The day before yesterday when I discussed the estimates, I dealt with the feeding of school children and adults. It is obvious that I should emphasise that point, but I need not go into the matter any further. I would, however, like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance, although it is a provincial concern, that one of the large problems in the Transvaal is the question of school buildings. When one travels through the Transvaal, and I suppose it is the same in the other provinces, one comes to villages where the children have to go to school in buildings and rooms which are in a very bad state of repair. At some places use is still being made of tents. The time is more than overdue that these matters should also be dealt with in the Budget. I do not wish to dwell upon this point. I want to go on and say something about hospitalisation. We hear rumours of free hospitalisation, but I think we should give consideration to the rural areas where free hospitalisation will be a very difficult matter. Then there is another point which we should consider, namely, the state of affairs in regard to certain matters, such as offences, assaults and thefts, which have been raised in this House. These are matters for the police, and I think that we should give due consideration to the police, because in my opinion the police do not receive a square deal at all. We should get a better police force—not better men— but the men should be treated better. The men who are today in the police force are looked down upon by many people. They receive a very meagre salary.

They are not looked down upon.

I know what is going on. When the police come to a house many people send a servant to the door and tell them that everything is all right, and that they can go on their way, instead of offering these policemen a cup of coffee and asking them to sit down for a moment. Often a policeman comes on his bicycle and there are people who do not invite him to a cup of coffee. But when these people need the police, the latter are expected to do as they are told, and if they do not do so they are decried as bad policemen. The police force should be made more attractive so that we may get a good class of boys to enter the force. At the moment the police force is not attractive at all. Besides the police force we have our defence force, and I should like to see our defence force being maintained for the country; we want a large defence force. We know what the great man of Great Britain, Mr. Winston Churchill, said. He said that he did not know what was going to happen, and that the people should tell him what they wanted. The position here is exactly the same. We do not know what is going to happen, and the people should tell us what they want. We do not again want to be saddled with a lot of bush-carts when difficulties arise. The soldier of South Africa has made a name for himself and we should build up an efficient army.

At the time it was your Minister who introduced the bush-carts.

I do not take any notice of the remarks of hon. members over there because they are not interested in these matters.

Now I would like to say something about the old age pensions and war veteran pensions, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will give his attention to this matter. I think it is unfair to apply a means test. Why should old people when they receive a grant or a pension and perhaps have received a little bit too much because they did not know the regulations or have not read their book, be compelled to refund the money when they have received a little more than they should have had. Sometimes this places them in an impossible position. If one gets an old age pension and especially if you get a war veteran’s pension, you should receive a grant every year, even if it had to be done by way of a bonus. We should give an old man or an old woman a bonus from January to January every year. Especially as far as the war veterans are concerned we carry a heavy responsibility. I make bold to say if it had not been for the war veterans we might not have enjoyed the right of sitting here. But there people are subjected to a searching means test, a very careful investigation is made and the small pension is cut so finely that the people in many cases are living in desperate circumstances. They did all in their power to bring our country and people where we are today. They should receive their rightful share. There is another matter which I should like to touch upon, and that is the native question. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will supply the Minister of Native Affairs with the necessary means to give effect to our segregation legislation. The native representatives do not represent the actual natives. I am sorry I have to say that. There are many people who profess to represent the natives, but who do not do so. Listening to their speeches one is inclined to think that they do more harm than good. The native is not that type. He does not want to be elevated above the white man. I know what I am talking about. What do the representatives of the natives ask? They do not ask that the natives should be developed, but that they should receive farms and equal treatment, and they preach a doctrine that no difference should be made on account of colour. That is not what the natives want. The European is the guardian of the natives and we should exercise our gúardianship. How should we do that? By creating facilities for them. We should not allow small piccanins to run along the roads and alongside the trains to beg because they are hungry. I therefore hope that the Minister for Finance will provide the Department of Native Affairs with the necessary funds to carry out the segregation policy and to uplift the native. The natives in the Transvaal are employed in many capacities; you find natives working on the roads, on farms, on the mines, in shops, and everywhere. They receive their rightful share. Finally I want to raise another point and that is that I should like to ask the Minister of Finance what is the position in regard to the spiritual life of the people of South Africa. Is it not regrettable that last year about this time, we here in Cape Town still paused for two or three minutes in order to pray? What has become of that now? I should like to issue a warning. The Almighty is not to be trifled with and we shall still reap the fruits of what is happening in our country. Is it right that we should only turn our faces to the Almighty when we are in trouble and to forget Him when the trouble has passed? I do not think that is right. If the church or the parsons are not what they should be, it is not an excuse for us.

But we have just moved the proposal that we should attend the day of thanksgiving.

Perhaps the hon. member will attend. We understand that if no rain falls within the next few days in certain areas the wheat crop will be a total loss. If the Almighty closes his treasurehouse, we shall perish. What steps does the Minister consider to take in regard to our spiritual life? There is no humiliation among our people. I make bold to say that if we humiliate ourselves, things will improve. A milestone was reached on the 9th January when the Prime Minister called the people together for a day of prayer. The people gathered in large numbers. That was a good beginning, but we left it at that. The Almighty is not to be trifled with. We have nature and culture and all kinds of “tures”, but the spiritual needs are neglected. We want to improve on nature, but the spiritual needs of the people are neglected. One day we will reap the bitter fruits of this neglect.

I think the Minister of Finance was well justified in drawing the attention of the country to the very satisfactory way, financially, in which South Africa came out of the war. Indeed, if one looks round at the condition of other countries, the financial position of our small country, relatively, is extremely satisfactory. It is so satisfactory that one is called upon to examine the considerations which have led to this very desirable result. It is not that our war effort was slack. The effort we made was a great one indeed, and the output of manpower and materials was so striking as to be out of all proportion to what one might have expected it to be. How is it that we came out of this war financially strong, with a strong currency position, and with a potential future output which gives fair promise of getting something like universal employment in future? I think the answer is obvious. It is because our economy was based on mining, and fortunately for us it was mainly based on gold mining, the output of which product was very necessary indeed for the continuation of the war. We were in the fortunate position of having as our staple industry the output of gold which was essential to the carrying on of the war. That prosperity has been relatively so great, that one almost feels inclined to say that perhaps we have almost profiteered out of the war, but of course that is not so. It is due to the accident that war conditions required carrying on of our staple industry. The importance of that staple industry is an important feature of the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance. He said that he was proposing for certain purposes, although not for all purposes, to take the price of gold at 172s. 6d. If one looks at the price of other commodities, I think we will come to this conclusion, curious perhaps to some, but accepted by others, that of all commodities gold has proved to be the most stable in the way of maintaining its real value. It is not that gold has doubled its value. It is not that gold buys more than it did before. Our gold buys relatively the same as it could have bought before the war, that is the light in which we have come to consider our future financial relations, the relative stability of gold, notwithstanding that the world is generally speaking off the gold standard. Well, the importance of this industry is the main theme, one of the most important features of the Minister’s statement, and I am very glad to find that the report of the inter-departmental committee on gold mining taxation has been accepted by ‘the Government. No one could have read that report carefully without having been impressed with the great erudition and perspicacity of all the members of that committee, and I think our gratitude goes out specially to the Secretary for Finance and the Government Mining Engineer for that report. I said before that I understood that in general the Government has accepted the terms of that report, but in reading more carefully in Hansard the report of the Minister’s speech, I am not confident that I am correct in that conclusion. I hope I am, but I am not quite confident, because the Minister, in tabulating the points on which he said the Government agreed to that report, omitted one of them, which I think is of paramount importance, and I am now in doubt as to whether the Minister’s statement is intended to cover this point or not. He has agreed with the conclusion of the committee, and the Government has accepted it as regards the fundamental importance of the industry and the fundamental importance of extracting all the possible low-grade ore, and that the taxation policy of the Government was going to be adjusted on that basis. That is a very far-reaching conclusion, and I welcome it wholeheartedly, and I hope those who have read the report carefully will agree with this conclusion. But in the tabulation of the recommendations which the Minister has accepted, I do not find reference to the first thing in the committee’s report, which is this, that it should be a permanent feature of the fiscal policy that the full value of the product is to be paid to the mines. Now, in the Hansard report of the Minister’s speech, in column 2665, I do not find any reference to this, and I am not quite confident as to whether the failure to specify this is a mental reservation on the Minister’s part or not, and I hope he will make that quite definite when he replies to this debate. It is a matter of very great importance that the industry should receive the full value of its product in order incidentally that those engaged in the carrying on of industry should have an opportunity of netting their just share in the product. I refer to the industry as comprising all those who are engaged in winning gold from the bowels of the earth. It is of fundamental importance that the industry should receive a maximum amount which can be gained from the product. The Minister has not stated whether he accepts this or not. In the past there has been a good deal of capital annexations of portions of this product in one form or another, one of the most recent being through the annexation of the gold realisation charges, so-called, where there were really no such charges. That was a capital levy. Now the Committee has recommended very strongly indeed that that should not be the position, and I agree, and I hope everyone else agrees, that the committee is right in saying that the utmost of what is realised from the gold should go to the industry. Will the Minister make that clear? The matter becomes more important when one considers that this pegging of the price to 172s. 6d. is not necessarily the price at which gold can be sold. Under the international arrangement arrived at by the United Nations where the purchase of gold by one nation from another is limited to the declared currency valuation of a particular nation, an exception is made, and rightly made, I think, in the marketing of newly mined gold. That is a provision of first class importance for the Union, and we know that during the war years, there has been a small but active black market in gold. There was a small and active market for the re-sale of gold in Bombay, where the price of gold has been almost double 172s. 6d. I mention that for the purpose of indicating that this principle of obtaining for the industry the full amount produced by the gold which is realised is of first class importance, and it may mean that it has at its disposal considerably larger funds for fresh investment and other betterment propositions. I hope the Minister will make that clear, and that he will be able to say quite categorically that so far as the present Government is concerned, he accepts this recommendation of the Committee. I welcome in general the conclusions of the committee, and I welcome very much its acceptance, so far as it goes— I hope it is whole-hearted—the acceptance of their proposal, but I am not quite sure that I can endorse some of the reasons which have led to some of these proposals, and I think before we pledge ourselves to do so, some of them require further investigation. The primary proposition, as I understand it, is that the tax on gold should be consolidated into one whole and that incidental and additional measures for inflicting further costs on the extraction of gold should be swept away and that the special war levy should be made up to the required extent by the application of a new formula. I have not been able to work out or to obtain from anyone figures to show the incidence of this formula, but I have heard no criticism of it up to the present, and I have no reason to doubt that the formula, as far as it goes, is a sound one. But I do hope that the remission in taxes which is included in this Budget is a forecast of better things still to come. I hope that we are not going to have taxation pegged at this level. Indeed it is because of the existence of these broad principles and the promise which their application gives to the furtherance of the extraction of this valuable product, that I welcome the terms of the report. The standard at which the taxation is to be applied or fixed is of course of prime importance, and it is true that there are two things to consider. One is that you have to see that the taxation secures to the Treasury a sufficient amount, having regard to the general needs of the country. Secondly, you have to see that there is no obstruction of inducement to invest in fresh undertakings or to give an adequate reward to those who are engaged in mining gold. Arguing along these lines, the committee came to the conclusion that it is right and proper that a higher rate of taxation should be imposed on gold than on any other industry. At first this appears to be a rather startling proposition, but they apparently deal with that, and give their reasons, the main reason being that gold is a wasting asset. When you mine gold you take away so much of the national wealth, and therefore a larger proportion of it should go to Treasury to replace the loss of national assets. I gather that the Minister of Finance has accepted that proposition and that reasoning. I think it was implicit from his speech that he did so. But I find it difficult to accept that, very difficult indeed, and I propose to give my reasons for that. Is it true that the gold which is down in the bowels of the earth is an asset? Is it properly called an asset when it is down there? Does it not only become an asset when it has been won, when it is placed in the position where it can be used? You can hardly class a thing as an asset, or as a group of assets, until it has been brought into being. But the possession of something which may lead to the production of an asset, is hardly in itself an asset, and it seems to me that it is a fallacy to say that the gold which is in the bowels of the earth, which may be an asset or not, which may escape the notice of all the people prospecting for it, is still a national asset. It is not an asset until it is placed in a position where it can be sold. Then only is it an asset and then only can you say that this asset forms part of the wealth of the country, and surely the people who are engaged in winning that asset are not the people who are depriving you of the asset. They are making the asset. They are not wasting the asset. They are creating the assets of the country in the form in which they can be used by the country. The asset can then be converted into dams or buildings or anything else. I think that is the fallacy underlying that fundamental assumption. Further I say this, that they are not creating a wasting asset. The gold, when it is won, is a commodity which is least liable to waste. It is not a wasting asset at all. You can only say that the asset is wasting if it is spent without proper exchange value. And who are the people who spend it? Not the winners of the gold, but the gold mining companies. They do not spend it, but when it comes into the hands of the bank of the Government, or of private individuals, and is sent out of the country, then it is spent. But if you are justified in using the word “wasting” there, with which I do not agree, the people who are wasting it are the people who are spending it after it is won. Therefore there is no reason for saying that this is one of those assets which are taking away so much of the wealth of the country. The gold mines are creating the wealth of the nation. I think this reasoning is unsound, but I agree with this broader proposition, and I am sorry that the committee did not base their recommendation on this position, that after all when you are taxing one commodity or another commodity, or the peoples who produce one commodity or another commodity, when you are taxing those individuals you have to have your eyes fixed on the relative advantages and disadvantages. In dealing with this wasting asset they have been hunting round for a reason and they have put up a bad one when by a simple statement they could have said: When you come to taxation you must take it where it is most convenient and to the extent the country demands. My own criticism is, if this argument about a wasting asset is to be accepted—if all I can say is uncalled for and unsound—then this argument ought to be applied to a good many other commodities. Certainly it should be applied to all mining properties. There is no essential difference between gold and diamonds and coal and tungsten and the rest of it, none whatever. But the committee apparently have come to the conclusion that it could not be that this principle of theirs of taxing a commodity because it is a wasting asset could not be applied to the other commodities for very obvious reasons. I rather doubt that, too. I know of ho reason why, when you are winning diamonds from the bowels of the earth, of which there are presumably a limited quantity only, just as strictly limited as the quantity of gold, why you should not apply the principle of taxation because it is a wasting asset …

We do tax diamonds more heavily.

… but the application of the wasting asset principle has not been applied to that. Without making a definite statement of my own opinion, for what it is worth, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that he examines very carefully the question of diamonds to see whether the State is getting a sufficient share from that particular source. I hope that the diamond position will be very carefully considered not only by the Department of Finance but by the Department of Mines. I was hoping to have the privilege of producing a fresh Bill amending the Diamond Control Act under which the marketing of diamonds is done. The terms of the present Act are completely out of date, and some provisions are never enforced simply because the Act is out of touch in many respects with the position. I hope that suitable amendments may be made to the Act in future so that we may say that the State not only has an adequate voice, but gets what might be called a proper share of the proceeds of diamonds, however and wherever they are won.

Nationalise the industry.

There are considerable reasons why they should not be done, but what I was suggesting is getting as near to deriving the maximum amount we can from that source. The diamond market at the present time …

… is booming.

Yes, that is the expression, and the quantity of stones the world has absorbed in the last few years is out of all proportion to anything ever absorbed before. Nobody can tell how long it will continue, but when it does prevail the application of a formula such as has been applied to the taxation of gold—I see no reason why at the moment the principle should not be applied to diamonds also.

Coal also is one of our very valuable assets, and if the term “wasting asset” is to be used in reference to diamonds and gold it can be used to much greater effect in regard to coal, and the rationalisation of the coal industry of South Africa is a matter which I think demands very very close attention. This would supply an additional source of taxable wealth and might relieve the impulse, possibly the very strong impulse of necessity, of taxing gold to a very high level at the present time. I believe the resources of gold in South Africa are very considerable indeed, and although the Witwatersrand has turned out vast sums up to the present time it is still capable of turning out very considerable sums, and the untapped sources of other parts of South Africa give promise, or hope at any rate, of greatly increased output on top of that. Therefore one comes again to the position that the acceptance of sound principles for the taxation of this all important product and other mining products is outstanding; and I hope again that the Minister will accept, without any qualification at all, the proposition that under no circumstances shall there be any arrangement whereby the producers of these assets are deprived of getting the full value of the product that they have produced.

When one is considering alternative sources of revenue I wish to refer to another matter which was touched upon by the Minister of Finance in his speech. He spoke of the property sales tax, and he is proposing now to modify that very considerably. I welcome the modifications as a reduction of what is wrong, but I would say quite clearly and definitely this tax is contrary to public policy, is bad in principle, and has not resulted in what I presume was the object of that tax when it was imposed. It is a tax on the sale of land during a certain restricted period, and the object, I understand, was to prevent speculation in land whereby inflated values might be incurred. The actual imposition of this tax has had directly the opposite effect. It has first had the effect of limiting the amount of land available and therefore acting as a restriction on the building of houses, and it has encouraged people who hold land just to hold that land for a rise, to hold it for speculation purposes, and others who have been able to sell have increased the price they would be willing to sell at by the amount of tax they have had to pay, in order that they might not lose on the deal.

The tax is often dodged.

Others have deliberately tried and in many cases have succeeded in dodging the object of the tax the Minister had in mind. The Minister gave as one of the reasons for the imposition of this tax that there was no general land tax. Why is there no general land tax? The imposition—as I have had occasion to say in this House not once but many times—the imposition of a general land tax is desirable to an outstanding degree and would provide an additional source of revenue and at the same time it would be a direct incentive to use that land to the best purpose, and to use it at once. And if we can only get landowners who have land suitable for building and have the command of capital to release that land for building, the situation would be eased. There is plenty of capital and currency at the present time; that is very largely the result of the policy of the Government in increasing the amount of currency out of all proportion to the amount of consumable goods available for purchase, and the opportunity to get capital is outstanding. But the fact that the landowner is entitled to sit with his land and do nothing with it is a direct hindrance and is one of the main factors responsible for this block in housing accommodation which is an outstanding menace to the well-being of our people.

Would you apply it generally?

Certainly, right away through. I am obliged to my hon. friend for reminding me that perhaps a special word is desirable in regard to agricultural land, because we are faced at the present time with a shortage of food. We have a shortage of meat, a shortage of grain, a shortage of all agricultural products and our country is quite capable of producing all that is required. But a large quantity of our land is for one reason or another not producing its maximum amount. There are many propositions which might be taken up and which might be developed, but which at the present time are not taken up and not developed, but it is rather held for a rise and to get a higher price for the land without spending money on its development, than with a view to developing that land at once. The effect of a general tax on the unimproved value of agricultural land would make it relatively unpayable for a landowner to hold land and to keep land which he is not using for producing the foodstuffs, or maintaining the stock the country so much requires at present. I think I might even apply the wasting asset argument or philosophy to those people who are holding up land in this way. The Prime Minister and others never cease to point out the injury, perhaps permanent injury, being done to the country by soil erosion. If these landowners who are not using the land properly and who are allowing valuable soil to be eroded, wasting one of the nation’s assets, if they are permitted to do this, compare their case with the miner who goes underground and creates wealth, and it must be agreed they are in the outer darkness. It should be incidental to the ownership of land—and I hope the Minister of Finance will bear it in mind—that the proper use of that land should be an obligation, a servitude on that land, whether it is land fit for housing or land fit for agriculture; there should be an obligation on using that land. The best way and the simplest way of doing it is the imposition of a tax on the unimproved value of the land right away through. This would mean another source of revenue to the Minister of Finance. He is beset, as every Minister of Finance is beset, with all sorts of demands for expenditure, and at the same time with all sorts of demands for the reduction of taxation. That is the fate of every Minister of Finance. This is an alternative source of income which not only replenishes the Treasury, but actually tends to create further wealth in the country and to meet some of the outstanding demands that are being made at the present time. It would facilitate the feeding of the population. It would facilitate the development of dur assets and be a very considerable factor indeed in meeting those conditions of universal employment we all wish to see brought about. Therefore, while I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the very satisfactory and sound financial conditions of the country, I draw attention to those shortcomings which I think should be rectified in the future to the easement of his difficulties and the very great advantage of the country at large.

