meet the producers and to encourage food production. The Minister of Finance gave £1,850,000 to the gold mines to enable them to pay increased wages to their natives. In the meanwhile, the farmers themselves have to pay every penny of the increase in their labour costs. Then we have the increased cost of means of production. There ’is not a single member sitting here who will deny that the means of production have increased tremendously in cost.

That is so, but prices are also higher.

Hon. members on the other side are nettled because these things appeared in a report of their own committee. It was presented to the Cabinet as long ago as 1944 and nothing was done. I can understand them being peeved. There is another item in connection with which the committee asked that provision should be made. It is felt that the costs of transport to the producer, taking into consideration the long distances, are very high.

Let me refer to another feature. The Minister of Finance knows that during the war many people paid off their mortgages. Then the Minister of Finance stood up here and said that the position of the farming population is sound because never previously have they paid off mortgages held by the Land Bank to such an extent. We on this side pointed out to the Minister that the farmers paid off their mortgages to the Land Bank because money was plentiful and they could get the money elsewhere much cheaper. But this report recommends that the State, as such, should eventually be the bondholder in respect of the capital debt of the farmer. But what is being done? Has anyone stirred a finger to make provision that a move should be made in that direction, that these people should return to the Land Bank to borrow money from the State? No, and the day will arrive, and everyone here knows it, when there will again be a shortage of money right through the country, and should that day arrive these people will have to pay much more by way of interest than they are paying now, and also as interest on money they may receive from the State. Is there any provision against that? South Africa in the years preceding the war and at the commencement of the war had certain effective schemes to make provision for the reconstruction of agriculture. Those schemes were primarily intended to enable the farmers to produce more and to produce better. I would refer to the soil erosion works that were put into effect in 1933. I do not know whether there is a single member who will not say that the money expended on these schemes before the war was not well spent. It was spent to save the arable soil of South Africa and to promote the prosperity of the people. With those schemes we gave the people a chance for expanded and improved production. They were introduced in 1933. We gained the experience and the schemes were developed until we had six different anti-soil erosion schemes in the country. During the war they were all abandoned with the exception of Scheme A.

And even that has been only partially retained.

Yes, that is so. Seeing it is so I ask whether it is not the duty of the Government to say at this juncture that those schemes that were repealed during the war will be revived. If the Government will in any way follow the policy of stimulating production in the country this is one of the first things it should do. Up to 1942, £2,000,000 was expended on these schemes. One blushes for shame on seeing what is spent today on these schemes for soil and water conservation in comparison with the requirements. What we did get was a speech by the Minister of Lands who described great schemes and painted the ideal state of affairs. He told us about schemes that were surveyed and which would be further surveyed. That is all very well, but we ask what is being done in the way of combating soil erosion in order that it may be tackled efficiently after we have waited for it so many years. We must commence now with the necessary works, we must undertake them immediately and energetically. These things were dropped during the period of war, and I maintain it is high time when we had an announcement that they will be restored to the estimates. These measures which were suspended during the period of war on account of the war must now be continued further. We in South Africa are on the threshold of a shortage of meat, dairy products, grain, etc. We cannot feed our people and it is time the Government gave an indication it is prepared to resume these schemes. Years ago a scheme was instituted for the improvement of our stock. It was continued for five years. The farmers got a subsidy for the purchase of good bulls, but when the scheme had to be stopped they pleaded earnestly with the Government to extend the period. The good work has begun and the Government must not stop half way. That scheme has been dropped. One would have thought that at this juncture something more would have been done in that direction. It would have increased production in the country. If the farmers are assisted to get the right bulls our cattle would be improved, our dairy herds would have been improved, and the result would have been greater production.

For years it has been pleaded in this House that there should be a soil survey so that we would know what farming products thrive best in definite localities. We pleaded for an agro-economic survey. Eventually such an agro-economic survey was undertaken. It was carried out partially but came to an end in 1941. Why was the work not continued so that we could subdivide South Africa into regions and know at which places we should produce this or that product? I have stated that I would devote my attention mainly to the question of how the Government is indicating in this budget that it realises the position of farming in South Africa and what encouragement the Government is giving for food production in the country. Let me say what the position is as far as this is concerned. I read in the same report the following important statement—

This is the position today. If you look at what is going on in the rest of the world we see that humanity today is suffering because starvation has followed on the heels of war. There is distress and famine and they expect there will be more victims of it than of the war itself—

It is stated in this report that the question of food production is not confined to South Africa. It has become a world question. It is the focal point of the whole plan—will we in future produce enough food to feed our people? This conference at Hot Springs took the following resolution—

Here an international conference declares its belief that humanity is still in the position to produce enough food from the earth to satisfy the needs of humanity. I ask the Government to share that belief in respect of its own people and our mother country. What is the food position in the country? Not only do our people stand in long queues—I understand the Minister of Agriculture said in Caledon that he knew nothing about queues. Well, of course he knows nothing about it because he has never stood in a queue. But the public stand in long lines queueing up to obtain food and not only this but South Africa today is in the humiliating position that it has to queue up in the international world to see how much food it can get from other nations. That is South Africa’s position today. Now they have to use aircraft to fly over to queue up before the world and to ask how much South Africa can get of the available food. We have never had such a position before. Has the Government then lost faith in its own country and in the productive potentialities of its own people in regard to encouraging production so that at least provision can be made for the needs of our own people. The conference at Hot Springs declared that the first task was to win the war and subsequently in the post-war period to safeguard the world against starvation. They said a joint effort was needed to economise and to produce.

