I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to, and the Bill accordingly withdrawn.

By direction of Mr. Speaker, the Natural Oil Bill [A.B. 39—’42], submitted by the Select Committee, was read a first time; second reading on 26th March.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wish to avail myself of the half-hour rule. First of all, I have a bone to pick with the Minister of Finance. The hon. Minister was at George a little while ago; he visited the principal town in my constituency. He went there to open a new school building, and he was entertained to a luncheon by the Municipality. Altogether the hon. the Minister spent, at the utmost, five hours in my constituency. After that he returned and told this House that, judging from his experience, I did not interpret the feelings and the views of the people of George in this House. He said that I had represented his Budget as a very unpopular Budget, but that that was not his experience in George. I think there is a very easy way of testing what George thinks of the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. This is the test: I am prepared to resign as the member for George if the Minister is prepared to resign for Johannesburg (North). Then let both of us stand for George, and we shall be able to find out what George’s judgment is. This is a friendly offer, and I am willing to go even further and make a sporting offer. I am prepared to give the Minister a start of 500. I should like to know whether the Minister of Finance will accept my offer? I shall give him a start of 500, and we shall put up for George, and then let us see who is returned there, and who can speak on behalf of George.

Is that the old type of offer again?

If the Minister is not satisfied with the 500 start I am prepared to make it 1,000. I merely want to tell the Minister this, that he should not allow himself to be led astray by what the English call an after dinner speech. Somebody got up there, somebody who occupies a fat Government post, and he wanted to flatter the Minister, so he said to him: “Give the Prime Minister our message, that George stands behind him.”

And I got that message.

Very well, let us test it. There is only one test, and I also make the same offer to the Prime Minister as I make to the Minister of Finance. I am prepared to give them 1,000 start. What is the use of the Minister coming here and saying these things? I should have liked the Minister of Finance to have attended a public meeting which was held in George that same evening. I say again to the Minister of Finance that his Budget is the most unpopular Budget we have ever had in South Africa since the days of Henry Burton, but still I am pleased that in one respect, at any rate, the Minister of Finance has been sensible.

Are you going to make another Budget speech now?

No, I am not going to do so; I am only going to say this. I am pleased that the Minister of Finance has been sensible enough in this respect, that he has been prepared to amend the most important of his taxation proposals. I believe that this is the first time in the history of this House that it has happened that a Minister of Finance, after having announced his taxation proposals in his Budget speech, has announced in his reply that he is going to change those taxation proposals. The Minister says that it is only a small detail. This I know, that if the Minister had not made that concession—and it is due to the criticism that came from this side of the House—there would have been a storm of indignation right throughout the whole of the country.

I think the hon. member should now come back to this vote on the Estimates.

There is another point which I should like to raise. The Minister of Finance on a certain occasion said in this House that we on this side of the House had right through the session been talking about scandals, and that when we had the opportunity of reporting to the House about those scandals all we could do was to say that a commission should be appointed to enquire into the contract plus cost system. I am not going to insult the intelligence of the Minister of Finance by telling him that he cannot read simple and easy Afrikaans or English. Here we have the report of the Select Committee and this is what the Select Committee says in its report—

Here the Select Committee says clearly that it is only reporting on paragraphs 11 to 16. That is to say, it is only on those paragraphs in the Report of the Auditor-General which deal with the system of contracts “cost plus.” We have not reported on the other paragraphs in the Report of the Auditor-General. We say deliberately in this preliminary report that we are not reporting on the other paragraphs, we are only reporting on paragraphs 11 to 16. It is stated clearly in simple language, and I now want to ask this House, Mr. Chairman—what are we to think of a Minister who comes here and says that we are continually talking about scandals and that all we have to talk about when we come before the House with the Report is to ask for the appointment of a Commission in regard to the contract plus cost system. The Minister said that we had talked about scandals, that we had had the opportunity of reporting on scandals, but that was all we could report on. Here we have the hon. member, who is Chairman on the Select Committee of Public Accounts, I want to ask him whether this report does not deal only with the contract plus system.

Can the hon. member tell me what all this has to do with this vote?

We are dealing here with the question of Treasury control over expenditure. I am first of all dealing with the fact that I accuse the Minister of having told the House an untruth, and of having tried to create a false impression in the House and in the country.

May I ask whether my hon. friend is entitled to say that I deliberately tried to create a false impression?

I did not say deliberately. I do say that the Minister told the House an untruth. It is said here clearly that we are only reporting about certain paragraphs in the Auditor-General’s Report, and only on those paragraphs, and the Minister of Finance knew it.

My question is whether the hon. member is allowed to say that I tried to create a false impression.

Did the hon. member say that?

Yes, he said that I tried to create a false impression.

I not only say that the Minister tried to do so, but I also say that he very definitely did so.

You say that I tried to create a false impression?

Yes, and it also happened.

The hon. member is not allowed to say that the Minister of Finance tried to do so.

Then I withdraw that the Minister tried to create a false impression and I change it by saying that the Minister of Finance did create a false impression in this House. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is here. He will confirm what I am saying, that we were considering this question of contract plus which was dealt with by the Select Committee, and he thought that we would not have the necessary time to enquire into all the details. That is why we then decided only to report to the House on that point, and we did so. I think the Chairman of the Select Committee will support me when I say that we want to do everything in our power to try, before the end of the session, also to report on the other paragraphs in the Auditor-General’s Report. There was no question of our having dealt with the whole of the Auditor-General’s Report on the subject of defence expenditure. We are only dealing with certain paragraphs in the Report, and the Minister knows it.

The hon. member cannot now discuss the Budget speeches made by the Minister of Finance.

I can only say that I think the Minister of Finance should have the decency to get up, and, having used those words and having created that impression, he should withdraw those words here in public.

But all this has nothing to do with this vote. The hon. member is dealing with the Budget speeches of the Minister and I cannot allow that.

Then I shall proceed to deal with the rest of the Auditor-General’s report. I think the Minister of Finance should have the decency to remove the impression he has created and to withdraw those words. The Minister of Finance hides behind the Authorities Committee in everything he does. The Authorities Committee consists of the Minister of Railways, the Secretary for Finance, and the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, and before any money can be spent by the Defence Department application has to be made to the Authorities Committee for the spending of such money. And not only has the Authorities Committee to approve of it, but the Secretary for Finance on the Authorities Committee has to approve of the expenditure. The Minister pretends that in that manner effective treasury control is being exercised over defence expenditure. In this connection I want to refer the Minister to Paragraph 6 of the Report of the Auditor-General.

The hon. member must now come back to the vote, he is not allowed, when the House is in Committee, to reply to speeches which the Minister of Finance made in the course of the Budget debate.

I am not speaking now about what the Minister of Finance has said.

The hon. member said that he was speaking about what the Minister of Finance had stated.

That was last year. Surely I am allowed to refer to what the Minister of Finance said last year? Last year we complained of the lack of Treasury control over defence expenditure, and on that occasion the Minister of Finance got up and said that the Government had established an Authorities Committee and that no money could be spent on defence unless it was approved of by the Authorities Committee, and not only did the Authorities Committee have to approve of it, but the Secretary for Finance on the Authorities Committee had to give his approval to the Defence Department spending that money. Now I want to refer to Paragraph 6 of the Report in which the Auditor-General says this—

That is what the Auditor-General says here, and then he goes on—

What does the Auditor-General say here? Approval is obtained from the Authorities Committee for an amount of say £500,000. The Department of Defence is told that it can spend £500,000, but the amount spent under that heading is not properly accounted for, with the result that the Authorities Committee and the Treasury do not know whether they have spent £500,000, £600,000 or £700,000. Dare the Minister of Finance get up here in the House and tell us that effective and proper control over defence expenditure is exercised by means of the Authorities Committee? The Auditor-General says here that the Defence Department is in such a hopeless condition that if the Authorities Committee has approved of an amount of £500,000 for certain services then we do not know, then the Authorities Committee does not know, then the Minister of Finance does not know and the Auditor-General does not know, whether they have spent £500,000 or whether they have spent £600,000 or £700,000. The Auditor-General gives a number of instances. Approval, for instance, was asked for for an amount of £3,500 for a W.M.C. hut at Voortrekkerhoogte. The Treasury said: “Spend £3,500.” In the long run it was found that the amount that was spent was not £3,500 but £10,000. An amount of £1,500 was approved of for a defence store at the Witwatersrand Exhibition. The amount spent was not £1,500, but the Auditor-General reports that that amount was considerably exceeded. These are small amounts. The great point is the same, namely that when an amount of £500,000 is approved of, the Minister does not know, the Authorities Committee does not know, and we do not know whether £500,000 has been spent, or whether £600,000 or £700,000 has been spent. Nobody knows. That is the position of the Defence Department, and yet the Minister of Finance dare say that the Authorities Committee is there to keep proper control over Defence expenditure. Then there is another point. Here in the Auditor-General’s report we have two tables, table A and table B. We are told that of the £60,000,000 which we voted two years ago for Defence £15,000,000 was spent on salaries, wages and allowances; £12,000,000 was spent on war supplies and equipment, including coastal defence; and £7,000,000 on grounds, works and buildings, including fortifications. On these three items alone, namely, salaries and wages, war supplies, buildings and grounds, altogether an amount of more than £34,000,000 has been spent. We are continually told that there are no scandals, but what does the Auditor-General report in regard to the £15,500,000 which have been spent on salaries, wages and allowances? I refer the Minister to paragraph 7 of the Report of the Auditor-General. The amount of money involved here is £15,500,000, and the Auditor-General reports that the books of that section are in such a mess that he cannot make head or tail of them, and that he is unable to audit those books. They are simply left as they are, and he is now busy auditing the books for the current financial year. We are told that there are no scandals, and now I ask the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) whether this is not the greatest scandal that has ever occurred in the administration of South Africa?