Mr. Speaker, I think the opportunity which this debate presents should not be allowed to pass without bringing under discussion a matter which is undoubtedly of the utmost actual importance. I refer to the position in the international sphere as it exists at the moment. For a period of six years the debates in this House, especially on the occasion of the Budget, have been over-shadowed by the war position. The war is now over, and it now transpires that all hope that with the cessation of hostilities this over-shadowing of everything by the war will be a matter of the past, has proved to be idle. The international position is so serious and has reached such a critical stage today that we can only conclude that the war atmosphere continues to over-shadow everything. I say that particularly in view of the fairly serious reports which have just come over the radio. There is no question today which occupies the attention of the nations of the world as well as our attention in South Africa, to a greater extent than this question. There is concern, and deep concern, notwithstanding all the measures which have been adopted of late in the international sphere, in regard to the future of the world, and also in regard to our future in South Africa. Last year on a similar occasion I availed myself of the opportunity to air my views in connection with the results of the conference which was held between the Big Three at Yalta. In the light of the events which have taken place since then, one realises how necessary it was at that time and how serious the position is, as revealed by the results of Yalta. But if it was necessary at that time it is certainly no less necessary today, in view of the prevailing position, that we in this House should devote our serious attention to this matter. I want to confine myself principally this afternoon—and that will be my opening point—to the extremely important speech which was made a few days ago at Fulton in the United States by Mr. Churchill. That speech can justly be described as a sensational speech. To a certain extent that speech was shocking. Some years ago the Prime Minister made a speech in London which was described as an explosive speech, a speech which can be described as a dynamic speech. But the speech which was made a few days ago by Mr. Churchill in comparison with the Prime Minister’s speech, can only be described as an atomic bomb. If that speech is based on facts and if they are justifiable facts, I think we can say that it is nothing less than the curtain-raiser to a new and further act in the great political world drama or, as I fear today, a world tragedy. We certainly cannot ignore that speech of Mr. Churchill’s. We must take into account the fact that he was one of the Big Three who were largely responsible for the establishment of peace and the terms on which it would be based, but he also assisted in laying the foundations for the perpetuation of peace in the world. It is he who made this speech. Mr. Churchill participated in all the big, important conferences which were held in this connection at Teheran, Cairo, Potsdam and probably a few other places which I need not mention at the moment. He is co responsible for those decisions which largely gave rise to the events which followed, and I do not think he in any way denies his co-responsibility. He is in a position today where he no longer bears the responsibility for the government of England. He is now in a position, by virtue of his experience and knowledge of both internal and external affairs, to give the world the fruit of that experience. He is in a position today where he is able to judge the situation of the world more impartially and more independently than formerly. He is a person who is realistically inclined, one who sees the realities of the situation, and we cannot describe this speech other than a speech which faces the facts, which frankly speaks to the world and which is realistic in the true sense of the word. I now come to the contents of Mr. Churchill’s speech. In his speech he sets out certain facts and he arrives at certain conclusions. As far as possible I want to give the contents of his speech in his own words and not in my words. For that reason I propose to let Mr. Churchill speak personally by extracting quotations from his speech. The first quotation is the following. Reviewing the international position which exists today he says—

A shadow has fallen over Europe. He regards the whole position pessimistically. Not only does he regard it pessimistically but he views it with a certain amount of fear. The second quotation reads—

What does it mean other than that he at least visualises the possibility that not only Europe but a great portion of the world will again sink down to a state of barbarism? The third passage I want to quote contains a warning. He says briefly and forcefully—

In other words, there is no time to lose if we want to save the situation. The fourth quotation reads—

In other words, the Allies had a war aim. They wanted to call into being certain conditions in Europe. That war aim, in his opinion, has not been fulfilled. The very opposite position exists today. The next quotation from his speech proves that—

That refers to the greatest portion of Europe—

What did he mean by this? He wanted to suggest that Europe, with the exception of Greece has been sacrificed to Russian domination—those parts of Europe more towards Central Europe and towards the East. The true democratic feelings and rights of the populations cannot be exercised. There is Russian domination. The next quotation reads—

In other words, the Russian domination which in fact exists today is not stable but it is a changing and developing condition, one which is developing in the wrong direction. In other words, in his opinion, it is nothing but a cancerous condition. The next quotation is the following—

It is there already, but it is still in its infancy—

Communist parties and propaganda and fifth columnists in the various countries and in various parts of the world constituting a danger and a threat to Christian civilisation! Does that not remind you of a similar language that was used not so long ago in connection with Hitler’s action and the aims of Germany? It is exactly the same thing, the same danger, the same warning, and conducted in the same language. I am again quoting from his speech—

Unlimited expansion of her power and doctrines. What does that mean otherwise than that, according to Mr. Churchill’s views, Russia is inspired with an ambition to dominate the world; and in his opinion that means nothing less than the endangerment of the world. I still want to quote this—

In other words, after the first world war the people of the world felt that there was a possibility or a probability that the war had been waged so as to rule out wars in future. That is not how he feels now. After the first world war it was said: A new day has dawned for the world. The same thing was said not so long ago, and in this House, in regard to the conditions that were created at the end of this last world war. According to his views that is no longer to be regarded as a new day that has dawned for the world, but just the reverse. It is the setting of the sun on the western horizon and night is falling. Now Mr. Churchill comes to certain conclusions and in the first place he warns against the continuation of what he calls the policy of appeasement. He says that what is required is the settlement of differences. He says that the longer that is delayed the more difficult the position will become and the greater the danger. In other words, according to him the time is past for soft talk, and the time has now come for action; and therefore he comes to this further conclusion, viz. that the atomic secret should remain a secret with those who now possess it or think that they possess it. It should not even be handed over to the international organisation which has been established, viz., the United Nations Organisation. What he really means is that the secret of the atomic bomb should not be handed over to Russia; and why not? Simply because he does not trust Russia with it. If the atomic bomb is regarded as the most important and the deadliest weapon in the hands of any people today, the most important weapon in modern warfare, he is of the opinion that Russia should, as regards that, remain unarmed because she cannot be trusted. And then he comes to the further conclusion that, as a result, Britain and America should now draw closer to each other, in military matters especially, but also in other directions; something closer than what is usually called a military alliance should be formed. Common use should be made of all the naval and air bases of both countries throughout the world; all those military resources should be pooled; they should have the same weapons; they should have the same training; there should be an exchange of officers and of military knowledge, secrets and plans. And then he also arrives at the conclusion that, although it may not be practicable at present, a common citizenship should eventually be established between America and Britain; in other words, the conclusion he arrives at is that in any case to a large extent the estates of America and of Britain should now be merged. It is obvious that in that case the senior—and by far the senior —partner must necessarily be America. He does not deny that. In that partnership Britain will be the junior partner. The implication of this speech and of these remarks by Mr. Churchill are so obvious that it is not necessary to elucidate them further; they speak for themselves. But just to remind you again, I want to say that from this appears, in the first place, the despair felt in regard to the efficiency of the machinery which has been created for the maintenance of world peace. Mr. Churchill does not believe in San Francisco. He does not believe that what has been done there is an effective guarantee for world peace; not even peace for any length of time. He is of the opinion, as we have been in this House, that the fact that there is a Security Council; the fact that world peace for the future is based, as the Prime Minister has assured us time and again, on the desirability, or rather the possibility and the probability which at times he regarded as a certainty, that the Great Powers will not quarrel among themselves; that the Great Powers will stand together in a bond of unity. According to Mr. Churchill, that is most certainly being realised today, and I think that if he were to express an opinion on that matter, to which considerable attention has been devoted in this House, viz., the veto reserved to those Great Powers on matters affecting world peace—if he were to express his views more specifically in regard to that today—he will be bound to say that within this short space of time experience has already taught that such an arrangement is fatal. Russia has already made use of it. The implication of this expression of opinion of his is, moreover, that he admits Europe is being dominated by communistic Russia, and that Russia is unswervingly aiming at that domination. And that domination of Europe, as he describes it, is already far advanced. It all amounts to this: In the first place, that instead of having: that unity among the peoples of the world, and especially among the Great Powers, as has been represented and hoped for, the world is today actually divided into two hostile groups; and he adds that war—and that in the near future even—is not excluded today, and he therefore says: Look out, there is little time left. The further conclusion he arrives at is this: That the machinery which has been created for the maintenance of world peace is collapsing; that you cannot rely upon it. That is why, in addition to that—and he might have added instead of that—machinery other than the Security Council and the United Nations Organisation should be created, and a military alliance of the English-speaking part of the world established.

What is the point you are driving at?

He goes on to say that the estates of these two should to a large extent be merged. There should be one common navy and air force and, if found to be possible, eventually also a common citizenship. He admits that Britain would be the junior partner in that merger. America would be the dominant Power, which will practically amount to America taking over Britain’s estate for the sake of Britain’s safety and of world peace. I would like to say a few words in regard to these facts and the conclusions arrived at by Mr. Churchill, more especially from the point of view of how it will affect us. It is really an important matter as far as we in South Africa are concerned. Just before doing so, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that where we are here discussing matters of the utmost importance and gravity, I cannot but recall our discussion last year on the Yalta agreement which was announced a few days earlier, and on the reaction to what I told the Prime Minister here in that connection. My attitude at the time—and I tried as far as possible to state it objectively and to base it on facts—was that the Yalta agreement was nothing else than a Russian victory, a Russian victory in diplomacy; and I based it upon the fact that the Atlantic Charter which had previously been constituted as the basis of world peace for all time, had been set aside, and that the Yalta agreement was substituted for it and had superseded the Atlantic Charter in two very important respects, making it a scrap of paper. The first was that, for the duration of war, territory occupied by some Power or other would, on the cessation of hostilities, be regarded as non-existent—or let me rather put it this way, that any annexation of territory by any of the belligerent Powers would not be acknowledged after the war; the whole position would be considered de novo by the nations jointly. That was set aside. The Yalta agreement approved the annexation of part of Poland by Russia. It approved by implication the annexation by Russia of the three small Baltic States. There may have been others, but I am just mentioning these. It was laid down in the Atlantic Charter as a basic principle that if you want world peace you should not compel any nation or an important part of any nation to stand under domination under which it has no desire to be. In other words, they should have the right of self-determination. At the Yalta agreement the stamp of approval was put on the partitioning of Germany and the removal from Germany of what undoubtedly belonged to Germany; people who did not want to stand under Poland; and without ascertaining the wishes of the people it was simply approved that they should be annexed to Poland. Hence the Atlantic Charter was simply set aside in many important respects. That is what I emphasised, and I say that the setting aside of the Atlantic Charter was not in the interests of America or in the interests of Britain; it was purely and simply in the interests of Russia and in deference to Russia’s demands. But there is another matter I emphasised and it is necessary to do so again. It is this: It was obvious at the time that the one thing on which Russia was insisting—and it was also considered at Yalta—was that in the event of a victory over Germany she should be utterly destroyed, that she should be partitioned to the utmost extent but that in any case she should practically be destroyed as a State of any consequence. Why was that insisted on? Why was that demand put forward by Russia and why did she insist on it? Because she knew that in the last resort Germany was the bulwark against the flood of communism which would otherwise engulf Europe, and if she were to leave Germany a semblance of national existence; if she were to leave the future Germany some degree of power, that she would always be up against the possibility of that bulwark being restored with the assistance of the Western Powers, i.e. of America and Britain. Your enemy today may tomorrow become a necessary ally in a fresh struggle which may flare up, and that was why she insisted: Tread Germany underfoot and destroy her; destroy her as a bulwark against the flood of communism. Unfortunately the Yalta agreement was a concession to Russia on the point and we know what has resulted. We know what the position is today. As I said, I stated these matters as objectively as possible in dealing with the Yalta agreement last year, as I am today stating the position. What was the Prime Minister’s reaction at the time? I had scarcely resumed my seat when he stood up and reprimanded me, describing everything I had said as nothing more than the airing of my own narrowminded, petty, insignificant vote-snatching opinion, and that I was exploiting the serious international position for my own party purposes. This is a summary of his whole speech. Moreover, he contrasted his own opinion on the Yalta agreement with mine. That was what it amounted to. I want you to compare it with what Mr. Churchill says today. This is what he said about the Yalta agreement—

Contrast his opinion on the position last year—I hope he saw that as clearly and in the same light as I did — compare those speeches of his with the views expressed by Mr. Churchill today, and arrive at your own conclusions. I just want to ask this: Was that sort of talk on the world situation the Prime Minister’s views or is it perhaps the position today? If those were really his views, I would say that, in spite of his reputation of having a prophetic gift to be able to see into the future, he was greatly mistaken.

Just as much as you were mistaken and have always been mistaken.

And not only was he mistaken, but if that had not been his actual opinion, I ask: Is he deceiving himself and is he deceiving the people? [Time extended.] I just want to say that where we are again discussing these matters today in the light of the opinion of a man who can speak with authority and for whom the Prime Minister has the greatest regard, viz. Mr. Churchill, I hope that, if he reacts to what has been said here, he will do so in another spirit and in other language than that which he expressed last year. All I can say in regard to the facts mentioned by Mr. Churchill in regard to the situation, is that they were announced throughout the world by wireless and telegraph. There is not a country in the world where his words did not resound, and as far as I can judge the facts have nowhere seriously been disputed. Even the British Government was asked whether they repudiate the facts referred to by Mr. Churchill, and even his conclusions. The Prime Minister was not prepared to do so. A motion is being brought up in the House of Commons in connection with Mr. Churchill’s speech, asking for a repudiation of Mr. Churchill’s statement. I think I can predict that one of two things will happen. Either the British Government will have to reply: No, they are not prepared to repudiate him; the facts are serious, they may say he has exaggerated somewhat but in any case the facts are serious; or otherwise, if they have to repudiate him, they would be repudiating their own Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bevin. Who has spoken in more fervent and serious tones on this situation and against Russia than Mr. Bevin? But who will today still doubt the facts? Day after day we see newspaper reports of increasing differences among the great powers. They have gone so far as to lay charges against one another at the Security Council. Russia has charged Britain with retaining troops in Greece; she has brought charges against Britain on the score of Indonesia. Britain and America on the other hand are charging Russia with her action in Iran and her actions in Manchuria, where she is practically charged with theft. We find that the veto has already been exercised. In other words, Russia is making use of the powerful position in which she has been placed and is opposing the solution of major questions. We find that whereas the Western powers are openly announcing their acts of omission and commission to the world— newspaper correspondents from everywhere have freedom of movement and can publish conditions over there—a thick curtain hangs over Russian territory. We cannot find out what is happening behind that curtain for the simple reason that those who can impart the information are kept out of that territory. Russia is today, as Mr. Churchill has said, actually dominating a great part of Eastern and Central Europe. The Balkan peninsula, with the exception of Greece, is today under her dominion and influence. In other words, her sphere of influence borders directly on the Adriatic Sea. In Central Europe you can demarcate the boundary along the western side of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. All the territories are today under Russian influence and power. But is it altogether untrue what Mr. Churchill has said, viz. that communist parties are being encouraged by Russia in the various countries of the world? Is it altogether untrue that communist parties are largely doing the work of fifth columnists? Is it altogether untrue that Russia is directly and indirectly interfering in the affairs of other countries? Britain and America are not interfering in Spain, although they do not agree with the Franco Government; they fought shy of direct interference. Russia is not fighting shy of direct interference. We know of her actions in Palestine, we know of her actions in China, we know of her actions in Egypt and we know especially of her actions in Russian occupied territory in Germany. Not only that, but we know how she has infiltrated her power in the rest of Germany which is occupied by the Western powers and how she is endeavouring to amalgamate the communistic and semi-communistic powers there into one force. We know about the pressure she is exerting on Turkey. But the matter has now assumed a more serious complex. An agreement was arrived at in regard to the withdrawal, six months after the cessation of hostilities, of the occupation forces from Iran. A solemn undertaking was given by the three powers in regard to Iran. The other powers have withdrawn their troops. Hitherto Russia has refused, and the report I mentioned a moment ago, which came over the wireless and which is causing concern, is that Russian armed forces are being sent to Teheran. We do not know of their whereabouts, but I believe in any case that such a report was broadcast a few hours ago. They are in Iran and the Russian occupation forces are not simply there for the preservation of law and order. It is quite obvious that there is something more behind it. If there is one region in the world which is of strategic importance and which, more than any other region, may become the focal point of a fresh war on account of a conflict of interests between the great powers, it is Iran. Iran has her oilfields; Iran will open the way for Russia, if she can get her hands on it, to the Persian Gulf, to the Middle East, which largely influences the situation in the Mediterranean Sea. If she were to establish herself there it would not only mean that she would dominate a great part of Europe and Asia, but it would also mean that the European continent, which is susceptible to Communistic propaganda, would to a great extent be open to Russia. That is the situation. Now we know that. We have also seen of late that Russia does not flinch from espionage on a large scale. We know what has happened in Canada and the United States, and what causes most concern is that during the last few days we have been hearing that the Red Army is to be kept on strength and is to be further strengthened. We have heard that America also takes the view that, for the time being, she is not going to abandon what practically amounts to conscription; and we may say the same holds good for Britain today. Is that what the Right Hon. the Prime Minister meant? Did he anticipate all these things when he returned from San Francisco and said at Ottawa: “I advise the countries of the world (he meant part of the world) to keep their weapons shiny.” That is the existing state of affairs, and I do not think there can be any doubt in regard to the facts. I am not so much raising these issues with a view to discussing the situation in Europe or the world situation, as that I am primarily concerned with our own South Africa. Mr. Churchill has devised an alternative for the machinery which he himself created and which, according to him, is on the point of collapsing. That alternative is that a military alliance should be formed, presumably on a permanent basis, between America and Britain. They should have a joint estate; they should strengthen that part of the world as a bulwark against the other part of the world where you have Russian dominion and influence. What Britain and Russia are going to do in connection with the matter is their own affair; I want to make no comment on that.

But according to an announcement which has been made, the Prime Minister is shortly going overseas to attend a few very important conferences; perhaps very soon. I understand he is to attend the Peace Conference which is to be held in Paris in connection with the drafting of the peace treaty with Italy. I suppose he is going there because part of Africa is also involved, viz. the Italian colonies. That is one conference he is to attend. I believe he also intends attending the conference of the United Nations Organisation, though that may be later in the year. A meeting of the Security Council will shortly be convened in America. He will not attend that because he is not a member but he is going to attend a meeting of the new League of Nations, and I understand he is going there especially in connection with South-West Africa. But before those important conferences are to be held he will attend an Imperial Conference in London. Now I only want to say this in view of what Mr. Churchill has said; and not only in view of what he has said but also in view of what other British statesmen, and especially Lord Halifax, said on the occasion of his famous visit to Canada, viz. that the question of a closer affiliation between Britain and the various Dominions will be discussed. At first the idea was simply a closer affiliation as regards economic affairs. That in itself is a very important and serious matter. Lord Halifax has remarked that Britain has become exhausted. If no effective assistance is given to Britain she will become a second or third rate power and her only salvation is the British Empire, the Dominions; they should adjust their economic affairs in such a manner as to carry Britain on their backs, so to speak. Canada was opposed to it at the time. At the Imperial Conference which was held at the time, inter alia to discuss this question, Mackenzie King secured a victory. He would not agree to it and the matter was left there. But I assume the matter will again be raised at the coming Imperial Conference. But this matter is now going further and in view of what Mr. Churchill has said and in view of the world situation, we can accept that it will again be discussed at the Imperial Conference. The military ties between the Dominions and Britain, between South Africa and the British Empire, have to be strengthened. Military bonds have to be forged. In other words, we are to be tied down to a future war which is being contemplated and we now know what is being contemplated. We are to cast in our lot and again take part in a war. As regards that I just want to observe that Mr. Churchill says: “Look out, there is not much time left”. He says we have to reckon with that possibility. A large section of the public already want to know what the position is going to be in the event of a war. The question is quite legitimate. All I can say in regard to the matter is that should a war break out, as Mr. Churchill seems to think, between the Western powers and Russia, between the ideologies of the West and those of Russia, should that struggle come, it will be different from the one which has ended. The last one was a war in which a section of the people in our country were National-Socialistic in their convictions. They constituted a small section. I explained how my own Party in the early stage looked upon the matter and formulated its policy in regard to it. It does not agree with National-Socialism, but if this war against Russia were to come, what would the position be then? The position would be that the Europeans, with a few exceptions, will feel and think the same way in regard to that matter. Their sympathies will be with the Western powers; of that I have no doubt. But we have a large non-European population in this country and they are susceptible and exposed to Communistic propaganda as never before, and to a large extent they are already openly Communists, and Russia is not keeping her hands from South Africa as far as that is concerned, that much is obvious. It is clear from statements in Pravda and other Russian newspapers that they have cast eyes on South Africa and the non-European population, and Russia is representing herself as the champion of the non-Europeans. She is therefore obviously interfering in the matter. She is trying to win over their sympathies and to act as their champion and the situation will then be this: That we should bear in mind that our troubles will not be overseas but in South Africa and not a single South African soldier could be spared to take part in the struggle overseas, for the simple reason that our task, our work and our danger lie here. I therefore want to conclude with these remarks for the time being: South Africa should see to her own defences; we cannot allow our defences to crumble; we should look to our own defence. And I say further that we should render Communistic propaganda harmless as far as possible, not simply by taking active steps against it but also by looking after the interests of the poor man and by seeing that the colour problem is properly and satisfactorily solved.