And then I come to the important finding of the conference that the distress of the world can only be alleviated by increasing supplies and by distributing them as advantageously as possible. In this budget where do we find that the Government has done anything to increase production, to augment supplies? And when I come to the second point, which is just as important, namely distribution, then you find that South Africa has again been placed in the humiliating position by this Government that while supplies are being imported with the aid of subsidies, the Minister of Agriculture who is sitting there and the whole of the Government is not able to distribute properly the food they import into South Africa, and they have sent an S.O.S. to England to send their Minister of Agriculture to us to teach us how we must arrange distribution, and when he himself could not come they said they would send two of their officials who would teach us how to distribute our food and how to eliminate the bad state of affairs in connection with distribution. While people in England are standing in queues in consequence of the meat shortage the market at other centres is overstocked to such an extent that they do not know what to do with their meat, and farmers cannot obtain permits. At one moment natives in the Cape Town market are standing with shovels ready to throw the rotten potatoes into the sea and a little later the people have to stand in long queues in order to get potatoes. It is the most regrettable position we have ever experienced in our country, and in view of the famine that is imminent I would ask where in the Estimates you can lay your finger on anything the Government has done to stimulate production. Then I come to this resolution of the conference in connection with food production—

I repeat what I have said previously that South Africa must itself remain self-sufficient and self-supporting especially in regard to food supplies. We are now faced with a shortage, and what is being done at the moment bearing in mind the immediate crops to be gathered, what is being done to put the farmers in the position to get crops? I would only mention a few things in this connection. What is being done by the Government to provide the means to enable people to produce more wheat in the following season? The whole world will have a shortage of wheat, South Africa will have again to go cap in hand overseas to get what it can. What is being done to encourage the sowing of wheat in April and May and in this way to stimulate production, what has been done in connection with the provision of seed? The wheat must now be sown if there is to be a good harvest in the following season. What has been done in connection with the labour position? During this drought numbers of farmers in South Africa, which is par excellence a stock-raising country, have been totally ruined. We have never before experienced such conditions, but when there were droughts governments in the past came and took measures to put the farmers in a position again to buy cattle and to continue with their farming. We asked the Minister of Finance what he intended to do. We asked that at the time of the Part Appropriation. There are farmers who no longer have a single head of stock on their farm. What is he going to do to put them in a position to purchase cattle again and to continue with production? The reply was that things were going well with the farmers; and in this Budget as well there is not a single measure to assist the farmers and years must certainly pass before the farmers out of their meagre income will again be enabled to resume their stock farming. Do what was done in the past. Let the State assist these people. The State and the people have never regretted granting similar aid to the farming community, and now more than ever it is necessary to give these people an opportunity to buy cattle again. Put them in a position to increase production and to build up their herds so that South Africa will again be able to provide for its own needs in meat and milk. But what is the strangest feature of the whole position is that throughout the world it is being stressed that every foot of ground must be made productive in order to obtain the necessary food for humanity. Throughout the war production was hampered, principally by the Minister of Lands, who allowed thousands of morgen of land partially under irrigation to lie idle. What has he contributed towards making the land productive? What is more, while this commission which made an enquiry into agricultural conditions in South Africa strongly recommended that the policy of settlement should be reviewed and made proposals for more people to be settled on the land so that they could produce, the Minister of Lands came and said that the day of settlement in South Africa has passed. He holds nothing in prospect. Probationary lessees are chased away from the farms, and other members of the civilian population are restrained from going on to the land. And he announces that he is not proceeding further with settlement. A plea has been made here for water conservation. The Minister of Lands has pictured big schemes for the future. We have said that if you want increased production an immediate start must be made with water conservation. Begin on a small scale. The Minister of Lands said that he proposed to assist every farmer to have his own fodder bank. When we pinned him down and asked what he was doing to give the farmers a chance to have fodder banks on their farms his reply was that the matter must first be investigated. Many farmers have made dams for themselves. They have done it with their own resources and with a little assistance have made some provision. It has been stated here that we want the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture to assist these people to make effective dams, to assist them with concrete pipes for water conservation and irrigation and in this way to increase production. No response has been made to the appeal of the farmers. I wish to conclude with again saying that in the position in which the world and South Africa finds itself the most vital thing of all is that we should combat the starvation that is at our door and save humanity from a greater disaster than the war. Viewed from this angle the Minister’s Budget is disappointing to the consumer and the producer because in face of the state of affairs as we see it virtually nothing is being done to stimulate agricultural production in the coming financial year with a view to providing food for the people. It serves no purpose to hold out a prospect of all sorts of things and to talk about big plans if the people have now to suffer hunger. South Africa is standing in a queue, the people of South Africa stand in a queue, and the question that must be answered and which is in the mind of everyone in the country, is “For how long, for how long?” The Government must give a reply to that. They must give it during the current session. The charge has been made by this side that if the Government will not take any measures it will be responsible for the starving to death of people who have been entrusted to its care in South Africa.

I first want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Finance for the very excellent Budget he produced. I want to assure the House that I have had various letters and communications from residents on the Rand and as far afield as Port Elizabeth and East London, and they all appreciate what the Minister of Finance has done for us. I only regret that he is not present to hear what I am saying. Everyone in the country appreciates it, with the exception of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside). I want to touch on the question of mining. I regret that the Minister of Finance did not see his way clear to give further consideration to the mines. We must remember that if the mines get even further consideration, they could give more consideration to their workers who did yeoman service for the country during the war, and who deserve our consideration and must get it, as they are still on their pre-war standard of wages. I was listening to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) in connection with silicosis. I want to assure the House that I have every confidence in our Minister of Mines, and when the Silicosis Bill is introduced I am sure it will be acceptable to the mineworkers.