I am going to reply.

If it is not a scandal, then I should like to know what is a scandal? £15,000,000 has been spent and the books in regard to that expenditure are still in such a condition today that one cannot make head or tail of them. The Auditor-General says he cannot proceed with the work. I want the country to realise the condition in which the Defence Department is. An amount of fifteen million pounds is involved here. Now, I come to another amount, namely, the £12,000,000 spent on supplies. The Aduitor-General’s comment on this matter is in paragraph 20 of his report. He says, among other things, that there are a number of large supply depots in South Africa.

May I rise to a point of order? I should like to know how far this discussion can be allowed to proceed? All the criticisms which the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) has been making as far as I can see, and which he proposes to make, arise out of the expenditure on the Defence Vote, and all this information was before the House when we considered the Defence Vote. Take this point of stores inspection …

Order!

I am referring to this inspection of stores which is conducted by Defence officers.

It all comes under the Treasury Vote.

To my mind this is entirely a matter for Defence, and it should have been raised on Defence. I cannot see, if I may put it that way, with all due respect, how we can discuss defence stores on the salary of the Minister of Finance. Otherwise if you allow this discussion to proceed, then not only the hon. member for George will deal with these matters, but other members of the House can also discuss it.

That is very obvious.

That is why I am trying to get a ruling. If you allow this discussion to proceed on the lines initiated by the hon. member for George, then it will be free for any member of this Committee to go right through this War Expenses Account and to discuss any item in it.

Or of any other department.

The hon. member for George will simply say that the Minister of Finance is not exercising proper control. I can point out that everything in this report of the Auditor-General could, and no doubt was, discussed fully on the Defence Vote. If you allow this discussion to proceed we shall have parallel discussions on almost every vote.

Might I point out that there are two things that may happen? There has been irregular expenditure by officers of the Department of Defence. That is possible. The second possibility is that the officers of the Department of Finance have not had sufficient control over the Department of Finance.

That is for the Auditor-General.

Either one or other …

Only the Auditor-General controls details.

Oh, no, the Treasury is supposed to have control over this expenditure.

No, it authorises expenditure, but the details are controlled by the Auditor-General.

Those are the two possibilities; first of all there might have been irregularities, as a result of the officers of the Department of Defence not looking after things, and the second possibility is the lack of control by the Treasury, and therefore I put it to you that we have every right to discuss this matter here on the Treasury Vote. We are not discussing the irregularities of the Department of Defence, we are discussing the lack of control by the Treasury.

On a point of order, may I refer to item G of this Vote, “Treasury Controller of Finance, Union Defence Forces.” I am not sure what is meant by that.

He has only been appointed for certain specific matters.

It does not say so here, and the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) is dealing with certain expenditure in connection with defence.

On a point of order, I specially got up to ask your opinion on this matter. You will remember that I raised this same point on the vote “Defence,” and you then referred me to the vote “Treasury” because the Minister of Finance eventually had control over the matter. I therefore feel that I should be allowed to express my opinion on the matter here. It is true that you did allow me to go on on that occasion, but you interrupted me every time to such an extent that I was unable to discuss the matter properly. It is a question of justice in this House, and I feel that I have as much right as any other hon. member, and I want you to be consistent in future, Mr. Chairman, because I really don’t know now where I am in regard to this matter.

The hon. member must now get back to the point of order.

You put obstacles in my way then, and now I want to know what my rights are.

Before you give your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I reply to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). You will remember that I intervened only when the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) in his long peregrination through the Defence report reached paragraph 20. Paragraph 20 deals with store inspections, that is, the inspections of military stores which are carried out by military officers under military orders, and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance has nothing whatever to do with that stores inspection. He cannot appoint or remove a single inspector; he cannot control it in any way. The only person who can criticise it is the Auditor-General, and he does not come under the Minister of Finance, and his vote is entirely a separate one. It was because I had so strong a conviction on this point that I rose to take this point when my hon. friend the member for George had reached paragraph 20. I do submit that the hon. member for George had the fullest opportunity of discussing this and all the other points when we had the Defence Vote.

If it is as the hon. member for George says, that the Treasury has control, then I must allow it.

Simply for the enlightenment of the House, I should like to explain that though the Treasury exercises its control in the matter of authorising expenditure, that authorisation is given in the case of defence expenditure, through the committee.

Of which you are a member.

No, I am not a member; the Secretary for Finance is. But that committee acts for the Treasury in authorising services, in authorising globular amounts. That committee is not concerned with the control of the detailed expenditure of these amounts. When the Authorities Committee has authorised the expenditure, whether it is £1,000 or £100,000, it is finished; the position then is exactly the same as if the Treasury had authorised the expenditure of say £1,000 or £100,000 for the Department of Agriculture. Then the Auditor-General comes in. The money is spent by the Spending Department, and the Auditor-General then has to satisfy himself on behalf of this House that the money is properly spent. That is how the control is exercised. If the Auditor-General is not satisfied in any regard, he brings the matter to the notice of the Treasury or to the notice of the House. If money has been spent without authority, the Treasury may still grant that authority. If the Treasury does not grant that authority, the matter has to come before this House after it has been reported upon by the Public Accounts Committee. But that detailed control, of which my hon. friend has been speaking, is exercised by the Auditor-General and not by the Treasury officials as such.

What is this item “G”?

The post of Treasury Controller of Finance was instituted in connection with the forces in East Africa. We appointed a certain officer to control expenditure in East Africa. We still use that officer for certain specific purposes in regard to defence expenditure, but no longer as a controller.

Is that officer in the Union?

Yes, that officer is today in the Union. He is Brig. Williamson.

Would he not control all shipping to East Africa?

No, no longer.

After the explanation of the hon. the Minister of Finance, I shall have to restrict all criticism to Treasury expenditure only.

Then I want to ask the Minister to tell us clearly what he intends doing about the Auditor-General’s remarks in paragraph 6. The Minister has created a body which has to approve of all expenditure in connection with defence. Assuming that body approves of expenditure amounting to £100,000 or £200,000, and now the Auditor-General comes here and says that the condition of the books of the Defence Department is so unsatisfactory that it is impossible to say whether £100,000 or £200,000 is being spent. I think the hon. the Minister will have to admit that there can be no question of Treasury conrtol while that condition of affairs prevails in the Department of Defence.

The hon. member must not go too far again.

I want the Minister to tell us clearly what he intends doing. We, particularly we on this side of the House, cannot allow that condition to continue. If there is an Authorities Committee, and if expenditure can only be incurred with the approval of the Authorities Committee, then it must be seen to that if the Committee allows an expenditure of £100,000 that amount is not arbitrarily exceeded. Then they have to remain within the £100,000. I shall be pleased if the Minister will explain that point.

The hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) went so far this afternoon as to use language against the hon. the Minister of Finance which, in his calmer moments, I think he will regret; language which in my opinion was wholly unjustified and wholly unwarranted by the actual circumstances of the case. What in effect was the jibe levelled by the hon. Minister of Finance against the hon. member for George, which apparently has rankled to the extent of causing him to make the speech which he did? What the Minister of Finance said in effect was this: “The Opposition began this session with dire forebodings of the awful defence scandals with which the Auditor-General’s report was filled and which they would bring to light before a horrified country; whereas when we came to the special report which was brought in by the Public Accounts—brought in at an early stage so that it might be considered when the Defence Vote came into consideration—all that we find in it is a recommendation that a commission on cost plus contracts should be appointed. That, in effect, was the point made by the hon. the Minister of Finance, and in reply to that what does the hon. member for George say? He said that the Minister has misled this House, whether deliberately or not be won’t say now, into thinking that that was the only thing worth mentioning in the Auditor-General’s report. That is quite an untrue charge.

I have the words of the Minister of Finance here.

The hon. member has appealed to me as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. It is true, as he has said, that the only report which we introduced, the only interim report, was the report dealing with “cost plus” contracts; and therefore the Minister of Finance was justified in drawing this inference, that that was the only matter which the committee deemed to be of such outstanding importance that it had to be brought to the notice of this House in advance of the ordinary report. I say that the Minister of Finance is entirely justified in drawing that inference. He has neither misled the Committee nor has he said anything which could mislead this House. He said “Here am I, the Minister of Finance; I was promised a whole heap of sinister things, and what do I get? A little blue book in which the appointment of a commission is recommended to investigate cost plus contracts.” Since the hon. member for George has sought to tear aside the veil of secrecy which shrouds the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee let me say this to him now, that it was free to that committee to pick out whatever scandals it could find, the juicier the better, and make them a subject of an interim report before we reached the Defence Vote.