It is very seldom, to my recollection never before, that we have heard the Hon. Leader of the Opposition get up in this House and quote as his prophet Mr. Winston Churchill. Is this a new alliance— Malan and Churchill? Not so long ago the alliance was with Adolf Hitler. Mr. Churchill is speaking today as one who was defeated in the last election. He speaks as a Tory who speaks for a vanishing world. The hon. member has with great publicity and a good deal of pomposity, read to us Mr. Churchill’s speech. The Prime Minister at the time told him that he was talking a good deal of nonsense. The hon. member should read the American newspapers, the New York “Times”, the “Tribune” and others, and he will find that they take exactly the opposite line from that taken by Churchill. The Prime Minister of England said that Mr. Churchill said that he had not submitted his speech to the British Government; he had not shown it to Lord Halifax, but Mr. Attlee did not even know whether Lord Halifax had read it, and he made it abundantly clear to the world that Mr. Churchill spoke for himself, and only three days ago a large group of members in the House of Commons tabled a motion censuring Mr. Churchill for this very speech with which the hon. member is trying to frighten South Africa and the House. I listened closely to the hon. member, but he did not say one thing new that has not been said in this House by the Nationalists for the last three years, and now they are using Churchill, one of the descendants of Marlborough, one of the descendants of the greatest imperialistic family. The Opposition takes him as an authority. Churchill and Malan! He has fought Churchill for many years. Do the Nationalists take South Africa as a lot of fools? Do they really believe that the country is going to believe the speech which the hon. member just made? Then they come to Communism. The hon. member made the statement that there was an enormous amount of Communism, and that the greater portion of the native population were Communists. It is untrue. I have gone into this question of Communism amongst the natives. It is true that in Johannesburg there are native Communists led by Fischer, whose father is a Nationalist; Potgieter, whose father is a Nationalist; Boshoff, whose father is a Nationalist, and Joey Fourie, whose mother is a Nationalist. We know there is a certain amount of Communism amongst natives there, and we know that at the last election the Nationalists assisted the Communists, and I understand that the Nationalists are going to fight for the Communists at Castle, in a vain endeavour to keep out Mr. Bloomberg. ’ Then they talk about Communists. Does the hon. member think that the speech he made does any good to South Africa? Does he believe that continually pointing his finger at Russia will do this country any good? Why does he not leave the matter in the hands of a more experienced statesman like the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister who is going to the Imperial Conference, to the Peace Conference and to UNO, and leave it to him to make a diplomatic deal and to make friends with Russia? But instead of that the leader of the alternative Government never misses a single opportunity of getting up in Parliament and saying something to rouse the ire of Russia, and when the trouble does come between Russia and South Africa, if it ever does come, where will the hon. member be? Will he again be writing a book like he did during the Anglo-Boer War, and will the Nationalists again declare their neutrality? I leave that hon. member there. I want to deal with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He, in very bitter and almost malignant sentences, made the statement in his speech that the Prime Minister of this country was never so happy as when there was a war on. I may say on behalf of this Party—and this is about the only point on which I can speak on behalf of the party—that we take the greatest exception to remarks of that kind being made about the Prime Minister. What right has the hon. member for George to make a statement like that? The hon. member for George was not a Free Stater before the English war. The Prime Minister fought for three years to try to save the Free State, when my hon. friend and his family were standing guard in the Cape Columns on the side of the English. The Prime Minister had to leave his wife in a concentration camp. Was he happy then, and was he happy during World War No. 1 when as a middle-aged man he had to take the field to drive the Germans away from the boundary of Northern Rhodesia? Do you think any decent man was happy in the last war? If it had not been for the Prime Minister in the last war, we probably would have lost the Middle East. Surely the time has come to stop making statements like that. Surely the time has come for us to join hands and stand up together to face any trouble which may come. To say that Field-Marshal Smuts, the great statesman and soldier, South Africa’s Roman Senator, is only happy when there is a war on, is to make us look with contempt at the speaker. The hon. member was just trying to raise a cheap cheer.

What is the attack of the hon. member for George on the Budget? He says it was a Hoggenheimer Budget. I first heard that word when Boonzaaier brought it out in a picture 32 years ago. Since that time the Nationalists have used the word, rolling it round their mouths like an old Hottentot rolls a piece of tobacco round his tongue. It is extraordinary that if this is such a Hoggenheimer Budget the market in Johannesburg has gone down.

As a result of the bad news from Europe.

Where is the bad news from Europe? There is no bad news from Europe. I will deal with that in a moment. But that is a cheap phrase, a Hoggenheimer Budget. If the hon. member were to study figures and understand them, and if he goes into the question of what the Minister of Finance has done in this country, he will see that South Africa has never been in such a strong financial position as today. This country has struck its tents and is on the march, but my friends opposite do not recognise it. I remember that the hon. member got up not many years ago and prophesied that just after the war we would have a most terrible depression. Does this look like a Budget of depression?

Legally and officially we are still in a state of war.

We know the war is still on legally. We know control has not been lifted from petrol. But we also know this country has never had more money, and the only thing lacking in South Africa today is not money, but manpower. If he were in business, the hon. member for George would find he could not get suitable men today. Despite the fact that our boys have come back, we are still in our factories and businesses short of manpower, and we shall be without enough manpower for a long time to come. People are trekking from the country to the towns for the employment that is offering There is no unemployment today. This remarkable position was achieved by us during the war, notwithstanding the internal disturbances made by our hon. friends on the other side. The hon. member must remember he was in the Ossewabrandwag, he was a general in it, and a great man as a general ….

That is news to me.

Perhaps he was a corporal. He and his friends were generals in the Ossewabrandwag; and referring to the period they were in the Ossewabandwag — they only got out recently — the commandant-general, Van Rensburg, said: “We who were in the O.B. in the bad days throughout the war were able to keep in this country a large number of soldiers who would have fought against Hitler. That is a thing he and his party must not forget. But notwithstanding these internal disturbances and the loss of many of our men, the country emerged from the war in a better position than it was ever in before. I do not want to go in detail through my hon. friend’s Budget speech, because year after year I sit here and see the Minister of Finance making a chopping-block of the hon. member, making mincemeat out of him; and, believe me, although the Minister has been sick, it will be a case of mincemeat again. So I leave the hon. member to the tender mercies of the Minister of Finance, and I can assure him he is in for a bad time on account of the schoolboy criticism he put up of this remarkable Budget.

He said so little this time that there is little to make mincemeat of.

There was a lot of voice and not much else. I nearly quoted the old Latin tag: Vox et praeterea nihil.

Another hon. member opposite said the Minister of Finance had not touched on agriculture. He is a cattle farmer, a good cattle farmer, and he is a Free Stater, so he must be a good chap. But arguments such as he has raised about agriculture have been heard here for the last 30 years; and if he looked into it he would see that agriculture has been dealt with in the Budget probably better than ever before. Millions have been voted for agriculture, millions in our loan vote alone, and hundreds of thousands of pounds have been allotted for soldiers and settlers. The arguments of the hon. member on the Budget suggest that he is something like the ox on his farm in the exercise of his mental faculties.

Now I come to the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). What did he say about the Budget? In his ponderous legal way he piled Ossa on Pelion and rolled leaf-crowned Olympus on Ossa. What was the end of his speech? That the Government had not taken a penny off beer and 2d. off cigarettes. And those are the three financial experts on the other side. It took the hon. member 25 minutes to say that. These are the gentlemen who think they will form the alternative government. He said if South Africa had remained neutral South Africa would today have remained a richer country than she is, and he quoted Ireland and Portugal. Ireland is a poorer country today than she was before the war, that is morally. She may have a little more money because England spent money in Ireland during the war, but money is not everything. The Irish people do not stand so high in the eyes of the world today as they stood before the war. It is a pity because they are a great people. But would Ireland have been neutral if she had not been under the protection of the British guns? And if Hitler had occupied England how long would Ireland have been neutral? Ireland sent tens of thousands of men to the British regiments, particularly into the Irish Guards, while a large number of Irishmen went over to assist in other ways, and she supplied England with food. But Ireland was only neutral because Great Britain and America looked after her, not because Hitler was going to respect her neutrality. As for Portugal, if our boys had not gone into Abyssinia and cleared out the Italians how long do you think it would have taken Mussolini to get into Portuguese East Africa? We are the people who protected the neutrality of Portugal, our boys who are lying in the desert protected Portuguese East Africa. Denmark was neutral, Holland was neutral, Norway was neutral; what happened to them? They were eaten up by the beast; and if South Africa had been neutral how would we have looked the world in the face now? Rumania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were all neutral. What is left of them? They were all eaten up and ruined. Poor little Holland, one of the greatest people in the world, the salt of* the earth, were ruined, their women raped, their children starved, because they were neutral. My friends over there quoted Churchill. Do they remember Churchill’s speech when he appealed to these people long before the war and when he said that each one of them thought the crocodile would get them last. The crocodile got them all. Could we have kept our ports neutral? Supposing the United States said: We are sending men to the East and we want to use your ports. What would our friends have done about it? They might have said no, but the United States would have said: We are going to do it. Where would our neutrality have been? As the years roll by and the story goes down the corridors of history we will thank God that our leader, the Dominion Party, the Labour Party and this party hoisted the banner high and said: We will not be neutral. That is why today the Prime Minister can go over to these great conferences and stand with the people of the world, look the whole world in the face and say: We, a small nation at the foot of the great Black African Continent, held Africa for Western civilisation and kept open the gateway between East and West, and we can look the world in the face. Can our friends do so? No, they are shamefaced. Do you think if the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) were to become Prime Minister tomorrow and go overseas he would be accepted by the world? He would be boycotted, they would not speak to him. Even the coloured men there would not speak to him. That is the feeling today, there is a division in this world; there is a division of the men who stood for Christianity and Western civilisation and the men who did not. The hon. member for George knows full well that if they had their chance over again many of his friends would have voted against neutrality. So they should not throw their weight about in connection with neutrality. We are proud we did not have neutrality. Our children will be proud we did not have neutrality, and their descendants will be proud we did not have neutrality, but that we joined hands with the other members of the Commonwealth in order to break down the tyranny of Hitlerism.

Finally, I just want to say this to my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance. I want to say a word about Pandora’s Box. Who was Pandora? Pandora, as far as I know, was the first woman and Jupiter gave her a box which she was to present to her husband Epimetheus when they married. He was ordered not to open the box, but he disobeyed and opened it and when he did so all the evils that man is heir to flew out and spread over the world, all the things that have afflicted mankind. All that remained in the box was Hope. Hence Pandora’s Box is used to describe a gift which though it looks valuable is a snare. I never thought, though Homer did, that my hon. friend would nod on this matter of Pandora’s Box. This is certainly not Pandora’s Box. It is a first-class Budget. It is a Budget that is going to make a lot of people side with the Government. It is a Budget which will relieve the lower income taxpayer. It is a Budget that will help the common man. So why Pandora’s Box? I would like my hon. friend, as a wedding present, to have a box like Pandora’s.

It will probably be rather difficult to bring the House back to the realities and the difficulties facing South Africa, after the oration on foreign affairs we have had, but I feel obliged to do so, and I therefore wish to move the following further amendment to the Budget—

We have heard from the hon. member for South Peninsula (Mr. Sonnenberg) that the welfare of South Africa as a whole centres entirely round the gold mining industry of South Africa. We heard from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that there is plenty of gold in South Africa which can be turned into money, and which will enable the industry to carry any burden which may in future be imposed upon it. I want to point out that the miners’ phthisis sufferer, and also his wife and children, are in such a precarious position today that it amounts to this, that when the miners’ phthisis sufferer is ultimately certified as having contracted miners’ phthisis, he is practically condemned to death. If we read in the papers of a person being condemned to death we receive a shock. We think: How terrible that a person should die on the gallows. But have we ever thought for a moment about the thousands of our fellow-beings in South Africa who receive this death sentence on the day that the doctor says: “Man, you are suffering from miners’ phthisis”? Can this House form any idea of what goes on in the mind of that man when he hears this sentence being passed? On an average, 280 per annum of these people who produce the riches which are the pivot around which the whole of South Africa commercially and otherwise hinges have to listen to this sentence being pronounced on their own lives. The suffering of, their wives, the suffering of their children, the lack of food, the lack of housing and decent clothes—all this is included in the sentence passed on them. What concessions are made to them, and what concessions are made to their dependants, after they have sacrificed their lives in order to produce riches for South Africa? I will tell you. There are members here who do not know it, and for their sakes I will give the facts here. The pension to which a mineworker suffering from miners’ phthisis is entitled is calculated as follows: £12 3s. 4d. per month for himself and £2 8s. 8d. per month for his wife. If this man dies, then the pension payable to his wife is calculated as follows: the pension to which the deceased mineworker’s wife and children under 16 years of age are entitled is double the amount to which she was entitled before the mineworker’s death. The amount payable to her during the life of the mineworker was £2 8s. 8d. She therefore gets £4 17s. 4d. On that the widow of the mineworker has to live. Is there anyone in this House who would not turn in his grave if his widow had to live on £4 17s. 4d. per month after his death? I ask you: Is there anyone here in this House or in the Cabinet who would be satisfied if his widow had to receive such treatment from a liberal, large and wealthy industry such as the gold mining industry? Today is, I understand, the birthday of the Minister of Finance.

No, it is not.

In any case, I want to remind him of what he learnt at his mother’s knee: it is more blessed to give than to receive. In this connection, it would be a blessed consolation to the country and to the people if the Minister of Finance were to agree to this £11 million, which the country acquired through the efforts of the mineworkers, being handed to the Public Debt Commissioners for investment and the interest thereon be appropriated for additional pension payments to miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. If we take interest at 3 per cent., it means £330,000 per annum. The pensions paid at present amount to £770,000. An increase of almost 50 per cent. could be given to miners’ phthisis pensioners. Who today can subsist on the pensions laid down in this little book? No one. My first speech in this House was in the same strain. I asked, I begged for an improvement in the pensions paid to these people. I did not get it. Today I ask for it once more. I know that there are people who say that I am merely making propaganda in view of the by-election in West Rand. If they say that, I want to ask them whether there was also a by-election in West Rand in 1944? I am only asking this because I feel that my people are going to ruin, and that the widow of the miners’ phthisis sufferer will have to go to the ashheap. I beg once more. I implore this House. I will go on my knees at the feet of the Minister of Finance to beg him for relief. These people do not want to live in luxury, but they are entitled to food, clothing and decent housing, and they are not getting that today. Go to the Witwatersrand today and see where you will find the widows and orphans of the miners’ phthisis sufferers—of the cream of South Africa, who have sacrificed their lives. We find them in the slum areas, in shanties, in garages and in cowsheds —that is where you will find them. I want to appeal to the Minister of Finance. I beg of the Cabinet of this country, I beg of this House: in the name of God wake up, look at the misery in which the people have to live. These people had the same education I had. You also had the same education. You probably had the benefit of a University education which I did not have. You had the same lessons at your mother’s knee that I had. How can you expect South Africa to be blessed; how can you expect to be spared droughts and misery if this is the manner in which you treat a section of the people of South Africa. During the past ten years 30,000 men have given their lives. They contracted miners’ phthisis. I am glad that the Minister of Finance has had the Minister of Mines called, because I will most probably still have a bone to pick with him in regard to this matter. 30,000 men have laid down their lives and their widows and children get £4 17s. 4d. per month! The Minister shakes his head. Yes, 16s. cost of living allowance is added to that—a shame for South Africa. I am not asking that additional taxes should be imposed on the mines at this stage in order that these pensions could be paid. The money is there. The mine workers have produced the money from the bowels of the earth. Give it back to their widows and orphans. I have been asking and pleading and begging and praying for the past three years and I will continue to do so until I leave this House. But I want to remind this House that you are one and all to blame for the existing state of affairs and if you do not do justice to these people, then you cannot sit back and pray and expect a blessing as long as these conditions continue in South Africa. You cannot expect to get that.

I second the amendment. You will notice that the purpose of this amendment is to give immediate relief to the dependants of miners’ phthisis sufferers as well as the miners’ phthisis sufferers themselves, on whose behalf we have been pleading in this House during the last 6 or 8 years in order to obtain relief for them. It appears to us that the proposed Miners’ Phthisis Bill of last year is gradually being shelved again. That is the reason why we now come with an effective suggestion for immediate relief which can be granted to these people. The purpose of this amendment is that these people who have been waiting for so long need not wait still longer until the Miners’ Phthisis Bill, which is supposed to be tabled and which most likely will once more be sent to a Select Committee, and then be shelved, may be dealt with next year. We have reason to expect that this Bill will be shelved, and, as has happened in the past shortly before a general election, that the people will be baited with a small concession. That happened in 1938. You will remember that. In 1938 there also was the idea of a new Bill, and immediately prior to the election a Bill was passed granting an increase of 10 per cent. in the ante-primary and 5 per cent. in the primary stage—in other words a small, bribe. They succeeded then, but we do not want a repetition of 1938. We do not want that. We want immediate relief for the people who have been waiting all these years. Now the Government for the first time has an opportunity to spare a penny for the people who are responsible for the prosperity of an industry which is praised so much. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that year after year mention is made in the estimates of the large sums of money which the State obtains from the mining industry. But never was a penny of those large amounts spared as a contribution to the people who provided the country with millions of pounds. The opportunity is now present and it is in fact a challenge to the Government to admit for the first time that something can be spared from this large income for the people who have provided us with the income, and who today are living in precarious circumstances. The hon. member who moved the amendment did not give us the whole picture. That, however, is not necessary, for we expect that, when the miners’ phthisis legislation comes up for discussion again, we will once more for the umpteenth time have to paint the whole picture of the miners’ phthisis sufferers. It is, however, necessary to point out now that the wife receives. £2 and a few shillings whilst her husband is still alive and that this is merely doubled after his death, when she only receives £4 17s. per month, and the child of such a man after his death only receives £2 4s. and during his life only £1 5s. per month on which to live. When comparing that to military pensions or any other pensions, the House will immediately realise that these people have been completely forgotten in the past. We now submit a concrete proposal to the House, showing how these people can be immediately assisted, until such time as the Government may be persuaded, probably shortly before the election, to introduce a Bill for further relief. To us it is quite obvious that there will be delay and lingering just as there was before the election of 1938, and that then a small increase will be granted to catch the people’s vote as was done in 1938. One hears many expressions of sympathy with the miners’ phthisis sufferers from members of the other side, but they have it in their power to do something for the miners’ phthisis sufferers and to translate their sympathy into deeds. For that reason I wholeheartedly support the amendment of the hon. member, and I hope that the Government will reply to it. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, even though it be late, although not too late, I want to draw attention to the fact that a new Minister of Mines has been appointed. I have nothing whatever to say against his person, but I just want to point out that the Right Hon. the Prime Minister has in fact slighted the mineworkers of the Witwatersrand by such an appointment. You will immediately agree with me, when I draw a comparison. What would the Chambers of Commerce of Cape Town and Johan nesburg do, if, for instance, the hon. member for Lydenburg (Mr. Maré) were appointed Minister of Commerce and Industries? There would be a revolution the very next day. What would happen if the Prime Minister were to appoint the hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) as Minister of Commerce and Industries? There would be a terrible revolution the next day. But the mine workers have to be satisfied with any person, whether he knows something about mining and the conditions of the mineworkers or not. That does not worry the Prime Minister in the least. The mineworkers have to be satisfied. Can the Right Hon. the Prime Minister expect the present Minister of Mines to be acquainted with the interests of the mineworkers and to be conversant with all aspects of the mine industry? It is beyond my comprehension that the Prime Minister can expect such a thing. But the miners have to be satisfied with anything they get. Up till now they have always been satisfied with anything they got, but I want to remind the Government that the same Prime Minister was just as deaf to good advice in 1922 and just as consistently tried to trample down the rights of the mineworkers, and that the miners were the people who caused his Government to come to grief. As sure as the sun shines, if this Government does not follow a different policy in regard to the mineworkers, the latter will cause the Government to come to grief as they did in 1922.