Have you seen that Bill?

No, I have not seen it, but my hon. friend from Westdene knows so little about the miners, that I think his interjection is of no value at all. If he had any knowledge of mines, he would have been in a position today to tell us what is required to give the miner what he appealed for. But he knows nothing. I have not seen the Bill, but I have such great confidence in the Minister of Mines that I know the Bill will be acceptable, and I know the miner will get justice from the Minister.

As usual.

There are so many of those hon. members who know very little about this that it is not worth wasting my time to enlighten them. They know nothing about the miner and his conditions, and what they should do is to join me in appealing for the miner to reward him for what he has done during the war. But it is regrettable that hon. members opposite do not think so.

What have you done for them?

I have done more than those members opposite have done, but I cannot waste my time on that member. I want to deal with the matter of maize and wheat referred to by the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein), and to assure him that maize and wheat have been fixed at prices to the interest of the farming community, but at the same time, the consumers were not forgotten. The point of view of the consumers should also be considered. The Opposition are always trying to get us to tax the mines to an extent where they will go out of existence.

That is not true.

If that happens I would like to know what the position of the farmers will be. The mining industry is the biggest buyer of their produce. But they are not concerned about anything. They are only appealing on a sectional basis and trying to make political propaganda. The hon. member was only trying to favour their chances in the West Rand election.

I think the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) told a very unconvincing story about the sad plight of agriculture in South Africa. His contention is not borne out by the report of the Agricultural Department, which sets out how agriculture has developed. The hon. member reminded me of what the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) said about an infusion of new blood.

That is what you need.

The hon. members opposite are only disappointed about the result of the election at Caledon. The hon. member for Boshof made some very wild statements. He attacked the Minister of Lands and said that he had not raised a finger to stimulate agricultural production in the settlements on the Pongola, the Riet River and Vaalhartz. On the contrary the Minister had encouraged production there, of which the hon. members who criticise have no real knowledge. His statements are absolutely incorrect. Enormous production is taking place on those settlements, and the Minister has made substantial contributions to the food requirements of this country on those settlements which he has been preparing for our soldiers on their return to civilian life. I would like to inform Opposition members that the Minister of Lands has prepared the finest land settlements for soldiers among the allied nations and perhaps in the world. The returned soldier will have land allotted to him under permanent water, of which half at least is cultivated and under production.

Yes, including Dongola.

That has nothing to do with it. The member for Boshof wanted to mislead the House by inferring …

Order, order. The hon. member must not accuse another member of wanting to mislead the House.

I withdraw that statement. The hon. member by his statements and quoting from a departmental report, which is the adopted policy of our Department of Agriculture, wasted the time of the House in deprecating the endeavours of this Government. The members opposite quite forgot that during the last six years we have been fighting a life and death struggle in one of the greatest wars in history. During that time marvellous development took place, and although the hon. member says that not enough food was produced, this Government has gone out and produced food under the most adverse conditions. Never in its history has any government in this country ploughed so many lands and put so much ground under production as this Government. We have had dozens of tractors ploughing for farmers. Even in the native territories we stimulated production, due to the foresight of the Government, the Government finding tractors and ploughing for 10s. per morgen. The hon. member for Boshof says that no inducement was given to the farmer, and speaks about the over-capitalisation of our land. I entirely disagree with that. I do not see where our land is overcapitalised. The farmers make a very good return from their land and have received almost double their pre-war prices. If that is not an inducement for increasing production, I do not know what is. The hon. member spoke about credit facilities for farmers. Bonds and debts have been the nightmare of farmers in this country and they are today paying off their debts. In the last two years they paid off almost £12 million of debts to the State Advances and Recoveries Office, debts which any business would regard as bad debts. The hon. members says that the farmers had to combat soil erosion and make dams without any help from the State. I would like him to show me any dam the construction of which was not assisted by the Government. But that does not mean that we cannot do more, which is definitely the Government’s endeavour. The hon. member also made very deprecating remarks about the Budget of the Minister of Finance, which definitely is one of the most outstanding in the British Commonwealth if not in the world. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on his Peace Budget. That Budget is unrivalled. The Minister has paid due regard to the needs of the working man, especially the married working man. There is provision for a reduction of taxation of approximately £18 million and the further provision of £10 million to subsidise necessary imported food. He has given relief on all matters which affect the man in the street, and we have had a wonderful reception to this Budget by the people of the country.

Is that so?