You know that is not so.

I will submit to the judgment of the hon. member for George and the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw), whether that position was not made plain, that anything which this committee considered to be of sufficient urgency, to be brought before the House, would be enshrined in a special report and tabled before we reached the defence estimates. In these circumstances I fail to understand the wrath or the indignation of the hon. member for George. I say that the Minister was entitled to draw the inference that at any rate the opinion of the committee …

Order! I must ask hon. members not to refer to the Minister’s speech. I have allowed the hon. member quite a lot of latitude. I stopped the hon. member for George.

You did not stop the hon. member for George at all.

Order, Order! I did stop him.

But not on this point.

I did stop him on this point.

The hon. member was allowed to speak for twenty minutes before I rose to a point of order, and then you stopped him.

The hon. member must have heard me call the hon. member for George to order twice on that point.

On the language he used, yes.

No, not on the language he used; it was on the question of relevancy.

My impression was that he was called to order on the language he used.

I very clearly called the hon. member for George to order when he referred to the speech by the hon. Minister.

I am sorry that I am not allowed to continue. I should have liked to give a full reply, because the hon. member for George has made a full point of it. But in the circumstances, I shall leave it at that. Then the hon. member went on to turn over this much-thumbed document the war expenses report, and to pick out items which he said were unsatisfactory. He gave an instance of what he called the signal failure of the Authorities Committee to control expenditure—the War exhibit at the Rand Show. He said that £1,500 was authorised to be expended on the exhibit, whereas £3,000 was expended, and he said “There you will see how badly that Authorities Committee works.”

Is that not the point on which the hon. member rose to a point of order?

No, I rose on paragraph 20 on a point of order.

It is the same thing.

I do not think you understand, if I may put this with all due respect. On the record of this House is a full statement by the hon. member for George on this point I am now dealing with.

I very clearly said that I would allow discussion on the authorisation of expenditure only.

But that was the point the hon. member for George made; he spoke of this increase from £1,500 to £3,500.

Order!

I was only going to point out to the hon. member for George that the simple explanation for that mystery is that there was no Authorities Committee then in existence. This expenditure was, in fact, for the war demonstration at the Rand Show in 1940. The Authorities Committee was instituted many months after that. So for him now to bring up this increase and to say that there was this increase, but that the Authorities Committee was powerless in the matter, is to show the very grave unwisdom of bringing up on the floor of this House those very points that my hon. friend is examining upstairs. The hon. member does that again and again, and again and again he puts his foot into it. If the hon. member would only examine these matters in the sanctity of the Committee room and not indulge in rhetoric in this House, he would get at the facts much more quickly, and he would avoid errors of this type. Let me tell hon. members in this House that every paragraph in this report has been minutely gone through by the Committee upstairs, and in due course it will present its report. In the meantime, how can you ask the Minister to reply to those very matters that are under examination by the Committee? Again I say to the hon. member for George, how unwise and how unfair it is to raise these very points when he himself is examining the departmental witnesses upon it, and when in due course he will be called upon as a member of the Committee to make his report.

I must ask hon. members not to pursue this matter any further now.

I want to put a few serious questions to the Minister of Finance on the subject of his policy. These things which we have heard of now referred particularly to the application of certain things in his policy, but I want to go into the policy itself a little more closely. The taxation policy of the Minister is unquestionably based on this …

The hon. member cannot discuss that now; we are not discussing the question of taxation now; we are dealing with Vote No. 7.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, but we have to vote the Minister’s salary, and I think we are entitled to discuss the Minister’s policy. I think that we can discuss the principles of his policy.

The Minister has no policy.

I wish to discuss the basis of the Minister’s taxation policy.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow it.

I was surprised to hear the statement which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) made. We know that one of the first principles of the Select Committee on Public Accounts is that, whatever may be said in that Committee, is not to be repeated on the floor of this House until the Committee’s report is published. I was very much surprised last year when the hon. member for Kensington, on the self-same occasion, made this very point which he is making now, and on that occasion he was the only sinner in that regard, in practically giving away what had happened in the Select Committee.

The hon. member must not go into that any further now.

Certain statements have been made here, and I only want to answer them.

I told the hon. member for Kensington that he could not go into that question any further.

Won’t you allow me to go on a little bit, and stop me after I have replied briefly to the remarks of the hon. member?

We have certain rules which we have to adhere it.

I think it is a good thing that the hon. member for Kensington raised this point here, but I think it is unsatisfactory to leave it at that. As I said, the hon. member comes here and practically tells this House what has happened in Select Committee. He says that we had the opportunity there, if we wanted, to deal with any scandal, and that we could have made that the subject of a special report. That was not the point at all. I now want to ask the Chairman of the Select Committee whether it is not a fact that we asked whether it would not be possible to hold over this report which has been made until such time as we had disposed of the whole of the war accounts, and we were then told that if we did so it would not be finished before the vote “Defence” was discussed in Committee. Because of that we hesitatingly agreed only to put in a preliminary report on the one point of the cost plus contracts, and then to try and finish the report on the War Accounts before the end of the session. It is definitely not true, therefore, that we had the opportunity of bringing up any point here in regard to war expenditure. That was never proposed. We had to choose whether we would bring the one point of the cost plus contract before the House, or whether we would not report anything at all before the Defence Vote came up for discussion. That is why I think it is very unfair on the part of the hon. member to use that argument, which was also used by the Minister of Defence, that he had said that we were going to make tremendous revelations in spite of which we only reported on one solitary point, and then to add that that was all we had produced. It is an unfair and unworthy charge to make against this side of the House. We did not have the opportunity of doing anything more than report on this one specific issue. That is what we confined ourselves to in the report. I do not think it is necessary for me to go any further into that question. The Report itself holds out the prospect that the rest of the Report dealing with the two reports of the Auditor-General will be submitted at a later stage. If hon. members will look at the report they will see that it is stated clearly on page VI that the Select Committee says that such an investigation cannot be completed before the prorogation of Parliament if the Select Committee, in addition, also has to deal with other matters appearing in the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General. It is clear, therefore, that the Report which we have handed in only deals with one point. Mr. Chairman, you have ruled that we are not allowed to speak about the Minister’s Budget speech and I shall therefore not do so, but still I want to point out that it is noticeable that there is an increasing tendency on the part of the Minister of Finance to reply to any criticism made on him by making personal attacks on the individual criticising him. It is nothing but a variation of the old Scotch theological maxim: “To answer the question by ejecting the questioner.” The Minister now tries to answer criticisms by making personal attacks on the people who criticise him. Last year the Minister’s reply to the Budget debate was the first speech which I as a newcomer heard in this House, and it then surprised me to notice the Minister using those methods and saying personal things which were directed against the hon. member for George. As a newcomer to this House these tactics struck me as particularly strange and I simply could not understand them. I did not think that such things were becoming to this House. I want to say that in the atmosphere in which I am accustomed to move professionally it is the custom to attack the arguments of one’s opponests, to attack them forcefully and mercilessly, and to try to tear one’s opponents arguments to rags. This is the custom and nothing else is expected, but it is foreign to that atmosphere for a barrister to try to attack his opponent personally or to refer to him personally. If he does so he not only betrays very bad taste but he also shows that the case which he is pleading is a very weak one. I fail to understand why the Minister of Finance tries to answer arguments by indulging in personalities.

The hon. member must not go into that any further.

We are now considering the Minister’s salary and I am discussing the Minister’s attitude in this House.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

I only want to point out, if you will allow me, that I am not referring to the Minister’s Budget speech which he made this year. You have prevented me from doing so. I am referring to something that happened last year, and I say that what was a tendency then is now threatening to become a habit with the Minister, namely, not to reply to arguments by using arguments, but by making personal attacks on the people who use arguments. That is something which one would not have expected from the Minister, and we shall be very pleased if he will adhere to the principles which are in force in the profession of which I am a member, namely, the legal profession. It would be better if he were to adhere to that rather than to descend to the style of a school debating society. Now I want to say a few words about the lack of control on the part of the Treasury over expenditure. It has been stated that in actual fact there is no lack of control on the part of that department, and that there is an Authorities Committe exercising adequate control. I was pleased to hear that the Authorities Committee has no control over the expenditure authorised by the Authorities Committee. The Authorities Committee merely authorises the expenditure of a globular amount which has to be spent, as the Minister has told us, but it does not concern itself any further as to how the money is spent, and we only hear about the matter again if the Auditor-General reverts to it in his report. The Authorities Committee to all intents and purposes is a more extensive treasury, namely, the Treasury plus certain other officials. No authority can be granted for expenditure unless the Treasury consents, and consequently the Treasury should also see to it that the money is spent correctly; and as we are dealing here with an out-and-out lack of control, it is no excuse to come and say that the Authorities Committee has control and that the Auditor-General has control. The Auditor-General has remarked that he is not able to interfere and to carry out his normal functions because no proper accounts are kept. How can the Minister say then that there is adequate control. [Time limit.]