You will have to enter into a pact again.

The hon. member should not deceive himself that he is living in a paradise of security as far as his party is concerned. I want to tell him that if the Government does not follow a different policy, then pact or no pact, not only the Nationalists and the Labourites, but also the National-Socialists and the Ossewabrandwag and the Communists will move heaven and earth during the following general election to get rid of the present Government. That is what happened in 1922, and if the present Government does not mend its ways it will fall as certain as it is sitting there now. And it deserves to be kicked out if it wants to continue as it is doing now. On whose behalf are we fighting here? Hon. members over there always laugh when we champion the cause of the miners, but the time will come when the miners will get their turn to laugh at them. The Witwatersrand is not of so little importance as the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) may think.

I do not think so.

The hon. member reckons that as long as the miners continue working and make it possible for him to speculate in shares, everything is rosy. But when we ask for some understanding from the people here in the Boland and the Cape who are waxing rich by speculating in mining shares, then our pleas fall on deaf ears. The miners are at present reaching the stage where they will stand so much as any class of decent man in South Africa can stand. But no more. The miners cannot stand anything more. Has there ever been a period in South African history when money flowed so plentifully in this country as during the past six years? But during those six years not a penny has been given to the people whose cause the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) championed, not a single penny. Can you imagine a more damning position and a more destructive policy than the one the Government is following at present? Can it become any worse? We do not want to see again how one speaker after the other on the Government benches gets up and expresses his sympathy for the mineworkers. We do not quarrel with individual members who know what the position of the miner is, but we do quarrel with the hard-of-hearing Government, because they are prepared to do anything for any other section, except the mineworkers. Whether this is a kind of revenge for what the miners did in 1924, I could not say. Let the Government have its revenge but one day those people will get their turn to retaliate from their side. That opportunity will come. The hon. member here made a passionate appeal on behalf of those miners. It is not the first time that was done. We have pleaded year after year, but we have, so to say, been cold-shouldered as soon as we started talking about the miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. If you do that you are immediately in disfavour. This time we do not ask the Government’s sympathy only. We submit a proposal which will, if put into practice, actually give those people something. We do hope that there will not be the usual excuses again. Up to the present stage we have been fully justified in saying that we do not have confidence any more in the word of the Government, when it says that the Miners’ Phthisis Bill will still come before this House during the present session. Even last year the Government in the speech from the Throne announced all kinds of promises which were never fulfilled. Also this year announcements have been made in the speech from the Throne which we do not believe will ever be carried out. For that reason we come here with a concrete proposal and declare that the people can no longer be put off as they have been in the past, but that they should get relief immediately. Here is your opportunity to give them that relief. You can make use of the money which these people themselves have produced. Dividends have accumulated, profits have accumulated since the beginning of the war. In spite of the taxation imposed on the mines, during the war years the mines flourished more than ever before.

Most of the dividends have gone down.

I suppose because the shares went up? I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member; he of course knows more about shares than I do, but from the newspapers I gather that the shares have risen enormously. So much for the miners’ phthisis sufferers. I want to draw attention to the fact that there is not a single class of worker in the country which did not receive an increase in wages. There is no native who did not get an increase. In the Railway service, the civil service, everywhere wages and salaries have been increased, but the mineworker has not yet received a penny. Also as far as providing employment is concerned, the mines have not done nearly enough. During the war years we were prepared to contribute everything and to endure everything, but the war is over and we now request the Government to do justice to these people, too. They are the forgotten class of South Africa, these people who provide you with all those millions and millions of pounds. It is often thrown before us that the miners are riding around in motor cars. If they have a motor car they have paid for it to the last penny. They do not get motor cars as presents. So much for the mineworkers. You will realise that we will not have the opportunity to tear to shreds the Budget any further than has been done already. The criticism from all sides of the House shows what the value of the Budget is. I fully associate myself with the important point made by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie). The taxation relief we have been granted now looks quite acceptable on paper. But, as the hon. member for South Rand said, seeing that the country has been staggering under a particularly heavy burden for six years, even the slightest relief will be welcomed, the smallest measure of relief will be noticed. Once more, however, the poor man has been ignored. He should have been given a greater measure of relief. The mines receive an exceptionally high measure of relief, but here the Government had an excellent opportunity to tell the mines that they would get such relief on the condition that they would take into their service at least two-thirds more than the present number of employees. The mines, which are looked upon as one of our most important industries, have never yet stirred a little finger to provide more opportunities of work in South Africa. The ratio of Europeans as against natives is more unfavourable now than it was in 1922. The mines can play a big part in South Africa as a source of work, but unfortunately they are selfish, whereas they could do much more for the people of this country. This is the point on which I consistently come into conflict with the mining interests, namely, that they have only one principle, and that is to be able to pay out the highest possible dividends, and South Africa has consistently been suffering as a result, and the country has always been sacrificed on the altar of the mining industry. I say that the time has arrived when the mining industry should be run in the interests of South Africa, and no longer vice versa, as is the case at present. Another aspect of the Budget is, and I believe that even hon. members on the Government benches will agree with me in this respect, that there is not the slightest trace of any Government scheme in regard to post-war reconstruction. Once more everything is left to the mercy of private initiative. Years ago, when the iron and steel industry was established at Pretoria, there was a tremendous outcry throughout the country, and I now ask whether even the most ardent opponents of that time are still opposed to the undertaking at present. Of course not. The irrefutable proof has been brought that there are industries which the State can undertake, and which it can place on a sound footing. This industry has become one of South Africa’s assets, an asset also to the farmers and to the population as a whole. I had expected that hon. members on the other side would by now have been converted. Here they are being given the opportunity to call into being further industries, but nothing is done about it. South Africa has marvellous prospects, but it is to be deplored that a Government which was so efficient and active in the prosecution of the war is just as hopeless and inefficient when it comes to the execution of post-war reconstruction plans.

Why did you run away and leave us in the lurch?

I maintain that the time has come when this Government, if it is incapable of giving effect to the promises it has made and of realising the hopes it has created, should resign and call a general election. I think the hon. member himself will agree that the Government has failed miserably in its duties as far as postwar reconstruction is concerned.

I do not agree with you.

Hon. members on the other side condemn the policy of the Government in every respect. Speaker after speaker stamps its policy as hopeless in every respect. So let us get rid of this Government and choose a new Government. The people today want to elect another Government.

A Labour Party one?

What does that matter? But the hon. member should not think that I want to be held responsible for their weaknesses and lack of backbone. This Government had the most wonderful opportunity to have its name engraved into the hearts of the people and posterity if it had carried out only one-tenth of what it promised the country. Let us consider one department after the other. Take, for instance, Mines. No attempt is being made to provide more employment. Take the Railways. All we hear is that the Minister now and again in an after-dinner speech talks about the thousands of people he requires and of the records which have been established, but when you send applicants there they are told that there are no vacancies. There is our police force. After nearly two years of recruiting they have not even got one thousand new men. Then there is the Department of Agriculture. The people are so sick and tired of that department, that they do not want to come near it.

Why did you run away?

We are now dealing with the post-war position. As efficient as the Government was in connection with the war effort, just as inefficient is it now. There is only one Minister of whom it can be said that he has implemented his promises, and that is the Minister of Lands. He has set aside land which is being allotted today. Can you mention another Minister of whom that can be said? There is none. It is one of our great tragedies that this Government is so incompetent in its post-war task. In spite of the large majority on the Government side, they are hopeless in their policy from A to Z. We have been landed with the remains of the former war Government, and the people of this country, seeing that peace reigns once more, want to elect a Government in which they can have confidence, a Government with vision and plans which it can carry out, a Government which will come up to the expectations of the people for the establishment of a new South Africa.

What kind of Government?

Do hon. members have so little confidence in the people’s capability to say whom they want? I am quite prepared to rest content with the verdict of the people. If the people say they want again the present Government party, I shall be satisfied; if the people say that they have confidence in the Labour Party, I shall be more satisfied; if the people expresses confidence in the Nationalist Party, I shall also be satisfied. I do not distrust the verdict of the people. I am not afraid of the verdict of the people and I shall acquiesce in their verdict. The time has arrived when we should get a different government for the new set of circumstances, instead of a government which is tired and worn out and is but the remainder of a war government. Furthermore I want to for the umpteenth time appeal to the Minister of Finance. Have you ever had any private discussions with the Minister of Finance? You cannot find a more reasonable, amiable and efficient man then, but when you have him here in the House, you can talk as much as you like, and year after year, but you do not make any progress. We know that it is the wish of the entire Parliament that he should do away with the means test in regard to the old age pensions. That is the view we all hold, but here the Minister is far too much of a dictator. All parties are in favour of the abolition of the means test, and the Minister is wrong in ignoring the voice of the people and making use of his Whips and his dictatorship in order to be able to refuse giving in on this point. I again ask that the Minister should abolish the means test in connection with old age pensions and war veterans’ pensions. I am sorry not to see the Minister of Transport in his seat. People say that the position of the railworkers has improved in many respects, but I would fail in my duty if I did not plead for the section of the railway staff that is doing the most arduous work, namely the loading masters, shunters and others. The rate of wages they earn is far below the standard they should receive in order to keep themselves in a fit condition for performing strenuous work every day. The clothing allowance is also something which should be investigated. Finally I just want to mention that I do not know why the Hon. the Prime Minister is absent. Although I do not belong to the party of the Leader of the Opposition, I do want to say that I think the Prime Minister really owes it to this House and to South Africa to give a fully considered reply to the Leader of the Opposition. We do not again want to be kept in the dark until the eleventh hour, as happened in connection with the late war. I hope that this time the people will be kept well posted about the position and will not be kept in the dark until the worst befalls us.

In his Budget speech the Minister of Finance referred to the food shortage in this country, and that it would be necessary to import large quantities of cereals this year, the cost of which would amount to about £10 million. It is in connection with this food shortage that I would like to offer one or two suggestions to the Cabinet Food Committee, which I trust they will seriously consider. There is not the slightest doubt whatever that we must explore all avenues to provide our native and coloured people with a better balanced diet. In other words we must see to it that they get foodstuffs containing proteins, which are absent in normal cereal foods and see whether we cannot by some means or other augment the native diet. Now I have an experiment which I would like the Cabinet Food Committee to adopt and that is an experiment which can be tried in the first place on a short-term basis and later on a long-term basis. The scheme I have to suggest, would, I think, provide our natives and coloureds with the necessary proteins that we are so anxious to give them, and which are in short supply today in this country. At the same time, if this experiment proves successful, I feel that we would be able to open up a new industry in South Africa. In examining this experiment the following Government Departments would be vitally interested, Public Health, Agriculture, Commerce, Social Welfare and Native Affairs, and last but not least Finance. But some of these Departments would only come into the picture after the experiment had been made. In order to make the position clear, I feel I should divide my remarks into two sections, (1) a short programme dealing with the present food position, and (2) a long-range programme which would only take effect after the experiment has been carried out. Dealing with the short-range plan, or experiment, I would urge the Cabinet Food Committee or the Government to import in bulk form large quantities of flour made from soya beans which, I understand, are available for export in America. That flour, as the hon. members know, is not a food in itself. It can only be added to other foods and would provide the nutritive value which we are so anxious to give our natives and the lower income groups.

It has not got a nice taste.

The hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) points out that it has not got a nice taste. If this soya bean flour were added to the food given to our hospitals, our prisons and other Government institutions we would be doing something to provide the inmates of those institutions with food of a very high nutritive value. At first glance, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has said, it has been tried in this country in the past, but has proved a miserable failure owing to the bitter taste, and the native has refused to eat any food to which the soya bean has been added. That certainly was the case, but I am informed that this bitter taste was entirely due to the fact that we had no facilities for the proper processing of the soya bean. I would add that I have recently tasted and tested the soya bean flour properly processed, and I can assure hon. members that there is not a suggestion of a bitter taste in the soya bean flour if properly processed.

Would you be prepared to serve ’it here?

I would be only too glad to serve it here. Let us examine the protein content of the soya bean flour and compare it with other protein foods. The following are good examples: 2 lb. of soya bean flour is equal in protein content to 15 quarts of milk, or 2 lb. of soya bean flour is equal in protein content to six dozen eggs or 5 lb. of boneless meat or 4 lb. of cheese. I think with this information before the hon. members they will realise that if we can provide such nutritive food to the lower income groups we would be doing something of great value for our coloureds and natives in this country. One can just picture the actual cost that is involved in obtaining 5 lb. of boneless meat, even at pre-war prices, but when you take the present-day levels, few have access to such food. I think in the circumstances, I have made out a case for an experiment to be carried out whereby we can obtain this flour from America and give it a test to see whether the native is prepared to accept it and also whether the lower income groups or the public generally are satisfied with its flavour. As regards the long-range plan, which can only take effect when the experiment has been carried out, the long-range plan is the growing of soya beans in this country on a large scale. I know that hon. members, particularly our farming friends, will say that this has been tested before, and that they are trying it out today, but there is no market, and that soya beans do not grow successfully in this country. Let me say that there is one important thing to remember and that is, that it is the seed of the soya bean which is the secret of the whole thing. I am informed that there are 130 varieties of soya bean seeds.

132.

And further, soya beans can grow anywhere where corn or cotton will grow. They will stand extremes in weather such as floods and droughts.

In that case it would be ideal for this country.

It would therefore be ideal for this country, as the hon. member remarks. Let us see what we can get from the bean beyond flour. This again is interesting. The plant itself can be used as a fertiliser. The whole bean will provide vegetable milk for cheese and condensed milk. The processed bean, apart from flour, will provide oil for margarine and edible oils of which there is a great shortage in this country. Furthermore, the oil can be used for soap, lubricating oils, paints, varnish …

Margarine.

… printers’ ink, glycerine, livestock feeds, fertiliser, glue and plastics. How many of our secondary industries today depend upon these oils from outside. Let me just mention this. In 1922 the processing of soya bean flour was started in America and the first year four million bushels were processed. In 1945, 300,000,000 bushels were processed.

If you utilised the flour you won’t have any beans.

No, half and half.

You have the flour and the oil. Grow more—I think that is the answer.

Fifty-fifty.

I feel that an endeavour should be made to grow soya beans in this country, but before anything can be done one would have to make scientific tests to see where the seed grows best and further I feel that experts should be sent to America to study this matter.

That is a good idea.

After the trials have proved successful, as I know they will, then I think what should be done is that a plant should be erected for processing the bean and the farmer supplied with the seed by the Government and given a fixed price for the beans he produces. I am satisfied that if this were taken seriously a new industry would develop in this country, an industry that would help not only the farmer but would supply nutritive food which is so lacking in this country. I trust the Cabinet Food Committee will give this their serious consideration.

This afternoon I want to confine my remarks to a certain item in the estimates. The hon. Minister of Finance has set aside an amount of £10,000,000 for a specific purpose. My first impression was that this amount was to be spent on purchasing food in order to make up the shortage which exists in the country. But at a later stage the hon. Minister explained in fuller detail that this amount had been set aside to cover price variations. If that is so, I shall have to address the Minister of Agriculture. We cannot get away from the fact that the policy which has been followed has been a very expensive policy for this country, and that leads to the conclusion that our present Minister of Agriculture is a very expensive Minister of Agriculture. If the differences which have to be paid between the price paid in this country and the price at which imports can take place, already amounts to £10,000,000, then he is definitely the most expensive Minister of Agriculture we have ever had in South Africa. Today a lot is made of the fact that the Government we now have is so generous—the Minister of Finance makes £10,000,000 available for making up the food shortage, but the position is that that £10,000,000 is not going to the consumer in this country. That £10,000,000 is going into the pockets of overseas producers. That is where the money ultimately goes. Up till now both the hon. Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture have failed to put before this House a policy indicating that they have now decided, in view of the seriousness of the present emergency, to make available a certain amount in order to try to raise the production in our own country to a level which will enable us to meet the requirements of the people in this country.

No, they have done nothing.

This side of the House has issued warnings year after year. I can still remember that last year I got up in this House at the end of the session and as a maize farmer and maize producer I addressed the following words to the Minister of Agriculture: I do not want to quarrel with you tonight; I do not want to go in for splitting hairs, but I do want to give you some sound advice; let us co-operate and achieve something which will be in the interests of the country. What did he do? What has been done in that direction? This £10,000,000 is not to be voted in order to increase the price of wheat in this country to such an extent that the wheat farmer will be encouraged to increase his production. That is not to be done. Part of that money is, for instance, not to be utilised to increase the price of oats so as to encourage the farmer to produce more oats. That is also not done in the case of maize; it is not done in the case of any product. No provision whatsoever is made to encourage the farmer to increase his production. But what is England doing? Hon. members of the other side are so attached to England that everything that England does must be copied here. What did the British Minister of Agriculture do some days ago? He realised the serious position throughout the world and in order to achieve the maximum production by the English farmers, he increased the prices of agricultural produce all along the line. He went even further. Quite recently he declared that he will once more put into force the powers which he possesses under emergency regulations in order to achieve the maximum production. Here in our country nothing is being done. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) said just now that this Government is impotent to tackle the post-war problems. To prove that I need only refer to the number of emergency regulations which the Government has from time to time issued in this country, and not one of these regulations is intended to be in force for more than 24 hours. If it has been in force for 24 hours and something goes wrong, a new emergency regulation is published the next morning. A long-term agricultural policy should be laid down, and in times such as the present the maximum assistance should be given in order to help and encourage the farmers to produce. We are sitting here today; the wheat farmer has to plough. When the rains fall, as they have done in certain parts of the country, the wheat farmer has to plough. But what encouragement does he receivê? There is a shortage of fertilisers; I have here a number of letters which I could read to the House. I have here a letter from a person who wants to sow 50 bags of wheat, but he only received fertiliser sufficient for 10 bags of wheat. That man cannot achieve the maximum production which he would have achieved if he had not been penalised in this way. What has happened to our dairy industry? What happened last year? Last year a deputation was waiting — I could nearly say for weeks — on the doorstep of the office of the Minister of Agriculture. They asked for an increase of 1d. per gallon of milk, but what did they achieve? They had to go home again with their hats in their hands. Those people supplied the proof that they had to obtain that difference in price in order to enable them to keep up the maximum production. They received no encouragement. In the same way one can consider one section of agriculture after another, and you will find that nothing has been done in the direction of aiming at the maximum production in this country. I now want to come to the section of the farming industry which I represent, the maize farmers. During the present year we have suffered a drought practically throughout the country. Last year we pleaded that the maize farmer should be encouraged to produce more, but the Minister of Finance jibbed when it appeared that an extra amount of £120,000 would be needed to encourage the maize farmer to produce the maximum. He then declared that he could not afford that difference in price, because it would then mean an expenditure of more than £1 million. The result of that policy was that he now has to spend £10 million. If the money had been spent at that time in the right way, if the farmer had been encouraged as we suggested, it would not have been necessary today to set aside £10 million. The Minister of Finance also knows that we on this side have fought for the kaffir-corn farmer. The price of kaffir-corn was reduced last year from 22s. 6d. per bag to 21s. 6d. We warned against this step, and we pleaded for those people. What happened then? The Government imported kaffircorn from Rhodesia at more than £2 per bag, although they did not want to pay 22s. 6d. per bag to the kaffir-corn farmer in our own country. Consequently, the corn produced here landed on the black market. The Government by its action created a black market. Unfortunately, the hon. Minister of Agriculture is not present this afternoon. But I address my remarks to the Minister of Finance, for he holds the strings of the purse. I want to warn the Minister that if he does not encourage the farmers, even the small production which will be available will be kept back; he will get hold of only a very small percentage of the production and he will have to import practically all of the country’s requirements. The position today is very bad. The farmers mow down their maize and they will not supply the small quantity which is produced at £1 per bag. What I want to suggest is that the Minister of Agriculture and the Government should consider giving the maize farmer at least the average price of 28s. 6d. for imported maize. The Minister of Finance will now have to grant a subsidy of 14s. per bag on imported mealies to the consumer. If he can obtain half of his requirements in the country and has to import the other half, he should take the average import price and take steps so that the farmer also will receive that average import price, because otherwise our maize will disappear on the black market. Another suggestion I want to make is the following: Follow the policy of England; do as the British Minister of Agriculture did; give our farmers a long-term policy. I can assure the Minister of Finance that the South African maize farmer will be prepared to accept a longterm policy if the price is fixed at £1 per bag, but then it must be fixed for a period of not less than four years. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) yesterday admitted in this House that the price of maize would have been considerably higher during all these years if it had not been for the application of the control system. I now want to ask the Minister to consider instituting a long-term policy. He should tell the maize farmers of the Free State and the Transvaal that a fixed price will be guaranteed to them for four years, that so much will be their minimum and so much their maximum price. If he does that, I can assure the Minister that he will achieve the maximum production.