I know hon. members disagree. They have criticised the reduction in mining taxation. I do not want to speak about the mines, but I know there are thousands of working people who have investments in the mines. The Minister certainly has not only stimulated mining, but he has increased the income of the poor man who has invested in shares. And why should he not? After all, mining is the backbone of the country, and the mines need the support and the investments of the working man and of the lower income groups. This reduction in mining taxation has assisted the man in the street also. I appreciate the Minister’s attempt to stabilise our pension funds, but I want to appeal to him to go further and I make a special appeal for the widows of our civil servants. They are provided for out of a fund built up through a 1 per cent. contribution of the salary of their husbands, which means a pension to them in widowhood of £2 or £3 a month. I feel that these widows have made it possible for the husbands during their lifetime to render efficient service to the State, and we should not forget them in the tragedy of having to spend their lives in widowhood. I appeal to the Minister of Finance to pay a £ for £ subsidy to the Widows’ Pension Fund. We know there is a Commission which is to report some time this year on the conditions and salaries of civil servants, and I think most of us are convinced that whatever the report is, on account of the increased cost of living today, it cannot give satisfaction. If the civil servant had the security of his family guaranteed, I think he would not measure his services in terms of £.s.d. and that is what I would like to see in our country. I should like to see civil servants work with pleasure and pride, giving efficient service, and not gauging the value of service by £.s.d. If the Minister would provide security to their families it would give tremendous satisfaction. I would also like to see provision made for an insurance policy to cover a civil servant if he is retrenched on medical grounds before being entitled to a pension. A civil-servant has to work 10 years before he qualifies for a pension, and we have known of very sad cases where retrenchment on medical grounds before being entitled to a pension has been brought about through diligent service to the State. In these cases they receive a gratuity but no pension. I feel that an insurance policy should be created by which the amount refunded from contributions would cover the insurance. We should go all out to give our civil servants security, which would go far towards preventing our best men leaving the service which they are doing today. Many of us are perturbed about the future of the Civil Service. We are not attracting the type of man we had in the past. If security for the family was provided there would be an improvement. Before I sit down I wish to appeal to the Minister to take a broad view as regards irrigation development in this country. I do not want to go so far as to say that I know that much of the water of the Zambesi River could be diverted to irrigate Southern Africa and still leave sufficient water to flow over the Victoria Falls. I know that is an international problem, but I hope that something will be done in that connection. I know that this is possible but that it is an international problem, but I not only hope that in our generation we will see something done in that direction, but I also want to appeal to the Minister to provide funds to conserve our waters in this country.

I must remind the hon. member of his own notice of motion which is still on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, I realise I am out of order. I apologise for erring in that respect, but it is very difficult when one speaks of agriculture to avoid speaking about irrigation. It is difficult to know where to draw the line between dams and irrigation schemes. That is a question that has been generally debated in this House on this motion. A development of this nature ….

Order, order. The hon. member is now transgressing my ruling.

I realise that I have transgressed your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in that regard and I apologise for my transgression, knowing that I myself was responsible for this motion which is still before the House. It is very difficult on a budget speech which deals with mining also not to include the subject which I cannot raise now, but we had looked forward enormously to developing our mining industry in the Free State. I agree with Lord Strabolgi when he says that this country can feed and keep a population of 20,000,000, and I do foresee with the great development that can and will take place when we have settled our returned soldiers, that a stream of immigrants will be attracted to this country, and when that time arrives the smallness of outlook which is so evident on the benches opposite will disappear. We will then take a large view, and we will develop into a great nation, which is the ambition and practical view of nearly everyone in this country. With our young and active Minister of Agriculture, I have no doubt that the Agricultural Department and even the control by control boards will be placed on such a level that everyone in the country will be satisfied. We have, of course, to feel our way. In the case of control boards, for instance, we have made much criticism of their policy, and when a control board decides on the costs of production of the primary producer and seeks to stabilise that, then one eliminates all speculative tendencies on the distributive side of the business. The producer also wants a more or less economic return, and in this country our costs’ of production are high. I know that the general public has been disappointed in the achievements of the control boards, but I have every confidence that the control boards, with the co-operation of the consumers, distributors and producers, will be a great success. With regard to the meat shortage, we must realise that many more people today are able to buy meat in comparison with pre-war days. We heard this afternoon that even with the present doubling of the milk supply we can only provide for four million out of the 12 million inhabitants of this country. We have been a poor country up to now, and in spite of the criticism we have had from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) in regard to increased expenditure because this country took part in the war, and in spite of his smallness in comparing this country’s efforts with Ireland, I say that we have reason to be proud that this country declared for war and not neutrality. The hon. member’s attitude astounded me. It astounded me to find that the hon. member as a South African is not proud, under the circumstances, of the increase in our national income and even in our revenue and expenditure. We are sorry the Minister of Finance is not here this afternoon, but we wish his quick restoration to health to steer this country’s finances from strength to strength.

I am very glad that the Minister of Agriculture is in his place because I wish to take the opportunity of saying a few words on a matter which is of the greatest importance to us, and that is the White Paper that has been laid on the Table of the House on our agricultural policy. In the first place it is of the greatest importance to the farming community itself which is naturally affected by any change in the agricultural policy, and it is interesting to examine the figure that is given in the White Paper and in the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council to show how important agriculture is to South Africa. According to the figures issued in 1936 two-thirds of our population were directly dependent on farming, and even the figures after 1941 showed that three-fifths of our population are directly dependent on the agricultural industry, and I make bold to say if another census was taken next May it would transpire that half of the people or even more are dependent on the agricultural industry. Furthermore, it is important to explain to the House how much capital is invested in our agricultural industry. The Social and Economic Planning Council make that very clear in their report. There are 104,000 farms with an area of 100,000,000 morgen in South Africa, and there are 10,000,000 morgen belonging to natives, so all in all 110,000,000 morgen of land falls under the agricultural industry. If it was valuated at an average of £3 per morgen we would find it represents a capital of £330,000,000 invested in agriculture alone. There must be added to that in respect of the movable assets and agricultural assets on the farms the figure of £127,000,000. So that we arrive at the enormous figure for the total agricultural value of £457,000,000. The figure indicating agricultural production on this investment is also interesting. In 1936-’37 the total agricultural production was about £60,000,000, and if there is deducted from that cash expenditure calculated at £16,000,000 the result is that this part of our life yields a nett amount of £44,000,000. I mention the figures to indicate the importance of agriculture in South Africa. The publication of this document is further of enormous importance in so far as it relates to the application of social security, and in that connection it is interesting to quote the few figures that are given in the document that is before us. The report of the Social and Economic Council states that two-thirds of our land is so dry and so subject to fluctuations of rainfall that it is only fit, as it is expressed in the report “for extremely extensive farming systems, namely cattle and sheep farming on big farms”. It furthermore makes a short and interesting comparison as to how far robbing the soil and the destruction of land has gone in South Africa, and the report reads [translation]—