In consequence of the ruling given by the Chairman there is really not much for me to reply to at this stage. May I, however, be allowed to say a few words about the discussion which has taken place here? First of all I want to thank the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) for his kind offer asking me to come and fight him in George. I shall consider it, but let me say at once that I am somewhat hesitant about it, and I want to tell him why. I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion, namely what I was told in George, that if one does not exaggerate nobody in George believes one, and I do feel that in that respect I certainly cannot hold a candle to the hon. member opposite. I hope the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) will not look upon this as a personal attack. In regard to the main points raised here, they have been ruled out of order by the Chairman, on the ground that a discussion arising out of previous speeches of mine cannot be allowed here now. I want to say this, however, that before I used these words complained of I had taken the step of approaching the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I had asked him what the position was; in other words, whether the members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts had been at liberty also to report on other matters, and he gave me the same assurances he gave the House this afternoon. If I made a mistake, I made that mistake in all good faith.

Then he is to blame.

We shall deal with him.

But my hon. friends can take it from me that I did not do any injustice to anyone, and they can settle their differences with the Chairman of their Committee. I think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) is quite able to look after himself.

Next time you’ll also ask somebody else.

I greatly respect the position of the Chairman, and if somebody else happens to be Chairman of the Select Committee I shall ask that somebody else. I think we can leave it at that. The only other question I have to reply to is in regard to this matter of Treasury control which has been raised here as arising out of paragraph 6 or paragraph 7 of the Auditor-General’s Report. Well, I think we have already taken the steps which it has been suggested that we should take. In other words, we have done everything in our power to strengthen the staff of the Department concerned. We have assisted that staff by giving them people from other departments. We have tried to improve the position in that way. We have taken steps to enable them to expedite their work. But I want to give this explanation. These matters are represented here as though they are final, and as though we are never going to get that information, as though the returns will never be audited. That is not what the Report means. The position simply is that there has been delay, but steps have been taken to overcome that difficulty and I beleive that those diffuculties will be overcome. In regard to paragraphs 6 or 7, well, it now rests with the Select Committee on Public Accounts to make recommendations as to what we can do further in addition to what we have already done. The Treasury has been asked to supply additional staff. That has been done. If my hon. friend through the Select Committee on Public Accounts can make further suggestions we shall give reasonable consideration to those suggestions. After that it becomes a matter for the Auditor-General to settle with the Department concerned. In the end., if the Auditor-General is unable to get satisfaction, he has to report the matter to the Treasury or to Parliament. Beyond that we, as the Treasury, cannot go at the moment. In regard to the general question of Treasury control I want to repeat again that the Authorities Committee functions towards the Defence Department in exactly the same way as the Treasury itself functions towards any other department. In other words authority is given for certain expenditure. The Treasury, as such, does not control that expenditure in other departments in detail; the Authorities Committee does not control that expenditure in detail so far as the Defence Department is concerned. Now, what is the position in regard to those details? In the Departments concerned we have accounting officers. It is their duty to see to it that that expenditure is properly controlled. They act on behalf of the Treasury. If they fail to do so, then the Auditor-General is there, but the Treasury has not got the staff to put somebody in every department to supervise or to control the details of all the expenditure for all the services on all the votes. The procedure as I have already said is that we have accounting officers and that being so it was quite correctly said here that the place where these points should have been raised was on the Defence Vote. There we have the accounting officer, the Secretary for Defence, who is responsible to the Minister. And then eventually we get to the Auditor-General. As soon as the matter is brought to the notice of the Auditor-General he can take it up and bring it to the notice of the Treasury, and if the matter is not put right then, he can mention it in his report and bring it to the notice of Parliament. But it is not within the power of the Authorities Committee to do these things. My hon. friends are disposed to confuse the two things, namely the general control over the services, and the detailed control over details. As I have now tried to explain the matter I hope my hon. friends will be satisfied.

After the statement which the Minister has made we can find him not guilty, but we shall now have to deal with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell), and I should like to put a few questions to that hon. member. I hope he will reply to those questions in this House.

What has that to do with this vote?

Mr. Chairman, this point has to be cleared up. In the first place I want to put this question to the hon. member for Kensington: Did he not rule in the Select Committee that we must start with paragraph 11 because the Department of Defence was not able to …

I cannot allow the hon. member to go into that whole matter again.

It has been said here that we had an opportunity of reporting on other misdeeds. We did not have that opportunity. We were compelled to start with paragraph 11 and when we could not get beyond that paragraph we said that we would first report that to the House. We did not have the opportunity of investigating the other misdeeds. How can the hon. member for Kensington then tell the Minister that we could have done it? He compelled us to start with paragraph 11 and because we were not able to make any progress we felt that we should first of all report on that part of the Auditor-General’s report. I want the hon. member for Kensington to get up here and to put that matter in order. He owes it to the House to do so.

I do not know how far the private procedure of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, when that Committee has not yet reported, may suitably be made a subject of discussion on this vote.

You started it.

You started reporting the private discussion.

Does my friend want me to answer or does he not? All that I said was that it was equally free for the Select Committee on Public Accounts to pick out any other matter contained in the Auditor-General’s report, and report upon it, and I still say that. But I decline, Mr. Chairman, now to be drawn into any discussion as to what actually took place in the Committee on Public Accounts; I decline that because I think it would be a wrong procedure, lowering to the dignity of that Committee, and lowering to this Committee as well. I repeat that every Committee is master of its own procedure.

Subject to the Rules of the House.

Subject, of course, to the Rules of the House. I think it would be entirely wrong, and I think on reflection my hon. friend, the member for George (Mr. Werth), will agree that it is entirely wrong for him to put questions to me as to what did or did not take place at that Committee, and I decline to answer.

I think that has nothing to do with the Estimates now before us, and I must refuse to allow any further discussion on that point.

Mr. Chairman, there is a matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister of Finance, and that is the confiscation of money sent by persons in the Union to their relatives or friends in Great Britain, as a means of helping those who are badly in need of assistance. I want to draw attention to a specific case, in which a postman, Mr. T. A. Smith, living in Durban, sent £8 to his two daughters-in-law in Great Britain, whose husbands were on active service. Now, sir, this offence of sending £8 to the wives of these men on active service was not an offence really, even under the Emergency Finance Regulations. The money could have been sent quite lawfully by money order or by bank draft, but because it was sent by bank notes, English bank notes, which had been exchanged by visiting troops who were unable to use such notes in this country, the money was confiscated by the Treasury, and, in spite of every appeal being made to the Secretary of Finance, and the Minister of Finance, the man has been quite unable to move the Treasury to refund even a portion of this money. The attitude of the Treasury is expressed in the correspondence that has taken place in this matter. I shall quote from Mr. Smith’s letter—

I submit again, sir, that if the sender had known better, and used a money order or a bank draft, he would not have committed an offence at all, and I do appeal to the Minister of Finance, even at this late stage, to soften the hard hearts of his officials, because if confiscation is to be applied rigorously, a very widespread hardship will be created, and there will be strong resentment as a result. Take, for example, the case of a British soldier, who, on arrival here, wishes to send an English bank note back to England to help out his family. Are we to understand that in such a case the money will be confiscated? It seems to me that would be a very great hardship, an even greater hardship than has occurred in the case of this postal official, who has been in the service of this Government for 43 years. It seems to me that this is a case which should be decided, not in the atmosphere of the Emergency Regulations, but in an atmosphere of commonsense. It cannot be considered that justice is being done to people whose relatives are away on active service if we are to be so harsh towards them, as this action of the Treasury indicates. The Emergency Regulations were designed to prevent the export of capital. This case is entirely a matter of domestic concern, and it should be dealt with in that spirit. I hope the Minister of Finance will be able to come to the conclusion that this is a domestic matter, in which a certain amount of leniency could be shown, and a refund made.

There is only one small point which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice and that refers to the estimating of the annual national income. I should like to know from the Minister whether in future he will not make use of the Treasury machinery together with that of the Department of Census to make an annual estimate of our national income which can be published in the Year Book, so that we may regularly have such an estimate of our national income.

As a whole?