In spite of droughts?

During the present debate we have heard several times, and it has been proved time and again, that the Minister of Finance is just as much to blame for the under-production at present taking place in the country as is the Minister of Agriculture, but the latter was the first to sin. Four years ago, when we met him at the Agricultural Congress of the Free State, we asked him to exempt the farmers from the Excess Profits Tax, so that they might be encouraged to produce more, but he refused to do so. The big farmer today does not produce as much as he can produce. We have penalised the big farmer, and there can be no doubt about it. Our actions in the past have proved it. We paid the small farmer 1s. 6d. more per bag. We took up the attitude that the small farmer should receive his rightful share of the market, and we knew that it was the big farmer who produced the surplus. Then the Minister of Finance came along and expelled the big farmer from the market, and it is as a result of that action that we are today faced with a shortage, and I do hope the Ministér of Finance will reconsider this matter, and will try, by means of exempting the big farmer from that Excess Profits Tax, to encourage him to maximum production. Nobody in this country, not even the Government supporters on the other side, will be prepared to plough their land and exhaust the productivity of their soil in order to hand over to the State 15s. or 16s. in the £. No farmer will be prepared to do that, and the sooner the Minister of Finance considers this matter and corrects it, the sooner will he render a service to the whole country by assisting and encouraging production.

I must confess my inability to follow the arguments by which the hon. member who has just sat down asks for further increases in the price of a commodity that is a necessity of life to the majority of people in this country. I was not clear whether he meant that the price to the consumer should also rise.

No. The Minister of Finance must suffer for his sins.

The hon. member also referred to the policy of Great Britain where production has been considerably stimulated. I do not know whether the hon. member has studied the policy of subsidisation and the extent of the subsidisation of the consumer that has been indulged in in Great Britain. The cost of living to the consumer in Great Britain has been kept down to the most amazing degree by subsidisation—I believe to an extent of over £200,000,000. I doubt whether the direct taxpayer in this country would have been prepared to submit to anything like the degree of taxation necessary for the purpose of subsidising consumers’ goods as has been done in Great Britain during the war.

It will come as no surprise to the hon. Minister to learn that I view his budget, as I think I have viewed all budgets since I have been in this House, from the point of view of the poorer classes of the community. The large bulk of those classes consists of the race whom I represent in this House, but by no means all. Since the hon. Minister’s second war budget in 1941, I have all along protested against a method of finance which encourages an inflationary rise in prices, without taking adequate measures and adequate safeguards against such rises taking place in the prices of the necessities of life. When I speak of inflation I want to be quite clear as to what I mean, because inflation is a word which is more often used—as I have heard it said— than defined. What I mean by inflation is an increase in the volume of currency and an expansion of credit based thereon, not in proportion either to any increase in local production or in the importation of goods from abroad. It is through the competition of increased money incomes for a limited amount of goods that prices are forced up, which hits more particularly the poorer classes of the community, especially those who are wage-earners, or other persons whose money incomes are more or less fixed. In this country the mass of the people have been severely, and are still being, severely hit by these rises in price to an extent far exceeding what one would gather from a study of the official cost of living index figures. The Bus Services Commission on the Witwatersrand made a special investigation into the cost of living for the families of urbanised natives in the townships on the Witwatersrand, and the figures — I have given the figures before in this House—were very much in excess of the official cost of living index. It is 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. on the necessities of life. I want to examine to what extent the Government has been responsible for this, and more particularly I want to ask what, in the present situation, the Minister of Finance, so far as it lies within his province, is going to do about it. I do not contend and have never contended that the Government has taken no anti-inflationary measures. The Minister of Finance has, of course, done so. His policy of repatriation of our external debt is a policy for which, I believe, he has earned the fullest credit of the country, and many of the taxes he has imposed, whether they have been popular or whether they have not been popular, have been anti-inflationary in their effect. I might more particularly mention in that connection the tax on the transfer and exchange of property. But what the Hon. Minister has been doing in the past —I am coming to the present Budget in a moment, because the damage has largely been done and we must now consider how we are to get out of the position we have been landed in—what the Minister has been doing in the past is that at a time when the resources of the country under the then existing conditions were fully employed, he has been resorting to a form of concealed or semi-concealed deficit financing for war purposes. Although the manpower of the country was as fully employed as it was likely to be employed in the absence of a very considerable change in the social structure of the country, the Hon. Minister continued to pursue a policy of unbalanced Budgets.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned I was referring to what I contend was the inflationary situation in this country, and I was attempting to assess in some measure the Government’s responsibility for it. I attributed that responsibility to their sustained policy of deficit financing at a time when full calls were being made on the manpower and other resources of this country. It might be contended that other countries which were involved in the recent war borrowed to a much larger extent than we did for their war purposes. There is some measure of truth in that, but the answer to it is that they took adequate safeguards against the development of inflation. Great Britain is the outstanding example of that position. There, all prices were rigidly controlled, whereas our price control was very late in spite of demands made for it—by me amongst others—at an early period. There, there was a policy of subsidisation of the price of imported goods. There, there was a comprehensive system of control and rationing such as we have never known in this country. The policy of borrowing was to a large extent set off by a policy of control and of subsidisation. The point I want to make now is this. We have, in the sense that I have defined it, an inflationary rise in prices of the necessities of life which bears hardest on the poorest members of our community; and I have contended that our budgetary policy has in a large measure contributed to that. It might be answered, of course, that our borrowing has been done, not through the Reserve Bank predominantly, but through private individuals, through commercial banks and insurance companies, through small men also and that what has been subscribed has been backed by an adequate gold reserve. I want to answer that point. It is true that our currency is in financial terms sound. It is true that the banks have not extended credit beyond the traditional proportion of their cash reserves. That is all true. But that has been very largely due, as I see it, to a fortuitous increase in the price of gold and makes no difference in practice to the inflationary situation which has been created in terms of ordinary prices. If the amount of money in circulation and the amount of credit expansion on the basis of that money, is out of all proportion to an increase in the production of goods, with resulting high prices of the necessities of life, the fact that there is a gold reserve backing our currency makes no practical difference whatever. The only value of having a gold backing to a currency is that we are enabled to purchase abroad, and we have not been in a position to the extent we would like to have been during the war years to purchase abroad. Therefore restriction in imports, plus the rise in the price of gold, plus the policy of borrowing, has resulted in what I have described as an inflationary situation. One fact cannot be denied, that there has been an enormous increase in our note issue. There has been an enormous expansion of credit and neither foreign purchases nor local production have expanded in anything like that proportion compared with the pre-war years. That is what I call an inflationary situation. I do not think that could be possibly denied on the facts. But I want to point out that against that background the policy of borrowing for war purposes was a form of concealed taxation, taking the shape of rising prices for the masses; a policy of favouring direct taxation rather than borrowing, of comprehensive price control, and of rationing with the deliberate purpose — as was followed in Britain—of holding down the cost of living would have prevented those hardships to a great extent upon the poorest sections of the community. The policy of inflation has therefore meant a tax on the majority of the people of this country. We have had much talk during this debate on the remission of taxation, as to whether the actual remissions of definite taxes which the Minister of Finance has announced, have been adequate, or whether they have not, and as to what classes of the community they have relieved. That sort of approach to the problem is the typical approach of people who represent a privileged class. When I speak of a remission of taxation I speak not only of a remission of taxes which bear hardest on the poorest consumers, but also of a purposeful effort to lower prices by a purposeful and judicious deflationary policy, as a measure of relief from a policy of inflation which was resorted to for war purposes. That may not be so simple as saying: reduce this tax or reduce that tax, but so far as the majority of the people are concerned it has much more significance and much more effect on their daily lives.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance a specific question. What is the Government’s policy? Is the Government’s policy to bolster the present inflationary prices? I think the Minister will not deny the price level is of an inflationary character. If not, is it a policy of judicious deflation, and if it is that, what are the measures the Minister proposes to adopt in order to bring about a judicious deflation in our price level? I am going to suggest to him some of the measures I think necessary to bring about a measure of deflation. I do not hold the view that it will ever be possible, in the forthcoming years at least, to return to the pre-war cost of living, to the pre-war standard of prices. It was found impossible after the last war. But the following measures should be resorted to. First of all comes the balanced Budget; that has been done on this occasion. Then, borrowing should be confined to expenditure on actual durable assets, to revenueproducing assets. The Minister assured us during his Budget speech he had done that, or so I understood his words. He has reduced the body of expenditure on loan account. The figure he gave us was £36,000,000, although he anticipated it would not be necessary to expend so much. I do not know what that expenditure consists of. I take this opportunity to say I have never understood why, when we discuss the Budget, we have never had the loan estimates before us. All we have is the estimates of revenue and expenditure on revenue account, but never the loan estimates. It may be said that in theory the Budget is not concerned with borrowing; in practice it is; in actual experience we know it was during the war years. I do not understand why we should not have the loan estimates at the time of the Budget. Perhaps the Minister will explain. I must confess I do not understand. I do not believe it is possible fully and properly to discuss the Budget without having before us the loan estimates as well as the expenditure estimates on revenue account. However, I assume the correctness—I have no reason not to—of the Minister’s statement that any expenditure on loan account has been used for the purpose of producing revenue-producing assets.

The second measure which I suggest is necessary is the maintenance, and if necessary, the extension of anti-inflationary taxes. The real anti-inflationary tax is a tax which falls directly on incomes, which falls on higher incomes to a greater extent than on lower incomes, which cuts down expenditure on luxury articles, which cuts down expenditure in the field of speculation and so forth. The case has been put to the Minister before of the necessity for remodelling our whole system of taxation along lines which will ensure that direct taxation shall be placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it, which is not the case today. The Minister, as I understand it, has given the assurance that before next year our old system of taxation will be remodelled. I will return to that in a moment. As far as his tax remissions are concerned, I must confess I do not understand why he has remitted to any extent the property sales tax. I do not understand why he has given the green light to the land shark. In the past the Minister has justified this tax on the ground that it was an anti-inflationary measure, and I do not understand why he has selected that as one of the first taxes to be remitted. I would have thought it would have been better to maintain that tax and extend its principles to other property. The suggestion has come, I think, from the Opposition, that the principle of the property sales tax should be extended to share dealings. That is a suggestion which, speaking for myself, I fully support. Those are taxes which are anti-inflationary in character, and I myself would have been pleased to see the Minister not only maintain the property sales tax but to extend it to other transactions of a character that members of the Opposition have suggested. In saying that the Minister should remodel his taxation system on an anti-inflationary basis, on a basis that will cut down expenditure of the higher income groups, I would also suggest that in that process of remodelling he should cut down taxation which falls on the lower income groups. The equitable system is that a tax is based on what income the individual has, and any form of poll tax whether it falls on black or white is an unsound type of tax. The Minister last Session promised that he would reconsider the whole question of the incidence of the native poll tax. The suggestion made to him was not that the native people should not pay a direct tax, but that the obligation should fall on them to pay the ordinary provincial taxes and that this central Government poll tax should be abolished. The provincial taxes, except in the Orange Free State, are not entirely poll taxes. They take graduation of income into account, and I hope the Minister, in reconsidering his taxation system, will bear that in mind. The natives should be taxed on the same basis as anyone else, and this Government tax—which is an unsound tax on any criterion of taxation—should be abolished. I have suggested to the Minister that maintenance, and if necessary the extension, of anti-inflationary taxes should be a cardinal principle. The stimulation of the local production of goods in order to overtake the unwarranted expansion of currency goes without saying. I take it the Government accepts that as a principle. What they are doing about it I do not know, and I hope we shall hear about it tries later in the Session, if not the Minister of Finance, in reply to this debate. The principle of subsidising high-priced imports should also be extended. I want to acknowledge at once that the Minister has taken a step in that direction. He has been more or less forced to do so by the fact that a large section of our native population is in a state of starvation. He has set aside £9,000,000,000 for imported mealies. I suggest to the Minister to extend that principle of subsidisation of the prices of imported goods. We are very used to the subsidisation of exports. But we have a situation today, due I repeat to the high cost of living, which warrants the subsidisation, not of exports but of imports. Clothing and such types of ’foods as can be obtained, and the necessaries of life generally which are available should be subsidised. There is no use our having large gold reserves if the mass of our people are poverty-stricken. It goes without saying also that he should continue in a most comprehensive form price control, and control of supply, as long as goods are in short supply. Those are some of the measures I suggest should be resorted to in order gradually to readjust the structure of prices which has grown up during the war. But it will take time. In the meantime immediate relief for the lower income groups is required. A very large expansion of the principle of food subsidies should be effected. I cannot go into the details of that. It was the subject of a motion yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). That should be embarked upon and the Government is in a position to embark upon it now that the Government has cut down war expenditure on revenue account from over £50,000,000 to £18,000,000. That should be definitely embarked upon.

I want to stress this point, that the remission of taxation which was conceded to the gold mines should be regarded, in a considerable measure, as a condition of their being compelled to pass on the benefit to their own employees. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) made that point, and I want to make it, too. I have not the time to go into the position now of the unskilled employees on the mines, who are the vast majority. Before the war, in 1939, the Minister himself said, in another capacity, that they were in a worse position than they were in 1914. Certain increases of wages have been conceded to them during the war, far far less than was necessary as the Lansdown Commission showed. There was a steep rise in the cost of living. I contend that the real wages of the native mine labourers are lower today than they were before the last war, the war of 1914-T8. The Government has not even accepted the report of the Lansdown Commission on the professed grounds it was too great a burden on the mining industry. They felt sorry for the mines. The small increases they did sanction were offset by them through remission of the gold realisation from the Minister of Commerce and Indus-charges. When the prices of gold rose last year the Government took the gold realisation charges back, but they said nothing about the wages of the native mine labourer. They are now giving the mines £3,000,000, but still without any conditions in regard to wages. Do not let the Government say, as they said as an excuse for not accepting the full report of the Mine Wages Commission, that the mines cannot afford it. They enforced increases then. The mines were in a far weaker position then than they are now. They paid the increases the Government demanded last year, and if they could afford them, they can afford a substantial increase today in view of this remission of taxation. That I also recommend to the Government as a measure of relief to a very important section of our community which has suffered severely from inflation and the rising cost of living.

It is the duty, no doubt, of the Opposition to make every possible criticism of the Budget as set forth by the Minister of Finance. But one at least expects the type of constructive criticism to which we ought to be accustomed in this House. It is quite true that we on this side of the House are out to say that every Budget is, under the circumstances, the best Budget possible. I have listened very attentively to all Opposition speakers in the House, and it is a fact that except for a hint from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) that the Minister might tax Stock Exchange transactions, I have not heard anything in the way of constructive criticism from the Opposition.

We only want tax relief.

What struck me forcibly is that there is no praise where praise is due. There is a remission of £16 million of taxation.

A flea bite.

The benefit of much of this goes to the lower-income groups. There is an additional rebate of the war surcharge of 15 per cent. Not one word of praise did I hear for the fact that telephone taxes have been dropped or the Railway surcharge. All these taxes were no doubt war-time taxës, but the very fact that the Minister has seen fit to give relief where the tax was most felt, the poor people, has been passed over. What really hurt me is that the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), who is not here now, attacked this side of the House for not giving better treatment to the miners’ phthisis pensioners, and actually blamed this party for the fact that the necessary legislation was not passed last year. But last year they were closely allied to us, and we and they, together with the Opposition, assaulted that Bill with constructive criticism, and it was due to the fact that there was so much criticism from all sides of the House and that so many faults were seen in the Bill, that it was postponed until this year. But now the hon. member for Krugersdorp attacks the Government before he has even seen the new Bill which is to be introduced, and the new scale of compensations it contains. He is anticipating. But he goes further. He went out of his way to attack the Prime Minister on his appointment of the present Minister of Mines. I know my hon. friend is a voluble speaker and sometimes he gets a little “het up,” as the Scots say, but I do not think his attack on the Minister before the Minister has had a chance of presenting his case to the House was in his usual charming style. I interrupted him on one or two points, and he accused the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) of being unsympathetic to the sufferings of the miners, but he knows that last year I spoke here most sympathetically about the phthisis sufferers, and in all my political life I have proved sympathetic towards everyone suffering especially from industrial diseases. But I do not believe that the hon. member was really serious and that he meant for a minute what he said in a moment of heat this afternoon. I am not a financier, but I do think that the Minister of Finance might perhaps have given greater encouragement to industrial expansion by lowering the point of application of the excess profits tax. I think perhaps he could have taken a leaf out of the book of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Britain when he gave additional rebates, provided that rebate was used entirely for development.

They are still charging 12s. in the £.

Yes, but originally it was 20s. in the £.

We are still better off here.

I am not denying that. But we could be better off still if the Minister would give us a further rebate, provided that rebate is used entirely for development.

And still better off if we abolished it altogether.

Yes, and especially for professional men, because we are the only country in the British Commonwealth which applies this tax to professional men. I am glad to see that Provincial Councils are getting a further £1,610,020 under Vote 8. The Minister made me understand that that increase is largely due to the fact that the Provincial Administrations will have additional expenditure under their hospital administration which was handed over to them. I would like the Minister to inform this House and the country exactly how much of that Vote to the Provincial Councils is intended for further health services. We were told last year that theré would be enormous expansion in the health services and that the additional Vote last year under this heading was partially for increased health services. I have seen in the newspapers that in the Transvaal at all events they have come forward with a positive scheme for free hospitalisation, although the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) gave me somewhat of a shock about that proposition this morning when he said that so far this has all been promises that nothing definite has happened. At all ’ events I want to say that in the Cape Province in the past year, we did not even have promises of increased hospital or health services, although I see that the Administrator today made a statement in which we are promised increased health services. I am only afraid that the increased hospital services in the Cape might mean additional taxation to the Cape Provincial taxpayer. I fear that for this reason that the Transvaal can have improved and competent hospital services because their income is bigger than ours here and their services are more centralised, as in education, whereas ours are more difficult and widespread. I feel that every citizen of the Union should have health and hospital services equal in all the Provinces, and that there should be no provincial differentiation between the available health and hospital services.

Hear, hear.