The White Paper on agricultural policy makes reference to that and suggests how to attempt to solve the problem. The general position of the farmers—their income, their financial position—is also a matter which is worth studying. The figures that are published show that in 1941 there were 23,342 farmers with a yearly income of under £50; 23,312 farmers with a yearly income under £100; 13,699 farmers with a yearly income of under £150; and 8,933 farmers with a yearly income of under £200. So altogether there were 69,186 farmers who had an income of less than £200 a year and 32,658 who had a yearly income of over £200 per year. The figures show that two out of every three farmers have an income of less than £200 a year and it further shows that one out of every four farmers had an income only of less than £50 a year. Further facts are quoted in the document which show how necessary farming is. If one makes a comparison with other countries it is very remarkable in what poor circumstances our farmers are placed in comparison with the farmers of other countries. A comparison of the percentage of the population that can provide enough food for the whole population of the country shows that in New Zealand 6.4 per cent. of the people can feed the country, in Australia 9.7 per cent. In the United States of America it is 23.4 per cent., and in our country 60 per cent. of the population participating in the farming industry cannot provide enough food for the whole population. Consequently we require almost ten times as much manpower as New Zealand for feeding the people. There is another interesting figure, namely, that New Zealand has only half the number of our cattle and two-thirds the number of our sheep, but produces more beef, butter, cheese and mutton and wool than we do, and to do that must be added that the products of New Zealand are of a better standard than ours. Australia produces more than twice the value of our agricultural products with about a quarter of the manpower. Our yield per unit in mealies in comparison with the Argentine, Australia and the United States of America is only a third to a fourth of their yield. Wheat compares equally badly, and the cattle production figures are also very weak. This interesting subject commands attention in three reports. In the first place, there is the report of the Reconstruction Committee of the Department of Agriculture. Then we have the fourth report of the Economic and Planning Council, and the last is the White Paper. I think it is very interesting and very educative to study each of these reports. The first, the report of the Reconstruction Committee of the Department of Agriculture, is of course to a certain degree bureaucratic in its character. This may be expected; it is drawn up by officials of the Department. The fourth report of the Economic and Planning Council is perhaps more practical, and it may be put in that way, but it is noteworthy when one compares the two reports how they correspond in many respects. A summary of the two policies laid down in the report of the Reconstruction Committee and the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council is laid down in the White Paper, and I should like here to make a few remarks which will be confined to the policy of the Government as laid down in the White Paper on agricultural policy and the report of the Reconstruction Committee. In the first place, it is necessary to determine what are the bases the Government lays down as their policy in connection with the reconstruction of agriculture. It is set out efficiently in the White Paper. The White Paper, after a consideration of all the facts and conclusions arrived at by both the Planning Council and the Departmental Committee, gives a resume of them, and lays down the policy of the Government. The four fundamental objectives of both the Planning Council and the. Departmental Committee that were accepted by the Government in its White Paper are set out as follows—

Bearing in mind these factors, I should like to discuss the policy the Government has laid down in the White Paper a little more fully. But allow me, Sir, first to congratulate the writers of this White Paper on their interesting production. It is very readable, and it can be described as interesting reading matter, and I should advise everyone who has not read the White Paper to do so. I can assure you it reads almost like a novel. The object the White Paper envisages is at once clearly and simply set out in the first opening paragraph—

Here it is put briefly, forcibly and succinctly. After that the White Paper goes on to view the problem not only from the angle of the farmer, but also from a general social problem. Permit me to quote again—

I think that hits the nail on the head, as everyone who has had experience of the feeling on the platteland can testify to. The Government then lays down the foundations of its policy. It is put briefly and pointedly and thoroughly, and no fault is to be found with their policy. It is set out in two main divisions, the first is—

And secondly—

I assume that if the Government succeeds in the carrying out of these plans everyone in South Africa, and especially the farming community, will express their gratitude to the Government for its activities. The White Paper goes on to explain these foundations in more detail. It refers to the logical conclusion that the prices of farm products must be reduced and then lays down—

There the Government unequivocally defines its policy, that it will strive towards an orderly adjustment. Further, the White Paper goes thoroughly into the question of a proper balance between the prices of agricultural and other products, and says that equilibrium must be maintained and that the relationship between external and internal prices must not be ignored. Here, too, the Government lays down its policy unequivocally, and I quote its own words—

In order to allay the anxiety of consumers the White Paper states—

With the application of a stabilised price policy the Government lays down that recourse must be had to the control board system, with which system the agricultural industry will undoubtedly and unanimously agree—

It is also important for the farmers that the Government has in this White Paper discussed this ticklish question and laid down a policy as to whether the control boards themselves should undertake the processing and distribution of their products, and the Government has laid down that they consider this is not necessary. It is felt that the report of the commission that is sitting on distribution costs should be awaited, but—

There is no doubt that a section of the farming community will not agree with this policy of the Government on this particular point, but I feel that when the Government has thoroughly considered the various aspects of the case no one will quarrel with it. Then the Government goes on, in this White Paper, to set out its action programme, and I will present it to the House in this way—