Yes. It would be important in respect of several questions with which the Minister’s Department has to deal; questions such as where the burden of taxation falls, and expenditure. It is not a question of our only wanting to see what the national income amounts to, but it is important in view of different matters which have to be decided. In a country like Canada the national income is stated every year in the Year Book, and it will be very useful if something of the kind can also be done in this country. From time to time we have had private estimates made of our national income, but it is of the greatest importance that the estimate is made on a uniform basis if it is to be of any value for purposes of comparison. I should like to know from the Minister whether this could not be undertaken by his department in co-operation with the Department of Census and Statistics. We should have such an estimate every year which first of all should be an official estimate, and secondly, it should be a uniform estimate, so that it will not be made on one basis the one year and on a different basis the next year. In that connection it may also be desirable to indicate the increases or the reductions in regard to the incomes of the different income groups into which the country is divided. We do not only want the globular amount, but we should also like to see how the national income has increased, whether the increases have occurred among the highly salaried groups, or whether the increases have taken place right throughout, right down to the lower salaried groups. We also want the details in regard to the income of the natives and coloured population. All these are things which one would like to see in the annual returns. The other matter I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the question of the discussion of the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. This is a subject which hon. members have often complained about. My experience is that those reports are handed in at the tail end of the session, they are submitted to a tired House, and as a rule no discussion takes place on those reports. The question has been put on a previous occasion, whether the standing rules and orders should not provide for a day to be set aside for the discussion of these reports. I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could not use his efforts to get this done, so that we shall not get those reports laid on the Table of the House at the tail end of the session when in most cases no discussion can take place on these matters. The history of this question is a rather unfortunate one. As far as I have been able to ascertain, these reports as a rule are not even considered. I have before me an article, “The Survey of the Financial Administration of the Union,” in which the following appears on this very point—

I think it very necessary for something to be done in that connection. There are practical difficulties connected with it, and it is perhaps worth while enquiring how those practical difficulties can be removed. The report of the Auditor-General has to be handed in on the 31st October. Parliament sits in January. It takes a week or two before the Select Committee on Public Accounts starts functioning. That Committee meets more often than any other committee and it simply has not got the time to produce its report early in the session. It makes one think that some change should be introduced. The dates mentioned in the Audit Act of 1911 for the handing in of the Auditor-General’s Report were fixed when Parliament still used to meet in November. That also applies to the closing of the financial year. That is why it was laid down that the Report of the Auditor-General must be handed in on the 31st October. That date was somewhat dislocated when Parliament started sitting later, and there was no time left for the handing in of this report before the end of the session. I want to suggest that this matter should be dealt with differently, even if we have to go so far as to appoint a permenant Finance Committee to deal with these reports during the recess. In some way or other, however, the position has to be changed. At the moment the system is such that the Select Committee on Public Accounts is now dealing with matters, the last of which might have happened on the 31st March, 1941. We are enquiring into all those old things, and the position will probably be this, that we shall not be able to go into all these old matters before the end of the session, and they will have to stand over even longer. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of what can be done to improve the position, and if necessary, even go so far as to consider the appointment of a permanent Finance Committee which can sit during the recess.

I want to add my congratulations to the many thousands which I am sure the Minister has received on his assurance that he intends to introduce into this House this session an amended War Disabilities Pensions Act.

Order! I think the hon. member should wait until we come to the Bill.

We may never come to the Bill, sir. I am congratulating the Minister to show how relieved I am that he is introducing this Bill.

The hon. member may ask a question, but he is not allowed to discuss the matter.

I am not discussing anything, sir; but I want to remind the Minister how the House was induced to accept the Bill last session, a measure, which, as the Minister knows, was not very generous, and I want to tell the Minister that the House does not want to find itself in the same position as it was last session, when there was not time to discuss the Bill.

Order! The hon. member can ask a question, but he is not allowed to discuss that matter now.

I am asking the Minister if it will be possible for us to have some assurance from him that opportunity will be given to the House to discuss and consider the promised War Pensions Disability Bill? If I am not permitted in asking that question of the hon. Minister, who I know is sympathetic, I am not able to point out that the last Bill was put before the House under very hurried conditions which prevented any discussion. I am afraid the same thing will happen again, unless we have an assurance from the Minister. We know that the Bill will come before the House, because the Minister must redeem his promise, but if it comes before the House within two or three days of its rising, no proper consideration can be given to the measure, and we will be placed in exactly the same position as we were last year. There are many things in that last Act which ought to be amended, and the only opportunity I have of bringing the amendment that I wish before the Minister is the vote on his salary.

Order! I remind the hon. member that he will have every opportunity on the second reading of the Bill. We are now discussing the Estimates only, and we must keep to the items of expenditure only.

I am asking the Minister when he proposes to introduce the Bill? That if I am permitted to do that, then surely I am permitted to elaborate it? There is a certain item on this vote …

The hon. member will have a much better opportunity on Vote 9, Pensions.

What I can raise on Vote 9 I can raise on the Minister’s salary.

Not in detail.

Well, I shall be brief. Will the Minister afford this House an early opportunity of discussing the amended Pensions Act?

There are a number of men in the Army who will I fear shortly find themselves by virtue of circumstances which have now arisen, and over which they have no control, in straitened financial circumstances. I am less concerned with the effect on the men themselves than I am for those dependent upon them. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has applied his mind to this impending problem, and whether he can say that the Government is considering its responsibility towards these men. The position is this. These men were enabled to volunteer for service by reason of the promises made by their employers, to implement their military pay. In some cases they were promised the difference between their military pay and their salaries, and in other cases it was for proportionately less. But one can say that but for those promises the majority of these men, inasmuch as they have dependants, would not have been able to volunteer.

I understood the hon. member was going to ask a question; he is debating the subject now.

No, I am amplifying my question. I want to show what financial problem these men are going to face.

There is nothing on this vote in regard to that matter.

I am raising the matter Mr. Chairman, on the Minister’s salary. I want to ask whether the Government is considering plans to meet a problem which is obviously going to arise, or whether these men are going to be left to their own resources. These men have volunteered under circumstances which enabled them to support their dependants, and they are going to find themselves in some cases in considerable difficulties because circumstances having arisen, over which they have no control which will seriously curtail their income. I submit it is the Government’s responsibility, and I am asking whether the Government has made any plan to deal with this specific problem. The employers of these men in many cases are going to be driven out of business because the goods they handled are no longer importable, or will shortly not be. These undertakings were made bona fide and one can accept the position that they would have been fulfilled so long as it was possible, but now the problem which will arise is this. One cannot expect an employer who is obliged to close down by virtue of unforeseeable trade restrictions to go on making contributions …

Is the hon. member referring to the remuneration of soldiers?

No, Sir, I am sorry I am stating my case so badly. I am trying to describe to the Committee a set of circumstances which has arisen by virtue of which certain men in the Army are likely shortly to find themselves in an inviduous position from the point of view of their income.

Who are these men?

They are in the Army.

If they are soldiers the hon. member cannot discuss it.

They are soldiers but I am …

Then the hon. member cannot discuss it on this vote.

I am not raising the matter of their military pay.

That is a matter for the Defence Vote.

With respect it is not Mr. Chairman, because it does not touch the matter of pay or dependants’ allowances. I am concerned with the problem which will face the dependants of these men.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now, it should have been discussed on the Defence Vote.

Very well Mr. Chairman. I should have thought it a matter appropriate to this Vote, but if your ruling is that it is not, I shall naturally submit to your ruling.

I notice here under Vote G that an amount of £500 is provided for a Treasury Controller of Finance, Union Defence Forces. That amount at first was £1,000, and I am sorry to notice that the amount is now being reduced. The Minister is just as well aware as other members are of the chaos prevailing in the Department of Defence.

This vote does not concern general control of finance. I have already explained that particular point.

What does this man do? Or what do those other people do—those people who are paid out of that £500? Are they responsible for the mess?

It has nothing whatsoetver to do with it.

Does not the Minister accept any responsibility at all for that state of chaos? Then the Minister should extend the powers of the controller, so that he, the Minister, can take greater responsibility than is the case today, in regard to the conditions which are shown to exist. I think the Minister should extend the powers of those people who supervise, because there should be proper supervision over the country’s finances. Instead of reducing this vote, it should be increased to £2,000 or £4,000. It is absolutely essential that our expenditure should be properly controlled. I think the time has arrived when the Minister should realise that there must be proper supervision, and that his department must accept responsibility for the waste of public money. The Minister cannot simply turn round and shift all the responsibility off his shoulders. In view of the fact that the department of the Minister is the best equipped in the country to take action in regard to the country’s expenditure, because it has suitable officials for that particular work, the Minister should also accept responsibility. I don’t know why the Minister has allowed this matter to get completely out of hand. So far as the expenditure of the Department of Defence is concerned, we find a very sad state of affairs, and a very bad condition of chaos. I think it is high time the Minister should give his serious attention to the position because it is so bad that it can no longer be tolerated. Then I also notice a vote here for the Controller of Supplies. I should like the Minister to tell us what that official has to do, and what the connection is between that official and the Price Controller. Will the Minister see to it that there is a degree of co-operation between those two people? It is essential to have co-operation. It is no use having a Controller of Supplies and a Price Controller, and all these new-fangled things while the public are being exploited in the most scandalous way all the time. We want to know from the Minister what he is going to do to put an end to these abuses? Where the farmers’ products are concerned, everything is bona fide, and no fraud can take place. Prices are fixed for the farmers’ products, and it is easy to exercise control there, but when one comes to other supplies in the country in respect of which prices are fixed, one finds that it is no use. The way we are carrying on today is quite ineffective. Tremendous abuses take place today for which irresponsible people are to blame, and the controllers apparently have no proper control over these matters. I hope the Minister will give this question his attention.