I hope that the days of the Provincial Councils are limited. After all, the National Convention did express that hope in their minutes which I read very carefully, that the Provincial Council system would not last excessively long, and that the spirit of provincialism would die as the spirit of unity grows; that provincialism which is so strongly represented in this House by certain members of the Dominion Party. After all, from 1910 until now we have had time to forget our provincial differences and we should now come to the stage wherein we should all be imbued with the same spirit of true unity in South Africa. It is not only in the Provincial Council that this spirit is exhibited. Always when commissions are appointed, and even in Cabinet appointments, there is the necessity to have a pro rata apportionment between the four Provinces. I hope that the time is near when the provincial spirit will die in this country, and the provincial vote go off the Statute Book, and when we will have every system regionalised in this country. The County Council system in Britain is a good example, and it is admitted that in every country where you have a central policy, but decentralised administration, it can only be done through a system of regionalisation. And that is the system we should adopt ultimately in this country. Now I would like to say a few words on the question of national housing. I can understand the difficulties, and I do not carp at the Government because through these difficulties the housing scheme has not come up to expectation, and I think in all fairness we must admit that in the matter of housing we have been really up against it. Not only the world shipping position, but the difficulty of getting essential material has been a great drawback, and something which has been practically insuperable. Notwithstanding that I am satisfied that within the last six months at all events, we have taken great steps forward and progressed definitely. The policy is sound. The execution has been faulty, but through no fault of the Government, except perhaps here and there a minor administrative fault. I want to direct a plea on behalf of those public utility companies who are concerned with housing. I am thinking particularly of the Citizens’ Housing League, which in the Cape Peninsula has done great work. This League for ten years has put up over 4,800 houses sub-economic houses for the poor classes of Europeans, and they now have a great scheme on hand at Matroosfontein for the sub-economic housing of coloureds, but they suffer under this disability that the Central Housing Council will only advance 90 per cent. of their requirements at sub-economic rates, so that the other 10 per cent. has to be borrowed at current rates. It does not seem very much, but in a case of European sub-economic houses, that makes a difference in the rental of roughly 10/- a month, while in the case of coloured sub-ecomonic houses, built by the League, it makes a difference of 8s. 6d. a month. When you deal with people who have to be housed sub-economically, that is an amount of money which helps not only in the housing scheme, but in the rehabilitation scheme of these people which really falls under social welfare, and it is surprising that in the sub-economic housing scheme we have here in Cape Town we actually month for month rehabilitate people out of the sub-economic houses into economic houses. In other words that is social welfare work, as we tide them over times of stress and strain and help them to a position where they get better work and the family is in employment, and then we turn them over to the proper economic scheme. Surely that work of rehabilitation going hand in hand with the housing scheme is not to be ignored, and it is something which our housing board should strongly recommend and encourage. Therefore I want to make a plea that the full amount of the sub-economic housing scheme, the full 100 per cent., should be advanced to such utility companies. They are a band of good men and women. I serve on it. [Laughter.]. Hon. members laugh too soon. I was going to say that I happened to be appointed by the Minister of Lands to keep a watchful eye on them. I can assure you that I went there out of a sense of duty, but I now thoroughly enjoy the work, because to me it has been a revelation. I have heard no word of encouragement from the hon. member for Krugersdorp to the Minister of Finance about the fact that he has raised the Social Welfare Vote by a considerable amount, and although he was a bit remiss in his criticism of the miners’ phthisis compensation because he was premature, not one word of encouragement came from him about the fact that the pensions for blind persons was increased. The one good point that he made and which touched a chord of sympathy in my heart was his appeal to the Minister to abolish the means test for old age pensioners. After all, our food position is difficult, and not only have these people difficulty in getting accommodation, but it is a hard task for these old men and women who have often spent their lives working in the interests of the country, to try to come out, to eke out an existence, on a paltry £5 a month, and I feel that especially in view of the food shortage, particularly in Cape Town in the last week—I notice the Minister of Agriculture has his eye on me— I think the Minister might consider favourably the abolition of the means test. I know that in Britain it caused a tremendous lot of anxiety, and I know that under the Social Welfare Vote aid is given to such men and women, but this means test should be abolished. I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) when he raised the question of the Agricultural Department and other Departments encouraging new food industries in this country. He referred to what was being done in other countries with soya beans. I want to remind him of the fact, however, that the Government has not been idle, because when I served on the Health Commission I saw some interesting work in the Transkei and Ciskei in regard to soya beans, to propagate them and to encourage the natives to prepare various foods from soya beans. But our difficulty is that custom dies hard amongst the natives. Maize and kaffir com have been their staple food throughout the ages, and it is hard work to educate them in new food habits. Nevertheless, I think more work can be done, if not amongst the natives, then amongst the Europeans, to encourage them to use soya bean preparations. There is no doubt that from the point of view of its food properties it contains practically all the necessary food factors in excess of other foods, it is something which should be developed. It answers very well in this country, and it is worth investigating. I want to make one final point on the question of our mental institutions and hospitals. For years we have spoken about it in this House. Let us admit quite frankly that our mental hospital accommodation today is far below the needs of the country. I do not want to insinuate for one moment that the mental disability rate in this country is higher than in other countries, but owing to war conditions and other conditions there is terrific overcrowding today. We have not gone forward with schemes which were on the books some years back. In fact, I know of cases in Cape Town in the last month where badly mentally deranged patients could not be admitted to an institution and had to be kept in their homes, in one case for ten days. This was a terrific mental and physical strain on the members of that family. I do not think it is just and right that in a civilised community mentally deranged people should be forced to stay with their families when they are in that state. We pity them intensely, but we know how difficult and trying it can be for the members of the family and to the community. I notice that in the Public Health Vote there is an increase of £242,000, and that it now stands at £1,900,000. When I first saw this figure my heart rebounded because although it was not up to expectations, I thought that there was a substantial increase. But when I thought back to my first speech in this House in 1938, it struck me suddenly that in those days the Public Health Vote was £700,000 in a Budget of just over £40 million. Now that Budget is roughly £130 million, but the Health Vote, pro rata, has shown hardly any increase. I am reminded of it that in this House the Prime Minister mentioned that he hoped that if the Planning Council’s recommendations were accepted, and if the report of the National Health Services Commission was accepted, the Vote for Health would reach £10 million by 1947. Well, we are far short of that figure as yet, and I think, pro rata with the total Budget, the Health Vote is still a scandal. I do not blame the Minister for that, but I think it is a reflection on the health consciousness of the nation that we should be prepared to accept a Budget of £130,000,000 where the Health Vote does not even reach £2 million. I hope that health consciousness in this country will be engendered and that we will throughout the country demand that the health of the nation is of primary importance, much more important than our industries, or farming or gold and diamond mining, more important even than education, because you cannot have education or industries developing unless you have a healthy nation. It is a reflection on this country that more people die per annum—I have got the figures herein the cities alone, from pulmonary tuberculosis than we suffered casualties in killed in the last war. That is a sad reflection on the attitude of this country as a whole to the health problem. I do not blame this Government or any other Government. I blame the public, because if the demand by the public was insistent enough, we would have had health services deserving of the name.

I can quite understand that the hon. member for Rondebosch (Dr. Moll) is perturbed about provincial boundaries, seeing that he wants to put his finger into the Transvaal to rake in a little of the money there, but I give him the assurance that we in the Transvaal are proud of our finances, and as far as hospitals are concerned, legislation is now before the Provincial Council, and we will have free hospitalisation before long. I would also like to refer to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that whenever they bring up anything in this House they do it more in the spirit of representing only the native people. I hope that in future when they do come forward with suggestions in this House, they will consider themselves to be members of Parliament, not only representing the native people in this country, but representatives of this country, and they must take their full responsibility. I, for one, feel that although I represent certain districts, and have been elected by the white population there, every native in that area is entitled to my services as much as any white man, and if I am not approachable and the natives and coloured people cannot come to me for my services I should not be in this House as a representative of this country. Coming back to the Budget speech of the Minister of Finance, I would like to say to him: “Ons klein Jannie, you have done well.”

You mean “Slim Jannie.”

There are three outstanding figures, but the first I would like to refer to is the one of £16 million. I think that reduction in taxes is given in recognition of the fact that the lower-income groups in this country carried their full responsibility with regard to the war effort. They paid their contributions in a very smiling way, because they felt that that was their true contribution towards the freedom of South Africa. I wish to thank the Minister for the reduction which he has given, especially to the backveld people in the way of reduced taxation with regard to telephones, petrol, oil and Railway rates. I would like to say this to the Minister, that he has rendered a service to these people, because these are not luxury articles, but today they are essential services without which no man in the backveld can do. If it is at all possible, as time goes on, for the Minister to reduce these ’taxes to the very minimum, I should be glad, because these people out in the wilds today must have these services if they are to be able to render their true contribution towards the welfare of this country. The other figure I wish to deal with is the figure of approximately £13 million, “The Red Tab Figure,” the figure that was paid out for our soldiers, the red tabs. I heard the hon. member for George begrudging that amount. I want to tell him that the red tab investment will not only give this country compound interest, but these red tabs have established a lighthouse which has thrown its light into the furthest comers of the universe. Those lads have brought back contacts from all over the world because his red tabs have shown the metal they are made of. Not only are we proud of our lads, but I know the Opposition members are as proud of them as we are. While at one time they considered the red tabs did not do justice to the people, they have helped to give hon. members opposite their freedom as well as us. These boys have made a name for South Africa. I know that some hon. members opposite will laught. But why? It is because the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) knows as well as I do they are now courting that young lady they despised, they are now making love to her. The third item I should like to turn to is that figure of £10,000,000. I trust the hon. Minister of Finance will allow that figure to remain for ten years in order to put this country on a solid basis as far as farming is concerned. If that amount is spent in the right way in each of the next ten years I think we can defy any drought as we can now defy horsesickness, rinderpest and other diseases. We have emerged triumphant over all of them. What is it that the Opposition want? They want free tractors, free seed, free labour. These very people who say that they want to fight for a republic and fight for freedom —I do not want that freedom to be taken away from me; I will work out my own salvation as a farmer. We do not want to borrow £10,000,000, but give us the necessary machinery and water and we will deliver the food the country is in need of. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) told the Minister of Finance: If you had given us more money we would have ploughed bigger lands. And what would that have amounted to? Those crops would also have perished in the drought. We have learned during the war that we do not want to be dependent on other countries for fertilisers. We have been taught to make use of the material at our back door, and today you find men succeeding on a small piece of land because they have experimented for themselves with compost and manure that has been lying idle for years. The people on small farms are getting bigger returns than before. They have learnt to depend on their own resources. If this £10,000,000 is spent rightly we shall beat the droughts in the future. The Government must not only look to the outside of the House. Today we have control boards, we have subsidies, but none of these things have solved our problems. I say: Do not look to the Farmers’ Association or the Farmers’ Union; not that I despise them. We have been elected by the people and must accept full responsibility to place the country’s farming operations on a sound basis. We can do it. We must look to the North. You will not get a market outside, you must lock to the hinterland up in the North and develop it so that we can sell up North, and these people will be able to buy the foodstuffs we can produce in this country. We feel that in looking outside for advice we are shirking our responsibilities. Let us get to our people the food that can be grown in this country.

I make bold to say that if given the right type of man on the land we can produce the desired results. We need a bigger white population, but not necessarily from outside. Let us give our sons and daughters farms in this country. We heard from the hon. member for Gardens (Dr. L. P. Bosman) that the universities are full; I know that from the platteland we cannot get a child into an agricultural school today. We cannot obtain the facilities to enable a child to train as an artisan. If given the opportunity, these boys and girls would turn out as efficient as any men brought from overseas. But they must be given the opportunity, otherwise these boys and girls will not be able to pull their weight against people from outside.

Before I pass any remarks about the Budget, I just want to say something to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I am very glad that he is here. We listened yesterday to his unsavoury attack on the Minister of Agriculture, because he had sent food out of the country and had supplied ships with provisions. He made the remark “Must we supply ham and eggs to the sailors when oup own people go without.” I want to remind him that those same sailors kept him alive in this country through all the dangers and disasters of the war and brought him petrol, agricultural machinery, fertiliser and other things which he required. Those are the same sailors which he now wants to send away from our coast without food. The hon. member who always wants to pose as an international authority.

As what do you pose?

Just as a farmer. It does not suit the hon. member for Beaufort West to adopt such an attitude and to use such words. When the world gets to know those words the ships will stay away from our coasts and that will hamper our trade. Then the hon. member for Beaufort West tried to sneer at me by saying that I have never put a shilling into the box in the cinema for food for Great Britain. I want to tell him I will again give £50 and deposit it with the Speaker for food for Britain if the hon. member will do the same for food for Germany. I do not expect him to send it to Britain. He will never do that, and therefore I give him the chance to send it to his spiritual equals in Germany.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is a financial expert. I am not, but I have learnt to do a simple arithmetical sum. He stated that the Minister of Finance had saved £32 million on three votes and only had a tax remission of £16 million. When the hon. member started his exposition, I asked him by way of interjection why he did not mention the Police Vote for which £1,500,000 extra had been budgeted. If I take all the extras which appear in the Budget I arrive at a figure of £11,500,000 for the expansion of services. There was a tax remission of £16 million. A further £10 million is being voted for the importation of food. That gives one a total of £37,500,000. I do not want to go further into that. I just want to tell the financial expert opposite that while he is complaining that the Minister of Finance has not given larger tax remissions there has never yet been a Minister of Finance in our country who in one Budget gave tax remissions of £16 million, and that to the poorer section of the population.

The mines?

Never before has a Minister of Finance in one single Budget exempted 130,000 of his citizens from paying taxes.

Never before has a Minister of Finance made 130,000 people taxpayers in one fell swoop.

The hon. member will have his opportunity, but I am just memtioning these incontrovertible facts. I now come to the criticism of the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier). He said that the Minister of Finance is impeding production and if he were to wipe out mortgages or limit repayments to 20 per cent. he will be encouraging production. I defy any farmer to prove that. That kind of criticism just proves how little members opposite know about farming if they state that by cancelling bonds production will be encouraged. I shall deal in a moment with my criticism of the Budget as far as that is concerned. If the Minister wants to encourage production he should abolish the super-tax on farming activities. That is my criticism of the Budget. We had another criticism from the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). He is also one of the barristers of Cape Town who represents a farming district. When one listens to his criticism of the Budget it is perfectly plain that he knows nothing, about farming. He also spoke about the shortage of food, that it is short-sightedness on the part of the Government which has caused our present shortage of food. Those were his words. But the hon. member for Fauresmith knows that during the war 60 or 70 per cent. of the farmers were on the battlefields, and that during the war we were using our reserves. The farmers could not build up reserves and produce from hand to mouth, and apart from that we had the droughts, and therefore we today have a shortage of food for which the hon. member now wants to blame the Government. I do not wish to enlarge upon that because my time is limited. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he wants to encourage the production of food, to fix the price of wheat for the coming season as soon as possible and to announce it. Whether it will be an increase on the present price or not, let him announce it as soon as possible. The tobacco farmers under irrigation have suffered much damage, and if they know that they will receive an increased price, they can sow wheat on their lands. I realise that if one disturbs the price structure and perhaps fixes the price too high this year it may cause difficulty in future, but I should like to suggest that a bonus should be given for every bag of wheat produced, a bonus above the fixed price. That will be a great encouragement, and it will not be necessary to retain that bonus if in future we have bigger crops.

Furthermore, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture to make better provision for the training of veterinary surgeons. We are a great pastoral country and in view of all the pests and plagues we have there ought to be more veterinarians. The position is that many veterinarians resigned and went into private practice because they received better remuneration there. I understand that there are enough facilities only for the training of fifteen veterinary surgeons per annum at the University of Pretoria. That should at least be trebled if’ we want to keep pace with the development of cattle farming.

Then I want to direct a word or two to the Minister of Transport. I was very glad and appreciated it when in his Budget speech he referred to what has been achieved in the way of Road Motor Services, and when he referred to three districts, namely. Kuruman, Vryburg and Rustenburg, where the Road Motor Services contributed in large degree to increase in the production of food by providing farmers with proper transport facilities. If in my district he would have further development in that direction—and I shall later suggest the routes to him—the production of food in that area can be doubled again. The future of our country lies in the bushveld, the sparsely populated areas, and not in the over-populated areas. In that backveld there can be much more production, but the production depends largely on transportation. Without transportation the farmers cannot produce. If the Minister would expand his services there, much progress can be made.