The Government says that this matter is being studied further by the experts. I would however assume that the Government is aware that more effective facilities for shortterm or long-term credit must be extended to the farmers, and it is only a question of in what way it will be made available. Furthermore, the Government has laid down the policy that the expanded afforestation programme will be proceeded with. The Government is also aware of the fact that the matter is one of extreme urgency, and in the last paragraph of the White Paper we have the assurance that we shall have certain measures before us during the present Session of Parliament. I quote the last paragraph from the White Paper, (page 18)—

Truly a very ambitious programme. I have only presented briefly the main points of the Government’s policy. You will agree with me that the scheme is so wide and so comprehensive and covers such a large field that it is extremely difficult in the short time at my disposal to give a thorough consideration to the programme and to criticise it if necessary. But the first conclusion of every one of us is assured: How will the proposed change affect my constituents? How will it affect the farmers in my constituency; what sequels will follow in the train of the proposed plans? Consequently on the basis of the knowledge I possess of the special circumstances in my constituency I shall discuss somewhat more extensively the following points, and I also trust I may offer some constructive criticism. From the facts regarding the agricultural industry in general that have been mentioned by me it is apparent that certain assistance must be granted as quickly as possible to the farmers. But I fear that the department will be too leisurely in putting into operation the proposed plans, and that possibly a number of the proposed means of assistance also lie outside the scope of the department. I refer to the following points. The establishment and provision of improved transport facilities in my constituency is of the greatest importance. In my constituency there are no asphalt roads. There are only two ordinary roads which are not in any way fit for vehicular traffic. Then we talk of farm roads and bridges. The farm roads are in many instances unfit for vehicular traffic, and the bridges are conspicuous by their absence. I am aware of the fact that this is a matter for the Provincial Council, but I want to address a few words to the Hon. Minister of Finance and ask him to consider whether it is not necessary in order to carry out the policy of the Government in this respect, to make more funds available to the provincial councils for the construction of roads, particularly of farm roads in the outlying parts.

Then also telephone services, or improved telephone services, are very necessary in the rural areas. I know that during the war telephone facilities have been almost unprocurable, but now that the war is over I hope that the Minister of Posts, in the first place, will give attention to the erection of telephones in the rural areas. In doing so, he would at the same time give effect to the policy of the Government as set out in the White Paper.

A further point I wish to bring to the attention of the Government is the necessity for making wireless sets more easily procurable by farmers in the rural areas. The Government emphasises the point in the White Paper that propaganda must be made in connection with agriculture; farmers must be taught and shown how to carry on their farming. The best medium of propaganda is the radio, but it is no use if the experts of the Department of Agriculture give lectures over the radio and the position is as in my constituency, for instance, that one out of a hundred farmers have the opportunity of listening in. In order to give effect to the policy of the Government we should immediately take steps to see to it that farmers are enabled to obtain wireless sets. In this connection, of course, the question of electricity also arises. The Government should consider making wireless sets more easily available to the farming community by means of subsidies and longterm payments. It will bring the farmer into closer contact with the Department of Agriculture and keep him more up-to-date with the developments which take place from time to time.

Then it is undoubtedly essential that more inexpensive and better road motor services should be introduced. In that connection I want to address a few words to the Minister of Transport. I am aware of the fact that the South Africa Act provides that the Railways, including the Motor Transport Services, should be run on business lines, but since the Government has laid down in the White Paper that road motor services are essential, and since that is the policy of the Government, I suggest that the Minister of Transport should approach the Minister of Finance for a subsidy to enable him to introduce more road motor services. The Minister of Transport explained to us that last year he suffered a loss to the extent of £300,000 on the road motor services. I suggest that he should apply to the Minister of Finance for £300,000. It is important that road motor services should be made available to the whole of the rural areas. It is the only means by which many farmers can be provided with access to the market, and I can assure the Minister of Agriculture that the shortage of cheese, milk and butter would have been less acute if the Minister of Transport had put better road motor services at the disposal of the farmers in the past.

A further point in connection with the development of the rural areas is the question of electricity. May I ask the Minister of Finance what his policy is going to be to enable farmers to purchase expensive machinery. The White Paper clearly lays down and the Planning Council clearly emphasises, that it is essential, if our agriculture is to be a success in future, that we should give attention to overseas methods. It will definitely be necessary for our agricultural industry to be further mechanised and the first question which arises is how the poor farmer is to get hold of the necessary machinery. I propose that the Minister of Finance should give serious attention to that point.

Then I come to the Minister of Irrigation. I want to thank him for having already done his bit by introducing the Bill to amend the Irrigation Act. I just want to ask him to show his sympathy to the farmer and, where it is provided that the subsidy of one-third can be paid to a maximum of £250, I want to suggest that the subsidy should be left to his discretion and that if necessary he should be able to pay a subsidy of up to 100 per cent. Then I would like to know from him what his plans are in connection with the sinking of boreholes. In my constituency there is a great need for more boreholes. It is difficult to get hold of drilling machines—almost impossible. People have had their names on the waiting list for months. I want to suggest that the Minister should take this matter into serious consideration. I know that there is some concession with regard to dry boreholes, but I want to ask the Minister to go still further as far as the concession is concerned.