I hope the Minister will be able to take some notice of what the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has said in connection with this matter of a man sending a few pounds in treasury notes to his brother in England. I should like to stress the point that these regulations are not known as they should be to the general public. The newspapers are cutting down and the Press are not giving that publicity to Government notices which they used to do; besides there are so many regulations being published, practically daily, that it is almost impossible to keep up with them. This is a case where the Minister would have been quite justified in remitting this small amount. There was no intention to defraud the Post Office of a few shillings — that is all it would have cost to have sent the money over. If we come to realise that weekly thousands of British soldiers come to South Africa from Britain, it is the natural thing for these fellows to do when they arrive in a port in South Africa to send a few pounds home to relatives, friends or sweethearts, just as our lads do when they get to Cairo — they send money back with presents, but they don’t intend doing anything illegal. Of course, if people are making a practice of it it would be justifiable for the Minister to impose a penalty, but when these things are done in complete ignorance, it is not so serious. The loss to the Treasury is practically nil, so I think a more humane way could be found to deal with this case. I hope it is not too late for the Minister to re-consider his decision. £8 is a large amount of money to an ill-paid postman in South Africa — it may be onethird of his monthly salary. In the circumstances I think the Treasury should take a lenient view. Now, there are two other points I want to deal with. The amount of revenue coming into the Minister’s department is abnormal — it is more than has ever been experienced before. The Minister’s staff has been depleted owing to the war, a large number of Civil Servants have left, and the Revenue Department is among the departments hit worst of all. A large number of the revenue officers are putting in a considerable amount of overtime; they are handling more money than ever before — I know that other departments are spending it, but I do make this appeal to the Minister — to consider some of the higher officials in the Revenue Department, and see whether it is not possible for some re-imbursements to be made to these men. They are doing a tremendous amount of work and they are not receiving any extra remuneration. The Minister of Railways mentioned the other day that he had set aside something like £5,000 extra for his senior officials, and I hope the Minister of Finance will do the same. I certainly hope that in the large centres some extra remuneration will be paid to these officials. I also hope that he will give his senior officials a little more authority. I believe that if a Receiver of Revenue here or in Johannesburg wants to engage an ordinary typist as a casual employee it has to go to the Public Service Commission with all the red tape attached to it. In these days these senior officials should be given a little more authority. They should be able to put up recommendations to some one in immediate authority and be allowed to engage the officials they require without all the red tape of having to go to the Public Service Commission. Owing to the depletion of their staff and owing to rush periods, they are very hard put to it. May I say in conclusion that I hope the Minister will give us ample time this session to consider the new War Pensions Bill. I should like to tell him now that there is absolutely no necessity to have the Durban Savings Bank Bill discussed in this House again. We do not want the House to be worried with trivial things of that nature — what we do want is ample time given to such important measures as this new War Pensions Bill.

The hon. member is not allowed to discuss that now.

The Minister has already said that it is his intention to introduce that Bill. If the Prime Minister is going to allow Bills of the nature of the Durban Savings Bank Bill …

The hon. member cannot discuss that.

I just want to put that point. I hope when the Bill is introduced it will be a Bill which we shall all be proud of, and that it will be acceptable to all the soldiers, ex-soldiers and their dependants.

I want to ask the Minister, as Chairman of the Public Debt Commissioners, what they intend doing in regard to loans to small municipalities; are they going to grant loans to those smaller municipalities in future in the same way as they have done in the past? I just want to say that it seems these loans have been stopped, it seems the Public Debt Commissioners are only disposed to grant large loans, but to refuse loans to smaller municipalities. It is very unfair to those small municipalities. The answer usually is that they can be assisted by other financial institutions and by private money lenders, subject, of course, to the approval of the Executive Committee. We have had experience of interest fluctuating up and down from time to time, and the smaller municipalities feel that they should be given greater assistance by means of loans from the Public Debt Commissioners. They will then have the benefit of the reduced interest which is fixed from time to time by the Government. In times, when the rate of interest is high, municipalities sometimes have to take up loans and then they are tied down by a contract to pay the higher rates of interest, even though the general rate of interest may go down in the meantime. They cannot get the benefit then of the reduced interest rate while other municipalities which are assisted by the Public Debt Commissioners enjoy the benefit of reduced rates of interest. I therefore hope that the Government will take the position of these smaller municipalities into consideration, simply because they often need help. They do good work and it is therefore no more than right that they should also benefit from the reudced rates of interest. It is felt that the Central Government from time to time imposes additional burdens on the local bodies, and that those local bodies cannot afford those additional burdens unless they can obtain money at as low a rate of interest as possible. And there is another point I want to raise, namely, the pay of civil servants. I think it is undesirable at a time like the present suddenly to raise the salary of certain people over and above the ordinary annual increase to which an official is entitled. One position has been raised by £200 apart from the ordinary annual increase to which that particular official was entitled. What is the reason for it? I notice from these estimates that the position of provincial secretaries has been raised from £1,600 to £1,800.

I have nothing to do with that.

You have this to do with it, that the consent of the Treasury is required. The Provincial Councils have not got the right to increase the salary attached to such a position without the approval of the Treasury.

The hon. member is not in order; he should raise that point on the vote “Public Service Commission.”

I am raising it as a matter of policy in general, and I am only mentioning this example.

May I just reply to the points which have been raised? The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys) mentioned the regrading of posts. That is a matter which primarily rests with the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission under present circumstances is very conservative in regard to the regrading of posts. I am, of course, not conversant with the details in regard to individual posts. I can only deal with votes on my own estimates, and I therefore want to suggest that the general matter should be raised when the vote of the Minister of the Interior is under discussion. In regard to the Public Debt Commissioners, it is still the policy to assist small municipalities under the Local Loans Act. We have not departed from that but we are still granting loans in accordance with the policy laid down.

Quite a number were recently turned down.

I like to know what they are. Can the hon. member give me some further details; we have not changed our policy. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) raised a few important points, and although he is not present I shall say a few words about those matters he raised. He first of all spoke about the desirability of a scientific estimate of the country’s income as a whole. In connection with the work of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, which recently reported, we have provided for such an estimate to be made by a well known economist, namely, Professor Frankel, and that has been done with the aid of the Government, and it is contained in that Commission’s Report. After that we asked Professor Frankel to make further estimates for subsequent years, and the most recent results of his investigations were recently published in the South African Journal of Economics. In that way we are building up a system—and here I agree with the hon. member—which should be very valuable to us. He also spoke about the desirability of the Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts being discussed. I quite agree with what he said, but it is very difficult to fit it in. We cannot do it before the Committee produces its report, but in addition to that the report has first of all to be printed, otherwise it is no use discussing it. As hon. members know, the printing of the evidence before that Committee takes a long time, and as a rule it is only towards the end of the session that it is laid on the Table, and hon. members know how difficult it is then to find time. But if hon. members can suggest something I shall consider it.

†The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) supported by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has raised the question of the confiscation of bank notes sent overseas. I have every sympathy with the difficulties of individuals, such as he referred to, as the result of this policy, but I would point out that this is no new policy; it is a policy we have been following for some years now, and it is an essential part of our exchange control policy. It is true that the amounts that may leak out in this way are individually small, but many a mickle makes a muckle, and we must close that door, and particularly we must close the door as far as English bank notes are concerned. That is a matter to which the British authorities attach great importance, because of the enemy taint attaching to many English bank notes. If we do not exercise strict control there we might very definitely be assisting the enemy, and I am sure that is an argument that appeals to my hon. friend, the member for Illovo. We have done our very best to make the public aware of this; we have constantly put it in the papers; we have sent it out on the wireless; we have tried the policy of simply imposing a fine, and we have given people ample time to understand the position. Eventually we could not do anything else but carry out the terms of the regulation and confiscate. I am sorry I cannot make an exception just because my hon. friend, in an individual case, pleads that case so eloquently. If I did that I would have to do it in a very large number of other cases, and the whole policy would break down. I hope my hon. friend will accept that position; I am as sympathetic as he is with regard to this individual case, but I cannot possibly make an exception without throwing the whole policy overboard. That policy is an important feature of our war policy. A question has been raised with regard to the new War Pensions Bill. I am as anxious as the hon. members who raised it that that Bill should be introduced as soon as possible this session. It is, of course, not an amending Bill, but a new Bill, which is to be introduced, and that, of course, has added to the work involved very considerably. I can assure hon. members that my department has been burning the midnight oil over this, the law advisers have been busy with it, and we are doing our very best. I certainly do not want to be in the position of having to ask the House in the last day or two to swallow a Bill holus bolus. Unfortunately, the chief law adviser is at present incapacitated by illness, and that has added to our difficulties, but I would again assure hon. members that we are doing our very best to introduce this Bill as early as possible. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has raised one or two questions which are really public service questions. He suggested that we should pay overtime and take into account the additional responsibilities and the work cast on the staff of the Revenue Department. Sir, that department is carrying a very heavy burden, and I do appreciate the loyalty with which they are doing the work. But I am afraid there are a good many of our public servants who are carrying a very heavy burden, and we could not discriminate in favour of one department, even though it happens to be my own. In this question of overtime, we must be guided by the Public Service Commission, just as we are guided by them in regard to the regrading of posts. I am sorry I cannot accede to the eloquent appeal of the hon. member in regard to that matter.