The difference between me and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), who now shows off so much with cheques of £50, is that I am not a German Sap but that he is an English Sap. As long as I need food in my own country for my own people, I first look after my own people before looking after other people, whether they are French or German or English. That is the difference, that the hon. member is an English Sap and I am not a German Sap. But the hon. member has not yet answered the question I put yesterday about how much he gave to the Food for Britain Fund, and seeing that he opens his mouth so wide, I just want to ask him whether he has ever given a tickey or a sixpence to it. What has this hon. member, who now opens his mouth so wide, put into the tin at a bioscope? Not even a tickey. The hon. member will give £50 if I would be prepared first to feed people in Germany. He knows well enough that I am not a German Sap, and that is the reason why he keeps his £50 in his pocket and does not even put a tickey into the tin. He must stop talking about sending food to England. But I leave the hon. member there. Before coming to the last paragraph of our amendment, which deals with international agreements, I wish to say a few words about the international position, which was exhaustively dealt with this afternoon, also by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Malan). There is not much I can add to what he has said. He covered the field pretty thoroughly, but there are a few points I may perhaps add. I want to associate myself with what the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, that the international situation today creates anxiety. It is more disturbing than it has ever been since the end of the war. When I say this I do not only express my own opinion, but it is also being stated in the Press of all the countries. I have before me a report sent three days ago by one of the London correspondents of one of our local newspapers, which says: “The most serious crisis since the war is the Russian decision to keep its troops in Persia.” That is the opinion of others, but it is also my humble opinion. The question which is being put today is not whether an eruption will take place, but when it will happen. That is clear to anyone who keeps his eyes open and watches the newspapers and reports. Some people shut their eyes to the dangers threatening the world, and which face us also in South Africa, but there are also others, inter alia Mr. Winston Churchill, who, as a realist, warns his people. Mr. Winston Churchill was the war-time leader of England who has always been a realist and who in 1942 warned his nation that England was standing on the brink of defeat. He is still a realist today, and it is very clear from his recent speech at Fulton, in America, that he also regards the position as being very serious indeed. It is also clear from Mr. Churchill’s speech that he has very little faith in U.N.O., the new international organisation. It is true that he refers to U.N.O. as the possible guardian of the peace, but between the lines of his speech one can clearly read that he has very little faith in U.N.O. He prefers an Anglo-American agreement. That is the idea permeating his whole speech. He has little faith in U.N.O.; he fixes his faith on Anglo-American agreement. The question which arises is whether America will be willing to enter into such an Anglo-American agreement. Judging by the Press comments following on Mr. Churchill’s speech, it seems pretty clear that America is not willing, that America is not really impressed with Mr. Churchill’s proposal. That is also understandable, because America and the average American in the first place looks to his own interest. That has always been so, and in future it will always be so. In the first place America will think twice before it accepts the proposal, because it will not only mean that America will be binding herself to England— it would perhaps still be prepared to do that— but that by doing this it will also be binding itself to Europe, and in spite of all the beautiful words we had during the war years, it is already clear that one finds the same spirit in America now which there was before the war, namely a spirit favouring isolation. That is there again. When they see that the cauldron is starting to boil in Europe, America will protest, and may perhaps even act, but only if her interests are involved. She will perhaps protest if Russia takes action in Iran, and for the same reason America will be prepared to act in connection with Manchuria because America’s interests are involved there. Russia has already notified the world that she is going to hold what she has. The Russian general there said that whoever stretches out a hand towards Manchuria will lose his hand. However, America will only act when its interest are affected, but I ask myself whether America will be prepared to react in the case of Russia, for example, taking some action in connection with Trieste. I doubt it very much. Will America be prepared to act if Russia were, for example, to demand authority over Tripoli? I doubt it very much. To take an extreme example, supposing Russia wants to take any action in Madagascar, will America be prepared to react? I say no, America will only react if its own interests are involved, and for that reason I do not believe that it will accept the Churchill idea for an Anglo-American agreement. Now we come to Mr. Churchill. He on the other hand is concerned not so much about world peace, but what Mr. Churchill was concerned about at Fulton was the future of Great Britain, because there is not the least doubt that as far as Europe is concerned Great Britain today is practically standing alone. The Allies it could rely upon in the past have disappeared. France is exhausted and divided internally. England cannot rely upon the small countries. The idea which Éngland had of forming a Western European bloc has also disappeared. Therefore England today stands alone in Europe, and Europe is being dominated by Russia. Russia has direct or indirect control over the major portion of Europe, and in those countries where it has no direct or indirect control there are governments with a Left tendency, or there will be such Left governments who are well disposed towards Communism. The days when England had power in Europe are past. Mr. Churchill realises it and for that reason he wants a British-American agreement, because he realises that if England has to rely on U.N.O. it will receive very little help. Mr. Churchill is a far-seeing man, and wants to create a feeling of solidarity between America and England. Mr. Churchill also realises something else, namely that especially in the past few months there were signs of estrangement between England and America. Just read the newspapers. Just read what is going on in connection with the American loan to Great Britain; read what was said in the American Senate. It is clear that the two countries who until recently were still fighting together, are drifting away from each other, chiefly as the result of financial difficulties and economic rivalry. Therefore Mr. Churchill is faced with the difficulty. As a realist he realises that England cannot rely on U.N.O. There is a clear estrangement between America and England. In the meantime the international position is getting worse. The balance of power in Europe has shifted, and as I have said before, Russia today controls the major portion of Europe. When we on this side of the House said the same thing a year or two ago, the Government members laughed at us. Today one hears no single word of protest from the other side, nor from the Government Press. Now that Russia has entrenched its position in Europe it is busy devoting attention to the Middle East. The Middle Eastern countries are today in a very important position. They are the link between the East and the West. They are the key countries, the connecting links. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is also the Mediterranean, which has always been regarded as the very lifeline of the British Empire, the jugular vein, and the countries adjoining the Mediterranean can be likened to the membranes round the vein. Russia at once realised what the strategic value of the Middle Eastern countries is, the link between East and West. It is now devoting its attention to Iran. It is impossible, in my opinion, to exaggerate the importance of what is happening at present in Iran. I do not know in how far the reports we read tonight in the “Cape Argus” are correct. Those reports are to the effect that Russia is sending its troops deeper into Iran. The strategic position of Iran makes the happenings there of the very greatest importance and seriousness from the point of view of world peace. Iran not only lies between the East and the West; it lies on the way to the Indian Ocean and Russia wants access to the Indian Ocean. Iran affords that opening. It lies on the road to India and is on the boundary of Afghanistan. Round about Iran there are countries like Iraq and others which are amongst the richest oil-bearing countries in the world. It is easy to understand why Russia selected that particular area for its first aggressive action. It is a serious situation, and because England as well as the United States of America realised the seriousness of the position, they have already sent two diplomatic Notes to Russia. These two Notes have been sent to the Russian Government, and we are waiting to see what Russia’s reaction will be. It is possible that Russia may make some suggestion to allay the trouble for the present, but I believe, and I think that I am correct, that is can only be a temporary solution. And if that happens it will only be because Russia has not yet completed its plans for the future, more especially as regards the atomic bomb. If it does not act, I believe it will be because they are still unprepared. Together with Russia’s action in Iran, we have its action as regards the Arabic nations Recently there was a report of a particularly important nature. A prominent Russian newspaper published an article expressing special friendship for and interest in the Arabic countries. We know that the Arabic countries formed an Arabic League in recent months. But what is especially interesting is the interest Russia exhibits in Egypt. We know about the riots that have taken place in Cairo during the past three or four weeks. It is significant that the Russian Ambassador paid a visit to King Farouk of Egypt and assured him of Russia’s sympathy in the conditions created by the riots. There has also been trouble in India. We know that trouble has been brewing in India for a long time, but I believe, especially after the revelations in connection with Russia’s actions in Canada, that as regards India it was Russian propaganda, Russian agents and spies which lie behind the mutiny of the Indian sailors on British ships, as well as behind the riots in Madras, Bombay and other places. As Mr. Churchill rightly said, Russia has its fifth column. It has the same sort of fifth column as that about which we heard so much during the war years. Mr. Churchill admits that Russia has a fifth column. We saw what happened in Canada and the revelations made there in connection with espionage. May I remind the House that we on these benches in 1943 proposed a motion about Communistic propaganda, and that on that occasion I spoke, amongst other things, about the activities of the Comintern. I referred to Russia’s activities in all the countries of the world in spreading Communism over the whole world by means of propaganda. Members opposite then laughed at me. They said that there was no longer any such thing as the Comintern. They said that Russia had been converted and was no longer making propaganda. What does Mr. Churchill say in his speech? Listen to this—

I especially direct the attention of hon. members to the words “expansive and proselytising tendencies.” Mr. Hamilton McMillan, M.C., the ex-Resident Minister of Britain in the Near East, makes the same statement. On the 21st of last month he, inter alia, said the following—

There we again have the Comintern, which according to members opposite is dead and no longer exists. It again exists. That is the opinion of Mr. Hamilton McMillan, and it is also Mr. Churchill’s opinion. But it is not only in the Middle East and in India that these things are happening. If we have regard to what is happening in Java, there is not the least doubt that behind the trouble there one will find Communistic propaganda. Even “The Guardian” adds its voice in regard to the situation in Java. Take Indo-China; take Manchuria. Everywhere we see the fulfilment of this Russian policy—the influence which emanates from an international Communism standing under the direction of Moscow. We even have it here in South Africa. The situation is considered to be so serious that the American Government last week decided that no longer would they permit any Communist to hold commissioned rank in the American Army. They recognised the seriousness of the situation to which we on this side have been pointing for years. We have been indicating this danger for the past three years. I was laughed at from those benches when two years ago I put questions as to the personnel of the Russian Consulate in our country, and asked why it was three times as great as that of any other country. We saw what happened in Canada. It was revealed that a member of the Russian Embassy took part in the espionage; that he received the necessary information and transmitted it to Moscow. An hon. member on this side told me the other day—the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) will remember it—that I must not say: “I told you so,” but when we are dealing with members like those sitting opposite the temptation to say: “I told you so” is very great. I am glad to see the Minister of Labour in his place tonight. On 12th February, 1943, I moved a motion about Communism in this House. I ’have re-read that speech of mine, and I must say that after having read it I almost thought that I must be a prophet. What did the Minister say in his reply?—

And further—

What did Mr. Churchill say a few days ago?—

He sees the same shadow. And he immediately proceeds—

But this Minister said that we were telling ghost stories. This Minister further stated that what I told the House about Communistic propaganda was ghost stories. He stated—

That is what the Minister of Labour, at that time the Minister of Justice, replied. I now come to another important member opposite, who unfortunately is not present here tonight, that is the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. He also spoke in that debate, and said this—

That caused laughter from members opposite. Tonight they laugh no more. The Prime Minister proceeded—

And then he also refers to the ghost story—

I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading further extracts, but I have here also a very interesting speech by the then member for Cape Town (Gardens) (the late Mr. B. K. Long). If I were to read that speech tonight, members opposite would be surprised. I say that in view of all this I have the right tonight to say: I told you so. Then also the organiser of the United Party, Mr. Okkie Oosthuizen, came forward with his party bulletin in which he refers to—

That is what he said on the eve of the 1943 election.

The international position is serious. I personally stick to the attitude I adopted in this House a few weeks ago. I do not see the least hope of being saved by U.N.O. It is said that half an egg is better than an empty shell. But an empty shell is better than a rotten egg, and in my opinion U.N.O. is a rotten egg’ I want to tell the Minister of Finance that before he pays that £124,000 as our contribution to the cost of U.N.O. he should wait a little and should not be in such a hurry to pay as he was in the case of the League of Nations. Let him first see what happens to U.N.O. before paying out the money.

I now come to that part of the amendment which deals with international agreements. The amendment proposed by us asks that the Government should not enter into international or suchlike agreements in the sphere of commerce which may harm our industrial development in this country, or our export trade. Just as we issued a warning about Communism, we also warned the Government about the entering into of international agreements. The same thing applies to international economic matters that applies to international politics—beautiful words and beautiful ideals, but it remains at words and ideals. When it comes to practical steps to apply those ideals someone is always at the wrong end of the stick. To put it in these words, someone is always defrauded and it is usually the honest and trusting to whom injustice is done. May I ask the Minister of Finance to see to it that this time South Africa will not be one of the innocent, honest and trusting parties? Let us for once open our eyes and not agree to everything simply because we are asked to do so. The amendment moved by us states that care should be taken that we should not find ourselves at the shortest end of the stick, when it comes to the so-called arrangements for the reconstruction of the world. If there is reconstruction, if that is the aim of those agreements, then we say it should not take place at the cost of our own industrial development, nor at the cost of the export trade of our own country. Although South Africa has not been as seriously affected by the war as other countries we also have to do some reconstruction in our own country. Rather let me put it this way. We must make up and win back what remained static during the war years. There is the essential expansion of public works, telephone connections, irrigation antierosion measures, settlements, roads and the necessary services in connection with social welfare, health education, etc. Then there are also the services falling under the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Posts. Many things have to be done for the reconstruction of our own country, and I ask that we should devote attention to reconstruction in our own country before we involve ourselves with matters in other countries, and before we make promises and compromise ourselves in connection with reconstruction on an international scale. In one respect we did make progress during the war years. That is in connection with our industries. I am sorry that the Minister of Economic Development is not here. The Minister of Economic Development knows that these amendments are on the Order Paper and that we are discussing them. He is absent in spite of the fact that we are discussing matters affecting his department. I should like to tell him this—and I would have liked to tell him in his presence—that if I were to judge from speeches made by him in recent months, I get the impression that his attitude towards industrial development is generally speaking sound. He sometimes says things with which I do not agree, but my general impression is that his points of view are sound in respect of the industrial development of the country. But he has this difficulty, namely that he practically stands alone in the Cabinet. He has to cope with two other Ministers especially. In the first place he stands powerless against the Prime Minister, whose attitude is more international and imperialistic than national in the broader sense of the word. In any case, as far as the Prime Minister is concerned, he is a comparatively new convert to the policy of industrial development. There was a time when he opposed us with regard to industrial development in the country. I believe that he will be in favour of industrial development only to the extent that it will assist imperial expansion. His point of view is international and imperialistic. In the second place he has to do with the Minister of Finance. I cannot say that I have ever noticed that the Minister of Finance has exhibited much interest in the development of our own industries. I will not say that he is antagonistic in his attitude. His attitude really amounts to this, that he is prepared to float with the stream in the direction of industrial development, but he does not want to float with the stream too fast, and he resists that stream a little. Certain phrases in his Budget speech make it clear that that is the correct description of his attitude. There is also another factor, namely, that he wants to be in favour with the great business elements of the country.

We recently saw from what happened at the conferences of those organisations that there is disagreement between the Federated Chamber of Commerce and the Federated Chamber of Industry on the question of industrial development, a struggle between the great importers on the one hand, and the industrialists on the other. There is not the least doubt that as far as the great importers are concerned, the Chamber of Commerce is in general unsympathetic to the expansion of our own industries. Therefore, however good might be the intentions of the Minister of Economic Development and however little fault there is to be found with the statements he makes from time to time, and however good the intentions might be of the Secretary of his Department, they have to consider the imperialism and internationalism of the Prime Minister and the fact that the Minister of Finance is under the influence of big business and trade, and that he is also imperialistically inclined. These factors have to be viewed in the light of the post-war plans for international and imperial economic reconstruction. The idea of the Prime Minister and also of the Minister of Finance, is that South Africa must participate in the game. They say that South Africa should play a worthy role in this international economic reconstruction. Well that may be very nice, but the question I put is: Can South Africa afford it? Can we, while aiming at the development of our own industries in this country, afford to play ball with the great ones; can we afford to take part in this economic and financial game of an international character. I fear that in that game South Africa will have to push in the scrum, but will never handle the ball. South Africa will run about and push in the scrum but will never handle the ball; the great ones will run away with it. And in addition South Africa will get hurt. That is usually what happens to a passenger in the game. He is hurt but never receives the benefits of participating in the game. What benefit is there for South Africa in participating with the great ones in the economic and financial game? Let me state here clearly that I fully realise that South Africa cannot follow a policy of isolation in the economic and financial sphere. I was concerned with these matters long enough—for twelve years —to know that economically there can be no isolation, because trade is international. I realise that South Africa is influenced by and in a sense is bound to overseas economic and commercial developments. I also realise the necessity not only of exports but also of imports. Nevertheless, I want to say this: we do not live in normal times; we live in a time of economic unsettlement right throughout the world. Every country in the world wants to regain as soon as possible what is lost during the war. In other words, every country wants to reconstruct. That is just another word for regaining, and as a necessary result of the desire of each nation to reconstruct and regain what is lost, we have intensive economic, financial and trade competition. There are these two tendencies in the world, and those two tendencies clash with each other. On the one hand there is the tendency towards international co-operation, and on the other hand there is the strong desire for national reconstruction. They clash with each other. I have said it before in this House, and I say it again, that history has taught us that just as the ordinary man in the first place looks to his own interests, so every country and nation in the first instance looks to its own interests before considering the interests of others. In spite of all the nice talk self-interest comes first. As regards Great Britain and the United States of America, much is being said about international agreements and co-operation. In the Atlantic Charter the underlying idea is that in order to obtain international reconstruction and co-operation there should be a removal of the restrictions to trade. In other words, tariffs must be abolished, and with this aim in view there will in the near future be a conference of fifteen or sixteen nations in America, and in May, there will be an imperial conference in London. It will be urged that tariffs and restrictions to trade should be removed. I want to put this question: Can South Africa afford to play that game in view of the fact that the industries of Britain and the United States are old established industries, large and extensive industries, well organised and based on the principle of mass-production. We have to keep in mind the fact that our own industries are young and small, that many of them are still struggling and that they are not organised for mass-production. It is easy for England and America to make concessions and to say that this or that tariff wall will be broken down, that this or that restriction on trade will be removed, but can South Africa afford to do that in view of the fact that our industries are still young and in process of development? I say that South Africa cannot afford to participate in this international game. We cannot and we dare not because our industries are young still and our production small; we are only in the dawn of our economic and industrial development. [Time limit.]

I do not intend to follow the hon. member who has just sat down in his argument, and I am prepared to leave him to his petty obsession, namely Communism. But I think the time will arrive when not only will he find that he is wrong but he will remember the words he has just used, namely, “I told you so.” Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose any Budget has ever been presented in this House which does not afford the opportunity for a certain amount of criticism, but in the case of the present Budget I feel that although it is not entirely free of criticism it can definitely be described, and it has been recognised as such not only in this country, but overseas as a sound Budget and a just one and one which discloses the fact that the country’s finances are on a sound basis.

That is the main thing.

In complying therefore in this Budget with these three fundamentals the Minister deserves the thanks of this country and of the House. There is also the fact to remember that this Budget must still be looked upon partially as a transition Budget, because we have not yet entirely escaped from the demands arising out of the war, and money still has to be found for purposes as a direct result of the war. It is thus fitting for the Minister to direct his attention to the granting of such relief as can be afforded in connection with what may be described as “war-time taxation”, and although some critics might have expected greater remissions, I do think that the Minister has done exceptionally well in conceding a big amount of something approaching £17,000,000. Furthermore it should not be forgotten that money will be required to see the country through the serious food shortage, and also to enable the Government to proceed with the initial stages of social security. It is totally impossible for any Minister of Finance to please everybody, but I do think that it definitely shows that he has given his favours fairly to each section of the community. I do not propose, and indeed I do not think it necessary, to deal with the remarks of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) and those opposite who followed him in their wild assertions about the unfavourable state of the country’s finances, as it is quite evident that they suffer from what I can justly describe as financial cold feet; and whilst they talk and gesticulate in millions, they actually think in Yiddish. The finest investment this country could ever have made to preserve its national honour, dignity and prestige was to enter the war, and although a heavy burden has been placed on this country by reason of the increase of the national debt, there is one compensation, and that is that my hon. friends opposite and those associated with them, although they have not been prepared to contribute in the past to any war funds, they will in the future have to contribute towards the redemption of the expenditure incurred in waging and prosecuting the war. I represent a large farming area, and I was amazed that the hon. member for George contended that no relief had been provided for the farmers. What about the reduction in the price of petrol, of which commodity alone the farming community uses a considerable quantity? What about the abolition of the surcharge on telephone charges and railway fares, and also the increase of the age for children under the Income Tax allowances? In addition to that, there are large allocations of money for agriculture and irrigation, and I can only say, surely the farmer will benefit to a material extent by those concessions, and I am somewhat surprised at the lapse of the hon. member.

But I feel that the Minister was wrong in even retaining to a certain extent the Fixed Property Profits Tax. There is not the slightest doubt that this tax has not curbed inflation, and I only hope that in the coming year at any rate the Minister will completely do away with this tax. I agree with the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) that the Minister should have been able to get a higher and a bigger revenue by taxing share transactions, and I am also sorry that he was not more sympathetic in the granting of cost of living allowances for Government pensioners who, after all, are a very deserving section of the population.

Dealing now with matters which do not directly arise out of the Budget, I would like to express my thanks and pleasure for the Government’s proposal to maintain the big farming industry of the Union as recently outlined in the White Paper on agricultural policy. I know that in some quarters White Papers are very often looked upon as mere words, but in this particular instance it is clear that it is not merely words. The Minister has already introduced legislation dealing with soil erosion and wool and other agricultural matters, which is a clear indication that the Government is sincere and in earnest in carrying out the terms of the White Paper policy. But I feel there is not the slightest doubt that these proposals will have to be tackled without delay. I do not want to go into the details of those proposals, because they already appear in the White Paper itself, but I do commend to the Minister that the proposals must be tackled further without delay—the sooner the better. I am satisfied that in the Minister of Agriculture we have a young Minister who is not lacking in either courage or vision, and that he will be prepared to tackle these great and arduous duties in order to put farming in this country on a stricly economic basis.

Then I would like to ask the Minister of Finance two questions. Firstly, I would like to ask what are the Government’s intentions regarding assistance to farmers who have suffered very serious losses as a direct result of the drought? I feel that most sympathetic treatment will have to be afforded to those farmers who have so suffered; and I would like the Minister to tell this House what steps will be taken, either under the Farmers’ Assistance Act or otherwise in order to assist those farmers to replace the serious stock losses which they have already sustained. Secondly, I would like to ask what relief the Government is going to give with regard to those farmers who are on the cash basis for Income Tax assessment, and who as a direct result of the drought have had to sell their stock, and who are unable to replace that stock in the same Income Tax year, either by reason of the fact that grazing is not available, or on account of the high prices prevailing. I do feel that these farmers are entitled to special consideration, otherwise many of them will lose through taxation most, if not all, of their capital. These two matters are urgent, and I commend them to the very sympathetic consideration of the Minister, and I trust that he will deal with them if the opportunity is ripe when he replies to this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself to mines, but I would first of all like to say—and I am speaking as a layman—that I consider that the proposed relief in taxation as indicated in the Budget is proof that the Government is tackling our post-war problems with determination. The benefits that are to be derived from the proposals with be very well distributed and the country is gratified with the relief that will be granted. Mr. Speaker, as I maintain that gold mining is still the backbone of the country, I would like to express my appreciation to the Rt. the Hon. the Minister of Finance for the concession of £3,000,000 in gold mining taxation. But, Sir, I am more grateful for the relief that has been granted by removing the native pass fees and the claim licences. By removing those burdens from the working costs of the Witwatersrand gold mines it will enable the industry to increase employment by working more low grade ore. The proceeds from such increased production together with the relief of £3,000,000 in taxation will increase the profits substantially with the result that more money will become available for the development of our primary industries as well as our secondary industries. Mr. Speaker, the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance has indeed given an incentive to create employment and, Sir, he has not only provided this incentive but he has also given a lead by providing a valuable opportunity to the industry to share its good fortune with its employees, and thereby give the incentive for increased efficient production. As I see the position, Sir, the monetary benefits that are to be derived from the concessions can be converted into an instrument of power to increase our national income. It can be applied for the expansion of industries and so provide full employment at a wage that will give a decent standard of living. The proper distribution of capital for the development of industries and the equalisation of purchasing power will stimulate agricultural production and stabilise the prices of agricultural products. It will encourage capital to develop agriculture on which future generations will have to depend. I feel that this Budget is an appeal by the Rt. Hon. the Minister of Finance to all employers and to all employees to co-operate and win internal peace. We have come out of this war untouched by the ravages of the war machine, and although our national debt has increased by £273,000,000 we must also remember that we have invested £95,000,000 of that in new State assets. We are therefore very fortunate indeed and we owe a deep debt of gratitude to everyone who answered the call, and I include those on the home front who, to the best of then* ability, maintained full production of the various classes of commodities. It should therefore be the desire of all employers of labour to express their gratitude to the employees by providing them with the means to purchase the necessities of life which are enjoyed by so few yet earned by so many. It should also be the desire of all employees to produce efficiently in order to stabilise purchasing power for the benefit of the whole community. Then, Mr. Speaker, with regard to that part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), which refers to phthisis legislation, I would like to say that I am quite confident that the Government will fulfil its obligations. I am quite confident that the hon. the Minister of Mines will introduce legislation that will meet with the approval of all parties. But may I ask what contributions have been made by the hon. members opposite to improve the Bill that was before the House last year, when they were invited to do so by the then Minister of Mines, or do they consider that there is nothing of sufficient national importance to keep it above party politics? With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), I would have liked to ask him if he would be satisfied with the interest of approximately 3 per cent. on the £11,000,000 and therefore give £330,000 as a measure of relief towards the phthisis victims and their dependants.