The working of the Unprofitable Occupation of Farms Act is something I would submit to the consideration of the Minister of Lands. I know what a knotty problem it is but for the sake of laying down a sound agricultural policy it is essential. I just want to ask him whether, if he is going to extend the application of this Act, he would take on the dispossessed farmers as settlers under the land settlement schemes and not leave them to the mercy of the cruel world with a payment of the value of their small piece of land. The majority of these people are not fit to make a living other than on their own land. I know of at least ten farms in my area where the Act could be applied successfully and will have to be applied in order to prevent further overcropping and destruction. The land has been sub-divided into such small farms that to make a living, however precarious, becomes impossible. May I just give some figures with regard to one of the cases in my district. A dam was constructed at Lindleyspoort with a view to providing a more reliable supply of water to owners below the dam. Now that the dam has been completed, it has been found that 1,840 morgen could be irrigated whereas it is quite definite that before the construction of the dam not half that extent had been irrigable. After the dam had been completed and there were 1,840 morgen available, surveys were made and it was found that the position below the dam was as follows. There are 106 owners. Of these 106, there were ten owners who possessed more than 30 morgen, 7 possessed between 20 and 30 morgen, 12 between 10 and 20 morgen, 13 between 5 and 10 morgen, 55 less than 5 morgen and of the 55 who possessed less than 5 morgen, there was a number who possessed only a portion of a morgen. More than half therefore possessed less than 5 morgen, and it is considered that 10 morgen can provide an economical existence. Since the dam has been built, therefore, 38 out of the 106 can make a living, but before the construction of the dam only approximately 26 out of the 106 could in any way make a living there. No wonder that of the 106 owners only 30 were previously bona fide farmers. There is great scope for the Minister of Irrigation to apply the Unprofitable Occupation of Farms Act.

I want to be brief, because my time has nearly expired. I just want to refer to one further point and that it the basis upon which the Government has laid down its policy for the enlightenment of and demonstrations to farmers and the manner in which this has to be carried out. We all know how difficult it is going to be. We are all acquainted with the character and resoluteness of our farmers. They can be lead, but they cannot be driven. If they are not treated very carefully, if the officials of the Department do not set about the matter cautiously, then I am afraid that the whole scheme will fail. In this connection I find on page 15 of the White Paper one sentence which makes me feel afraid. We read there: “Considerable administrative authority and responsibility will also be vested in the local officials in charge.” That means that these officials will be entrusted with great power, and we know the farmers know that they should be led and should be shown things. I want to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance, therefore, that more money should be made available for the establishment of experimental farms in every area, where the farmers can see how they have to carry on the farming, and then the chances would be much greater of the farmers carrying out the policy of the Department.

I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister of Finance on the Budget, which I think was well received throughout the country and has lost nothing by the criticism levelled at it from the Opposition benches. We heard the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) trying to explain to this House that Ireland and Portugal are financially in a much better position than South Africa. Though he quoted figures to support his statement, he omitted to mention what he read in “Die Burger” about a fortnight ago, and that is that Ireland has an unemployment roll of 100,000 men. It has to be remembered, too, that a few thousand Irishmen volunteered and fought in the British armies, and some thousands others worked in British factories, and a good deal of the money that Ireland earned came out of the British war effort. He did not mention Sweden, whose national debt has increased by £500 million since before the war. Then the hon. member mentioned Portugal; that seemed to be the last possible card for him to play. But here again he omitted to mention that in this war Portugal was in a position corresponding to that of the Netherlands during the previous war. Then the Netherlands were coining money because they were importing and exporting to Germany, notwithstanding the blockade. The same thing happened in Portugal during this war, and I for one cannot for a moment see how we can be compared to Portugal, because of our strategic position. Portugal made money by importing commodities and supplying the Central Powers through Spain. So his argument falls to the ground. During the Additional Estimates we heard a lot about the plight our farming population was in. I wish for a moment to ask our friends opposite to cast their minds back to the period between 1930 and 1933, and to compare the position the farmers were in then and the position they are in at the end of this war. I should be surprised if there is a single farmer who is prepared today to sell his farm at twice the price he could get in those days.

But the value of money is different.

We have heard a lot about the value of money in the gold standard days, and at that time the banks were in a flourishing condition, but 90 per cent. of our primary producers were bankrupt. I do not think, however, that it is necessary for me to go further into the criticisms of the Budget.

I wish, Sir, to lay before the Government a scheme which I am sure will have the support of all the members of the Opposition. I am speaking in English because I am trying to convince the representatives of the consumers the plan is a sound one. It is in connection with our wheat position. We all know this is not one of the great wheatproducing countries of the world. In ordinary circumstances we can produce only about half the wheat we consume. I feel rather ashamed that South Africa today cannot produce enough wheat. Of course, we realise that climatic conditions have been bad. What I am saying now might apply equally well to the maize position. I feel that wheat in these critical times can be produced in sufficient quantities if there is enough encouragement for our farmers. As far as the wheat prices are concerned, the Government and our Wheat Control Board have tried, on the’ financial side, to preserve more or less the pre-war status quo. In other words, the wheat farmer, though the nominal price of his wheat is higher, is not receiving a much higher real price than he did before the war, on account of the increased costs of production. How can we produce enough wheat in South Africa? It comes down to this. Wheat production is worked out more or less on the basis of a yield of six bags per morgen. But I feel the wheat farmers during the war did their utmost and produced as much wheat as they could economically, in fact they sowed as much of their lands as they possibly could, keeping in mind the production of six bags per morgen. With the adverse weather conditions that prevailed last season, the farmers did not get their six bags per morgen. Today South Africa is producing the maximum amount of wheat she can produce at the present figure. We cannot expect farmers to produce less than six bags a morgen at the current price, because that would not be economical, and therefore the only thing is for our Government to try to induce the wheat growers to produce on lands yielding less than six bags per morgen. I would not disturb present-day prices. Let us fix our wheat prices at the pre-war price plus cost of production, say £1 18s. But to meet this critical situation, critical not only so far as South Africa is concerned, but critical for the whole of the world, and we have to remember that now South Africa is going to Europe, England and America and begging for wheat that the rest of the world needs almost as badly, if indeed not more badly than we do—to meet the position and induce the wheat farmer to produce sufficient for our consumption, a special bonus should be paid. The basic price should again be fixed at £1 18s., but the farmers should be given a special bonus of 2s. or 3s. a bag. That would be an incentive to the farmer to sow on lands that will only yield four or five bags a morgen, or even less. I feel that, with favourable weather conditions and adopting the suggestion I have made, we could produce not only six million bags, but even more, sufficient for our own consumption and to leave a margin for export. I ask the Government to, consider this suggestion seriously. The beauty of my plan is that if the wheat is sown in April or in May, we will be reaping it at the end of October and in November and December, and in a little more than seven months we will have sufficient stocks of wheat for our needs.