I am sorry the Minister is unable to meet me in regard to the particular case of confiscation that I mentioned, but he made a reassuring statement with regard to the possibility of soldiers having their money confiscated.

Such a case has never yet occurred, but if it does I would consider it very carefully.

I am glad to hear that, but as regards the case I quoted, I feel it should not be allowed to rest where it is, and I shall certainly see that these people have the money restored to them. I think the case is such a hard one, that it must be adjusted, even if those who make good the loss do so at the expense of their future contributions to the Governor-General’s Fund.

I rise to call attention to a matter which I do not think has been raised before, and that is the matter of Civil Service pensions. There are many Civil Service pensioners who are drawing very small pensions today; they are small in peace time, but with the increased cost of living, due to war conditions, these pensioners are finding it very difficult to carry on. I am wondering whether the Minister would not consider granting some sort of relief by way of a small war bonus. I do not think something of this nature would be placing an undue burden upon the Treasury.

I should like to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to give the Committee some information in connection with old age pensions? I see by the Estimates the total amount for old age pensions has been increased for the coming year by £74,000. I would like to know to what extent that increase is due to an increase in the number of old age pensioners, and, further, I would like to know whether the Minister has considered the old age pension in relation to the increased cost of living?

I would like to ask the hon. Minister at this stage when the increase in the cost of living is so very high, to take into consideration all the pensioners, not only those people who receive old age pensions, but even blind people, invalids, and oudstryders; anyone who receives a small pension. We know, of course, that the Minister is giving a small increase in order to cover the rise in the cost of living, but it is not at all adequate. We are paying much more for everything today, and the allowance which is being granted, is quite inadequate. Those people who receive pensions are already living below the bread-line, and I believe that they ought to get at least £1 per month more, and I hope the Minister will take this matter into consideration.

I want to ask the hon. Minister a few questions in connection with the manner in which the award of war pensions takes place.

Do you mean oudstryders pensions?

Yes. I want to know whether the conditions on which pensions are granted to oudstryders, are the same as the conditions on which war pensions are granted. Are the regulations under which war pensions are granted also applicable to oudstryders? I want to say that if the position is that the regulations with reference to oudstryders’ pensions and old age pensions are applied in the same way, I feel that it is not altogether the right policy. I think the hon. Minister will admit that people who receive oudstryders’ pensions, receive those pensions for quite different reasons to the reasons in respect of war pensions granted to people. Oudstryders receive pensions because they rendered recognised services to the country in the past. The general assumption is however, that persons who receive old age pensions, receive such pensions because the State regards it as its duty to see to it that needy people are taken care of. While the war pension is therefore granted as compensation in respect of services, old age pensions are granted because the State regards it as its duty to provide for the needs of its aged people, when they suffer want. I feel that these principles ought to be applied here, and for that reason I say that people who apply for oudstryders’ pensions, should not necessarily be subject to the limitations applicable to old age pensioners.

That is the law.

That is why I asked the Minister at the beginning whether the same regulations were applicable to both. If it is laid down in the Act, I am afraid that I may not go into the matter. I want to bring one case to the notice of the Minister, however, which, in my opinion, was dealt with very unfairly. That is the case of a person who applied for an oudstryder’s pension. He wrote to the department, filled in all the forms, and despatched them. His application was considered, but it was returned together with the explanation that he was the owner of land, and could therefore not receive a pension. He was also informed that he was making sufficient on the land and that he was not entitled to the pension. But I want to point out that the person concerned is only a land settler. In the future the land may, of course, become his in the event of his complying with all the requirements of the Land Settlement Act. It may also be that his income is of such a nature that the department considers that it is not necessary to give him a pension. But I feel that this person is one who in the past has really sacrificed so much for bis people, that my contention is that he, and not only he, but all those who are placed in the same position, are entitled to the oudstryder’s pension, whether they are in straitened circumstances or not. The person concerned is a man who is 66 years of age. He was twice wounded during the Boer War. He has certificates from two different medical doctors which show that he is a sickly person. When his country called upon him he offered his all and sacrificed everything for his people. Today he has to apply for a pension to which, I think, he is entitled, and then he is told that he derives sufficient income from his land. Now the position is this; let us make this comparison. Assuming it is the case that such a person would only be entitled to an oudstryder’s pension if he has not sufficient private income, and this principle is generally applied with reference to war services, what will the Government’s position be? It would certainly mean that people who are to-day rendering war services would not be entitled to compensation for their services, because probably the greater majority of people who are in the Army today are not people who suffer want. They are compensated for their services. My contention is that people who are entitled to claim oudstryders’ pensions, are people who have served in the past. If people who render military services to the State today whether they are people in this House or outside are entitled to compensation, then these people are also entitled to compensation. The greater majority of those persons who apply for oudstryders’ pensions today are people to whom the promise was made that they would receive 5s. per day. Well. I admit that it is almost impossible to do that, because there are so many obstacles in the wav, but the Minister will admit that although these people have no legal right to this 5s., they have got a moral right to it. For that reason I want to ask the hon. Minister, in cases where application is made for an oudstryder’s pension, to be as sympathetic as possible and not to apply the regulations so strictly. I feel that these people are entitled to the consideration and the support of the State.

I should like to add my voice to the plea of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. C. C. E. Badenhorst) in the matter of old age and invalidity pensions. I want to remind the Minister that the cost of living has gone up considerably, and that these pensions and allowances were made on a cost of living prevalent some years ago.

They are getting cost of living allowances.

They are getting cost of living allowances, but those allowances do not keep pace with the rising cost of living. Each time we are given the figures of the cost of living, we find that the cost has increased and these allowances lag behind. But people who have a reasonable income can manage, because there is sufficient margin for meeting the increased cost, but with people with an income of £3 10s. per month an increase of 10 per cent. in the cost of living is a very serious matter. These unfortunate people cannot pay that extra 10 per cent. because their income is so low that it does not allow for it. My appeal to the Minister there is that he should, if possible, evolve a more elastic — prompter method for dealing with these people. This really is a matter of very great urgency when you consider how close to the subsistence line these people live. Note I don’t say poverty line, but a mere subsistence line. That is one point, but there is also another one that I want to raise. It deals with the invalidity grants. One of my constituents was in receipt of an invalidity grant because he is completely crippled. His wife is in receipt of an old age pension, and she used to look after him, but is no longer able to do so, and I want to know whether there is not some grant which will enable some person willing to look after these people, to be paid.

This is a matter of social welfare.

I wish the Minister would look into that matter, because in cases such as the one I quoted, there is real need for assistance. I understand that in some pensions or grants in some other vote there is provision for some such allowance as I have suggested.

I would like to discuss the question of the £83,000 in connection with pensions given to oudstryders and all those people who suffered before 1914; in other words, those people who took part in the different wars. I want to point out that the oudstryders are people who sacrified their lives for what they regarded as right towards their country and people. Last year the amount was £91,000 and it is now being decreased by an amount of £8,000.

That sum does not apply to oudstryders’ pensions. This represents the usual war pensions to people who were wounded. The amount is reduced because the number of people has decreased.

The amount for oudstryders is therefore £150,000. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that those people are experiencing the most difficult circumstances. Those people were impoverished during the war of 1899 to 1902. They were promised that they would receive an amount of 5s. per day. They have not the privilege, therefore, of people who are taking part in the war today. People who take part in the war today receive a salary. Those people did not receive any salary, and under the peace terms there was some hope of something being done for them, according to the proclamation promulgated at that time. But unfortunately there was no opportunity of helping those people. Now the hon. Minister may argue: Why did we not take steps at an earlier date in order to help these people? I want to tell the Minister that we could not do so because we had a compromise government. But today we have a Government which is so strong that it can wage war, and for that reason we hope that the Government will help those people who are living under conditions of poverty. When application is made for pensions, it is frequently said that the applicant is a person who owns a plot of ground or a house. Costs of living have risen and these people cannot satisfy their requirements today. I think it is a sad fact that a people like the Afrikaans people who are proud of their history, who are proud of their traditions and their past, should allow these old people practically to perish of starvation and misery in their own fatherland in their old age. We have money today for other purposes, but we have no money to see to it that our own people are properly clothed and fed at this time. For that reason I make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to take the position into review. I want to ask him to see whether the pensions which are granted to these people cannot be doubled. The pensions which they receive today represent a drop in a bucket, I am not entitled to move an increase, but I want to ask the hon. Minister to meet these people. I hope that he will have a soft spot in his heart for those people and that he will come to their assistance. I also want to express the hope that that will happen during this session when the Minister submits his Additional Estimates.