He said so.

I would have liked to ask him whether he is satisfied with that amount.

That is what he asks for.

May I ask the hon. member who has just interjected whether he is satisfied with that?

Yes, we accept that.

As the first instalment.

I am afraid the hon. member is not speaking for the Labour Party, and I would like to remind members opposite that we on this side of the House represent all sections of the community and that the responsibility will again rest on us to approve or disapprove of any such legislation.

I wish to refer very briefly to two subjects tonight. The first is demobilisation and the second is manpower. In regard to demobilisation I wish to pay tribute to the Hon. Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation. I also wish to congratulate the Directorate of Demobilisation and the staff entrusted with the duty of carrying out the work. I think a very good job of work has been done by them under very trying circumstances. The war in Europe ended very suddenly and the war in Japan ended equally suddenly and caught most of these organisations and departments, for that matter, on the hop and I feel that under war conditions and taking everything into consideration demobilisation has come out of it pretty well. I would like to single out particularly the educational and vocational training scheme which in my view is one of the best aspects of Demobilisation today. But I have one quarrel with demobilisation and that is the lack of emphasis on the individual. I want to indicate that very particularly at this stage, because it affects my remarks in relation to manpower. This lack of emphasis on the individual is not necessarily the sole responsibility of the demobilisation plan. I maintain that it is part of a wider issue and as such must be viewed on a national basis. I want to make myself perfectly clear. The demobilisation principle lays down that the man must return to his preenlistment employment. I do speak from experience today and I do know that there are hundreds of men who are totally unfit to return to their pre-enlistment employment and I come now to this aspect of manpower, which is an important one in the future. We must realise that profound changes occur in a man after he has been on service for five or six years. He comes back to us with new thoughts, new ideas and wider experience, all of which factors we must take into consideration in the postwar period. Let me quote a few examples. You have the young student who may have spent two years at the university and on discharge finds that he is unable to settle down. You have the man, for example, who is regarded as being too old at forty. Nobody wants to take any notice of him. You have ‘the clerk who rises to a high position in the air force. He comes back having carried responsibilities for five or six years. He has proved himself in the army and he can prove himself in peace. You have the man who was in legal practice and who finds on discharge that his competitors have got away with his practice and he is obliged to find a practice elsewhere. But demobilisation lays down that he must return to his home town and settle there. You have the man who wishes to set up his own business. In many cases the man has come back with new experience, but we do not lay that emphasis on the individual which is so vitally important. And who are we to say that a man is not fit enough to set up his own business? I want to indicate that these are problem cases. There are not merely hundreds of them, there are thousands, and that is why I am particularly drawing attention to this very vital and important factor tonight. And I must indicate that many of these men possess latent talents which can be applied to good purpose in a young and expanding country such as South Africa. I am not suggesting that the clerk who on discharge was a colonel in the Air Force should be made the managing director of a company, nor am I advocating the wholesale dislocation or disruption of industry or commerce, but I do submit that every man and woman, both European and nonEuropean, should be studied in relation to the problems we have to face in this country, on the basis that manpower is the only real and tangible asset we possess. In wartime we perfect ourselves scientifically. Hon. members may be aware that in the air force, we conducted aptitude tests in order to determine whether a man was capable of becoming a pilot. That is a factor worthy of note in peace-time. Why cannot we apply these scientific measures in peace time? Why cannot we determine by scientific measures whether a bank clerk would not be fitted for some other sphere of activity? I come now to another very important factor which concerns this whole aspect and that is our Social and Economic Planning Council. I am wondering whether the council is alive to this very important factor of manpower. We have coming to us so many bodies in varying degrees of intelligence and capability — I am talking of the human bodies coming to us from the army. Does its plan embrace the general principle of the study of manpower on the most favourable basis? If they do not then all these large-scale plans we have heard so much about and of which we have heard a tremendous lot in this House during the last few months, all these wonderful conceptions of the human brain are of no avail because the most important aspect of all is the man himself. I do appeal therefore to the Minister concerned—I think it is the Minister of Social Welfare and Demobilisation—that we set up in this country a regional employment bureau where men and women can be studied in relation to their own capabilities and how they can best fit into the general scheme of things. I would like to see something started along the lines of the set-up we had in the air force but certainly not the type of labour exchange we have in operation at the moment. They are totally out of date and archaic and certainly do not meet the present needs. While our national plans are taking shape we can at least collect information and data on what our men and women can do in this country, and we shall then know how to choose our men and women efficiently. I am all for the little man. I am all for the little fellow who carried us in peace and in war. I am all for building him up on a sound economic basis; I am all for relieving him of social and economic stress. I would like to see us make it possible to permit the smaller man to produce more of his own kind, because I as a young member of this House am beginning to ask myself the question what this country is going to be like in 30 or 40 years time if we as Europeans do not pull together as a group and strive to build up the country on a sound and economic basis. I call for that cooperation because I speak in the name of many ex-volunteers who today are anxious to see an end to politics. After all, we have no time for the political opportunist; we have no need for him. The ex-volunteer who comes out of the army has no need for him, and the little man in the street does not want to know anything about him. In my view the greatest problems we have today are not those of Indian penetration or of crime or of disease or the imperfections in our educational system, but rather we ourselves, that is the degree of honesty and sincerity we can bring to bear upon the solution of the many problems that face us, how and along what lines we are prepared to offer ourselves to this country, what type of service we are prepared to offer, and finally whether we are big-hearted enough to realise that the needs of this country and of the people who live in it are of greater consequence than ourselves.

In reviewing the Budget I think I am voicing the opinion of most people when I say that it has given general satisfaction. Members of the Opposition have called it a Hoggenheimer Budget. Well, Mr. Hoggenheimer has to pay heavily in taxation, and if the people in the country districts have to pay as heavily I feel sorry for them. We have a standard of 70 per cent. for the mines, and this figure is considered too high. There are very few industries in this country, and I do not think there is an industry anywhere in the world where the figure is anywhere as high as 70 per cent. We have had various charges on the mines. For example, we had the realisation charges; a charge made on the mines out of which the Government received altogether £10,000,000 and yet incurred no expenses whatsoever. That charge has fortunately been removed. Another one is the 22½ per cent. levy, a totally unscientific charge made on the mines. That has gone as well. Another tax that is totally unscientific is the pass fee. That is an antiquated tax and a bad one. It was originally brought in to give the natives hospitalisation. It has been taken into the general revenue of the Province and has been a tax on the mines. Another one is the claim license. That is a survival of the early days of mining in South Africa when there was a large amount of outcrop mining. These fees are not only antiquated but they are harmful in their effects as well. These are taxes which have added to the cost of gold mining and should never have been imposed. These matters have in this Budget been attended to by the Minister, and most of these taxes have been removed. I now come to another matter which I would like to place before the Minister and that is the matter of the lease formula plus taxation. The Deep Level Mining Committee strongly recommended a single formula in that respect, and I think it is as well for the House to hear what they said. They said—

I think we ought to have, as the committee reported, a single formula instead of these two. Every encouragement must be given to mining in this country. The whole country depends on it. No matter what hon. members opposite may say, the whole economic structure of this country is built upon mining and every ton milled represents a benefit indirectly to the State of 6s. 8d. Last January 4,844,000 tons were removed, giving a gross tonnage of 60,000,000 tons a year, out of which the indirect benefit to the State is approximately £20,000,000. I am sorry this Government has no immigration policy at all. We see what has been happening in other parts of the Union; we have the outcry in Natal. We see what is going on with the increase of the native population, who are now four to one, whereas the European population, though increasing, is growing at an ever decreasing ratio. We only have to look at Indonesia to see what will happen to this country in the next fifty to a hundred years. The only way to counteract that is by a large immigration policy. We could do with 25,000 building artisans at present, and other industries also require men. I think the Government ought to institute a State-aided immigration policy. It would be to the benefit of the country and of our European population.

We know that during the war the country benefited largely as a result of the British Navy, and I should like to see this country make a loan to Britain, an interest-free loan of £100,000,000 to help the people of Britain in the dire straits they are in at present.

The next matter is the fixed property tax. This tax was originally brought in by the Minister of Finance to curb speculation. I think it has stimulated speculation. Instead of doing what he hoped it would do, it has raised the price of property out of all proportion. Had he fixed a ceiling price it would have had the desired effect; I understand this was done in Australia with great success; he would have achieved his purpose in a far better way with that than with the tax he has imposed.

I was very pleased to have the privilege of hearing the thoughtful speech on demobilisation given to us by the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann). He is particularly qualified to talk on this subject because, as most hon. members on this side of the House are aware, he devotes the whole of his time to the work involved in the care and rehabilitation of men discharged from the service. I am glad to have the opportunity of paying a tribute to him for the great work he is doing on behalf of the party on this side of the House, and the country in general, as well as in the interests of those who served during the war. The services the hon. gentleman is rendering are beyond my powers to describe, and I trust the House will in due course appreciate his work.

I now come to the subject I rose to discuss, though I was so impressed with what was said by the hon. member for Nigel that I digressed in order to pay my tribute to this gentleman. I want to discuss the general world food position and the serious situation that exists here in particular as well as in other parts of the world. Various statements have been made by Ministers. We have been regaled with statements in the Press that are sometimes most alarming or of a most distressing nature in connection with the present position in Europe and elsewhere. There is definite cause for anxiety in South Africa regarding the general food position, and particularly as it affects the poorer type of citizen. I think there is general agreement on that. South Africa has been fortunate in escaping the ravages of war, but unfortunately there is no defence against the scourge of drought, and no honest person will blame the Government for what happens as the result of an act of God such as the drought through which we have recently passed. The serious maize position is generally appreciated. The fact that it should be necessary to import a large quantity of maize from South America, probably for the first time for a generation, in order to supply the necessities of life to the native population and to provide cattle and livestock with their normal feed, has resulted entirely from drought conditions. It can only be relieved by favourable conditions of nature which I trust will be forthcoming during the coming season, and I trust by the time the crops are reaped we shall have supplies adequate to see us through our difficulties. Unfortunately, we are faced with the position that hunger and starvation are possibilities. Whilst in 1939, when the Government declared war on the enemy in Europe, the Opposition Were opposed to it and remained opposed throughout the war, I trust they will take a different point of view in regard to this war against starvation and hunger, and that they will adopt a patriotic attitude and support the Government in its efforts to defeat starvation and hunger, which are the sequel to conditions over which they had no control and which can only be relieved by the grace of God. The Government gave a great lead to the country in 1939, and maintained that lead throughout the war, and they led us with the United Nations to victory. I have no doubt that, given adequate support from the country, the Rt. Hon. gentleman who leads the Government will be equally successful in this war against hunger and starvation. But, in order to achieve success, it is essential the general public should accord the Government the same support as they gave it in the war against Germany, and I feel one is jüstified in asking the public to support the Government to the utmost of their capacity in its effort to secure, to the poorer section of the community in particular, an adequate supply of essential food. I do not think it will be denied we have been an extremely fortunate country. We have gone short of practically nothing. Other countries in the world have starved, and their peoples have lacked the essentials of life. As we have read, the average number of calories per day allowed to millions of people in Europe is inadequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life. That being the case, and while the rest of the world has been living below the bread line, we have been able to build up what we might call a healthy condition of fat. Most of us can live on our fat for quite a long time, and if, owing to present conditions, we have to go without some of the luxuries we have enjoyed during the last six years, it will do most of us a lot of good.

The Minister of Finance has made provision in his Estimates for £10 million to make up the difference between the controlled price of locally produced foodstuffs and the cost of such essential foodstuffs when they reach the Union. I trust that amount will be sufficient to cover the difference, and that the favourable weather conditions which I hear now exist in the Transvaal and parts of the Free State will make it unnecessary to import anything like the tonnage of maize and other foodstuffs that at one time was considered necessary. I submit for the consideration of the Government that up to now very little has been done in order to conserve available supplies of essential foodstuffs. I agree that steps have been taken to ration maize to farmers and oats to dairies, and other foodstuffs required by poultry-keepers and others, and that drastic cuts have been made in the breeding of poultry, and generally speaking the Maize Control Board has endeavoured to conserve the quantity of maize that is available. The Wheat Control Board has, I understand, similarly reduced the quantity of flour available for bread, but flour is still freely sold to shops and stores and people, to their shame, are still sifting that flour and producing white bread, and in a large number of cases are wasting the offals, which are a valuable item of food in ordinary farming operations. The fact that flour is still available in apparently ample supply in the shops is an encouragement to people to sift it for white bread, such as they were accustomed to in pre-war days. I have heard people say they cannot eat the good wholesome bread made from the flour of 95 per cent. extraction. It is well known that sieves are sold in shops throughout the length of the country and no effort has been made to stop their sale or production. I suggest the Government should prohibit the manufacture and sale of these sieves and appeal to the public to discontinue their use. I admit that even the discontinuation of the use of sieves will not stop people sifting their meal and making white flour, because when I admonished one lady friend of mine for giving me white scones the other day and told her she should not use a sieve she said she used silk stockings for the purpose. I can think of better uses for silk stockings than sifting flour. In regard to the people who cannot stomach the unsifted meal I suggest they find some other substitute instead of wasting perfectly good foodstuffs by sifting. In addition to what I have already said we know that most of us who have the good fortune or misfortune to go to cocktail parties and other parties are given white scones, white biscuits and white bread which are freely available, and it is time the country realised the seriousness of the position and economised in that and other directions. Recently I had the pleasure of travelling from Cape Town to Johannesburg in the Blue Train—I may say at very low cost—and whilst I should like to congratulate the Minister of Transport on that magnificent train and the comforts one enjoys on it, I suggest it would be good for the passengers if he reduced the amount of food made available to them. I confess although I have a reasonable appetite I could not take one-quarter of what was available, and I am sure most of the passengers could not manage the five or six course meals that were provided.

Is this the reason you support the United Party?

We can tell the truth on our side and it receives consideration, and there is no resentment. I would suggest that on our railways in particular we reduce the quantity of bread or toast prepared for passengers, and also that in this dining room of Parliament—which is under the control of the railways—we set an example by discontinuing the use of bread during lunch when ample food of other description is available. I am certain it would have a good effect on the public in general and indicate that what we are prepared to legislate for we are prepared to carry out in practice. I hope some notice will be taken of the desperate position the world is in while we in South Africa, for the first time in our recent history, are realising what it is to be short in essential foodstuffs. It is of the utmost importance, I think, that we should realise the position and face it bravely, just as we faced the years of crisis during the war when everything appeared to be lost. Are we justified in continuing to live at the extravagant rate at present existing? Is it not time we seriously consider the position, and leave for the poorer people the types of foods that we can do without? We should assist the poor people to purchase them in the quantities we have been doing up to now. We find on every breakfast table at every public place mealie meal porridge. Is that an essential food for Europeans when millions of natives, as we know, are dependent on mealie meal for their daily sustenance? Is it not possible, by regulation or by a Government appeal to discontinue its use on the breakfast table of the Europeans, who can satisfy their appetite with foods of less calorific value? I would urge we start without delay a publicity campaign to encourage economy in the use of bread, and generally in the use of foodstuffs which are in short supply. I am quite satisfied, if the Government utilises the advertising facilities at its disposal and plans a satisfactory publicity campaign it will be possible to convince the public of the urgent necessity for economising in bread. If something of the sort is not done, I would submit that in spite of the fact we have a 95 per cent. extraction from the wheat we have been milling hitherto, we have no justification for asking the United Nations Food Organisation to divert to South Africa any considerable quantity of wheat which would otherwise be made available to starving people in the Northern Hemisphere and the countries of the Eash We should do all we can to encourage economy in the use of this vital foodstuff, and I am satisfied the only satisfactory way would be to appeal to the goodwill and the good nature of the thinking public, who were prepared to make great sacrifices during the years of war, and will, I am sure, be prepared to make further sacrifices for the benefit of their fellows during the troublous times we are experiencing.

What about the export of food?

The export of food happens in any shipping country. We have heard a lot about the amount of food which the ships that call at our ports take away. I have yet to learn we have ever criticised the amount of food which is brought here from overseas or the amount of essential supplies brought here by the ships that have taken small quantities from us. I suggest the less the Opposition say about that subject the better for them.

In addition to the shortage of wheat, on which I have laid considerable emphasis, we are now faced with a serious shortage of oil and fats; and it is well known that oil and fats are essential to the building up of health and ordinary bodily well-being. There has been much criticism of the fact that the Government has not yet produced margarine, and I submit until such time as the raw materials have been secured it is impossible to do so even if the machinery to produce margarine were available. With the recent embargo on Indian export we are in a serious position. The position before that was bad enough, but now I fail to see where we shall obtain the necessary raw materials to supply South Africa with its requirements of oils and fats.

At 10.55 p.m., the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), and the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 14th March.

I move—

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

I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

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

From where does the danger come then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

We take it then that you will fight against Communism?

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

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

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

Yes.

What is wrong with that?

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

No, surely!

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

That is a silly remark.

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

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

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

But I used his own words.

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

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

Does that include Iran?

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

Churchill says so.

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

It looks very much like it.

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

Hear, hear.

Those things take time.

We heard that a better world would come.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not know precisely what will be discussed there.

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

What about the association of the English-speaking countries?

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

Hear, hear.

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

I said so.

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

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

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

Then he says we are Jeremiahs.

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

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

You did not take over from Mr. Jagger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not thousands—that is wrong. Hundreds, yes.

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

The Pact Government.

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

Cresswell was the man.

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

The S.A.P. is dead.

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

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

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

Many of the rail workers became clerks and obtained promotion.

What wages did the Europeans receive at that time?

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

Give us the wage scales now.

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

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

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

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

Then he goes on to say—

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

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

Why not?

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

That is an old story.

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

It is again the old story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. member must not use that expression.

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

Why do you say “Nationalist, communist mayor?”

Because the Nationalist Party branded that person as a communist.

But they did not vote for a communist.

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

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

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

Are you really serious?

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

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

It goes on to say—

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

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

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

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

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

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

We know that.

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

In that case why don’t you keep quiet.

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

Beyond horse sense.

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

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

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

That was also right.

Why was it not made applicable to coloureds and natives?

What are you going to do with Russia then?

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

Perfectly right.

But coloureds and natives were not excluded, only Afrikaners.

They are not Afrikaners.

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

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

The old story again.

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

And still the old story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there is a special housing scheme for old persons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did it in a different way.

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

There is no objection to that.

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

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

How would we have got it?

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

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

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

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

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

A very much belated effort.

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

And are you satisfied now?

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

Then why grouse when we do it?

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

From your side.

It also came from the farmers on that side.

And what about the farmers on your side?

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

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