I just want to say a few words in connection with the Budget. In the first place I want to express my sympathy with the Minister of Finance for being indisposed. The Minister submitted a Budget to us with which we can be quite satisfied. When the Budget was announced I was in the Transvaal. I was in the administrative capital, Pretoria, and I can give the Minister the assurance that on the morning when the Budget speech appeared in the Pretoria newspapers, the people had a broad smile on their faces. I want to pass a few remarks about the speech of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) who is not here at the moment.

Why do you want to talk about his speech?

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) should rather remain quiet and not quarrel. If he wanted to quarrel he has had his opportunity. The hon. member for George said something that impressed me very much. When a person is disappointed he begins to tilt at windmills. This is what the hon. member did here, when he said that the Minister of Finance hung a millstone round the neck of South Africa in the shape of this heavy expenditure. In my opinion, he was just tilting at windmills. The hon. member for George ought to know and probably knows that he was just using loose words. He also went further and make an attack on the Prime Minister, which was further proof to us of the fact that he was using loose words and doing shadow boxing. I think the hon. member for George ought to be ashamed of what he said about the Prime Minister— that the Prime Minister is only happy when he can wage war. I think it is a shame to say so. The Prime Minister had to defend the country every time, and once more he has done so with success. This is just a stray shot fired by the hon. member with intent to hurt. I just want to tell him that if it were not for the actions of the Prime Minister, members opposite would not have sat there, because then the country would have sung another tune. The hon. member shuts his eyes and then lays about him in the dark to see whether he cannot hit anything because the development of our country certainly progressed as much during the war, and more than in normal times. I again want to ask as I have done before, whether the hon. members will not accompany me to watch the development of our country during the war. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) quoted many figures here. It is wonderful to me how he speaks about things he knows so little about, and practically has no right to talk about.

The figures are, of course, too much for you.

I have never yet risen like the hon. member for Westdene to speak about figures I do not understand myself. He should leave it to other people who know something about it. I can give the Minister the assurance that the Budget was received in the Transvaal practically with a smile. In the first place many people were overjoyed to see that the excess profits duty was reduced. Many people came to me and told me that they are glad about that tax remission. Of course one always finds people who want 100 per cent. and who only think of their own pockets and profits, and of course they are disappointed. But the majority of the public welcomed it. There are, of course, difficulties and shortcomings in the country. On the platteland we find many things to which we should like to direct attention. Take for example social security. That is the great thing which will have to be tackled throughout the whole country, and of course we cannot get that without spending money, and for that reason I say that we are quite satisfied with the Minister’s Budget. But it is a fact that we should like to have more development, especially on the platteland. It is said that private capital should tackle the development, but there are often difficulties in the way, with the result that capital is not prepared to invest money on the platteland. I think the taxpayers will be prepared to assist development on the platteland. During the war higher taxes were paid. Many people tried to evade taxation, which perhaps did great damage to the country. Take for instance the meat position. Many people did not send a single animal to market for slaughtering because they were afraid to pay taxes on them. But the people in general prosper. In my vicinity I do not know of a single taxpayer who went insolvent; in spite of all the taxes they had prosperity. I want to ask hon. members opposite whether it is not a privilege to be able to pay for your church and to contribute towards the development of the country. Why must they always criticise and encourage people not to pay taxes? Many things are required in our country for which we have to collect taxes. Take for example irrigation. How much water falling from heaven on to the earth does not rush away to the sea? We need thousands of pounds to conserve the water.

I want to remind the hon. member of a motion in connection with the conservation of water which is still on the Order Paper.

There is the lack of power. Many people want to start some concern on the platteland, but cannot do so owing to lack of power. Take the smaller towns in the Transvaal platteland. Development is being curtailed through lack of power. The result is that people are being driven from the platteland to the large cities, and no development is taking place on the platteland. It is necessary to have power in order to develop our country. I also think of school feeding, the feeding of the rising generation. We know that the question of school feeding has been tackled, and so far has been a success, but it is not yet a complete success. We must spend more on behalf of the rising generation and have better school feeding. We must develop, and that development should not only be limited to our schools. There are also many adults who do not receive the necessary foodstuffs, and we shall have to spend more in that connection. Therefore large amounts of money are necessary.

At 6.40 p.m. the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 31st January, 1946, and the debate adjourned; to be resumed on 13th March.