I just want to ask the hon. Minister whether a solution cannot be found in connection with old age pensions which are paid out. There is a continual fluctuation in the grant of an allowance. Assuming a person receives the maximum old age pension of £3 10s. per month. I am thinking now of an old widow, for example. She makes application for a special allowance under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. The moment that fund hears that she is receiving an old age pension, they give her a smaller allowance or they give her nothing at all. If she gets the maximum of £3 10s. and she then applies for an allowance under the Miners’ Phthisis Act and it is granted, then, as soon as the pensions office learns that she is now in receipt of an award from another fund, they reduce the amount again. The person concerned is therefore continually making application, first to the one office and then to the other office for an increase. There is continual fluctuation and there is never a permanent award. What is the result? I think that not a week passes without hundreds or perhaps thousands of applications being received from applicants who ask that the matter should be taken into review, because the pension office has decided to reduce the old age pension of the person concerned, because he is now in receipt of an award from the Miners’ Phthisis Fund, for example. The moment the Miners’ Phthisis Fund then hears that there is an award by the old age pensions office, they reduce their grant again. Can a permanent solution not be found to avoid this continual fluctuation? It is a serious matter in so far as these people are concerned. They never receive a stable income from both funds. One would have thought that where a person’s income is not more than £72, £76 or £78 per annum, he would in any case be entitled to a grant under the Old Age Pensions Act. But there is no co-operation between the pensions office and the office of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, for example. Cannot a solution be found with reference to these continual fluctuations, so that the pensions office can decide what the income of such a person should be? Then the pensions office can determine that the person concerned is entitled to, say, £3 per month under the Old Age Pensions Act, and to so much per month from other sources, miners’ phthisis compensation, etc. That would prevent the position from having to be reviewed continually. And we know what the position is in regard to these matters; it is the person who applies who is always the suffering party. He always has to wait for a fewmonths, and there are always arrears which he never receives. I feel that this matter should be remedied. I want to suggest that when a person applies, the Commissioner of Pensions should ascertain whether that person is entitled to a miners’ phthisis allowance or to some other allowance, and they should then determine what allowance will be made to him, and to what he will be entitled from other sources; let them determine conditionally that he will get, say, £3 or £2 per month as an old age pension, on condition that he will still be entitled to a miners’ phthisis allowance of, say, so many pounds, to give an example. In that way we can prevent these fluctuations. I want to tell the Minister that there is not only dissatisfaction, but injustices are also committed, and the only way to avoid that is for both offices to co-operate. I have in mind a case where three years ago a certain sum of money was awarded to a widow. It was something over £300. The Miners’ Phthisis Board decided to give her a monthly allowance of £3 10s. a month instead of the whole sum. Later she applied for an old age pension, and at first she could not get it. Later on she did get the old age pension, and the moment that happened the Miners’ Phthisis Board said that since she was now getting an old age pension the allowance from the Miners’ Phthisis Board must be reduced. It was her own money that she received and not an ex gratia payment, with the result that this person was deprived of a portion of her pension. In this way people are prevented from getting a pension. I hope that the Minister will find a solution to this problem. It will not only remove injustice and dissatisfaction, but it will also save a tremendous amount of administrative work in the future.

In connection with old age pensions. I want to submit a few suggestions to the Minister, and I would like to have his attention. Those people who receive old age pensions are grateful for them, but if we associate with them we will find that those people are experiencing great difficulties. The greater majority of them cannot buy the necessary food and other articles which they require, especially in the platteland, where those people usually receive only £2 10s. or £3 per month, and some of them even less. I thought about the matter, and I felt that one of the difficulties was in connection with the determination of the earning capacity of people. When a person makes application for an old age pension, then the capacity of the applicant to earn something is assessed by the local committee. We can understand that that can only be an estimate. The majority of these people are people who were labourers, and today they cannot do anything else. The majority of them have a small garden which they cultivate, and when they are 65 years old their earning capacity can no longer be so great. I want the Minister to fix this question of the assessment of earning capacity on a different basis. In the past this assessment was made on the basis of what these people were able to earn. There may be a man with one arm. If he is in a town, he might possibly operate an elevator, but what work is there for such a man in the country? If he has a little garden, he can perhaps cultivate it.

Are you not talking about invalidity pensions now?

No, I am talking about old age pensions. An estimate is made of the person’s earning capacity.

In the case of invalidity pensions, but not in the case of old age pensions.

When was any change brought about? That has always been the case. When an applicant makes application for an old age pension, an estimate is made of his earning capacity. The position is that the sum fixed is £76. From that is then deducted the person’s earning capacity, and then 10 per cent. in respect of his possessions, and whatever remains he gets in the form of a pension. That is the position. I served on the local Pensions Committee myself. All these things are taken into consideration, and I am of opinion that the estimate of earning capacity should not be on the basis of what the person concerned can earn, but on the basis of what he actually earns. If the Minister cannot do that, then he must make some plan to increase the pension of these people, because they cannot live decently on what they receive. Then there is also another way in which we can be of assistance to these people. They have to have meal, meat and bread, for example. Is it not possible for the magistrate in every district to invite tenders in respect of these requirements, so that they can be bought more cheaply on a large scale, and thereafter supplied to these people on a cheaper basis? These old people require perhaps half a bottle of milk per day, with the result that they have to pay more than they would have to pay if large quantities could be bought. Take a commodity such as rice. If it could be bought in large quantities, we could get it more cheaply. That applies to all the other things which I have mentioned. Even if all these things were bought wholesale from the dealers, they could still be obtained more cheaply, and in that way these old people could be enabled to make a better living on the money which they receive. I can give the, Minister the assurance that these people are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. One finds that a few of them have to live on £4 or even £5. They are grateful for what they get, because if they did not get that they would be dependent on the church, or on charity. I feel that we should take better care of our old people who have reached that age. Normally, when they reach that age, they are sickly and weak, and no longer in a position to control their affairs. If they have no child to take care of them, then they have to live in one room; there they have to cook for themselves, and see to it that their small requirements are paid for. They are weak and they find it difficult to make ends meet on the small sum which is paid to them. For that reason I suggest that the Minister should either increase the pension, or make the pension of greater value to them by enabling them to get hold of their requirements more cheaply, as I have suggested here. We must remember that these people are poor, and that they are struggling. They are weak, and they have no money with which to pay doctors’ bills. They can only buy the most essential articles with this meagre sum which is given to them. Then it seems to me that there is still too great a differentiation to the prejudice of the platteland. There these people get £1, £1 10s. and £2 10s., and very few of them get £3, while the old age pension in the towns goes up to £3 10s. I again want to know from the Minister why that is done, because the cost of living in the dorps and in the platteland is just as high as in the cities. The only item which may be more expensive in the towns is house rent. If a very humble house is hired, as these people are compelled to do, then there is no difference. I have already made representations to the Minister of Finance in this connection, but his heart remains hard when it comes to meeting the platteland. But frequently people come to me who I know are entitled to the full old age pension, and who do not get it. One feels sorry when one has to deal with these people. If it is not possible for the Minister to increase the amount of the pension, then he must in some way or other give these people relief.

I want to raise one or two points in connection with invalidity allowances provided for under this vote.

That comes under Social Welfare.

Yes, I see.

This only applies to public servants.

Very well; I shall raise it on the Social Welfare Vote, but what is provided for under this vote is old age pensions. Now, those pensions are paid, I am aware, in terms of a Statute, and that Statute only makes provision for European and coloured pensions, but I want to place this before the Minister. The time has at least arrived to make extra statutory provision for the payment of old age pensions to natives. The argument against their inclusion in the past has been that it is a traditional native custom for the old people to be supported by the family or by the tribe. The point I want to emphasise is that under the changed conditions of native life in this country that argument no longer applies, and I want to appeal to the Minister to take into consideration, at all events for the future, so long as there is no statutory provision for the aged natives, to make a non-statutory provision under this vote. The argument about native tribal life has ceased long ago to be true in the native reserves. The conditions of poverty that prevail there make it impossible for the native family to support any one outside the immediate family—they can hardly make a living for themselves and their wives and children, let alone support anyone else, and, moreover, more than half the native population is outside the reserves, in the towns, or on the farms. I do not think I need argue with this Minister the point that in the towns the life of aged natives is such to render it just as necessary that he or she should receive an old age pension as it is for the person of any other race, and with regard to the farms, there the position is even more difficult. I know that there are many individual farmers, who, when a man or woman has served the family all his life, provides some kind of maintenance for the servant when he or she reaches old age, but I think it will be agreed that that is the exception rather than the rule; and the problem of the old people who have worked all their lives on the farms is becoming increasingly acute. In most cases they have to leave the farm and have to go into the village.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

Old age pensions.

Which item? Old age pensions only refer to white and coloured.

Yes; statutory pensions refer to white and coloured; I was making an appeal to the Minister under this vote to provide for an extra statutory allowance.

That would require legislation.

I was not asking for legislation.

I only administer the law under this vote. You might have raised it on Native Affairs, but you cannot raise it here. You might even have raised it on my salary.

I want provision made on this vote.

There is no item dealing with the subject here.

Then I shall not pursue the matter, as, in any event, I have put the case to the Minister already.

Anyhow we have heard what you have to say, and we shall consider it.

I want to associate myself with hon. members who have pleaded with the Minister to take into consideration the fact that costs of living have increased considerably, and that for that reason it is very difficult, especially for the recipients of old age pensions and oudstryders’ pensions, properly to keep body and soul together in the present circumstances. I think the Minister ought to take this matter into consideration, and realise that this meagre sum which is given to these people in the present circumstances, is inadequate. We readily admit that this sum which is given to these people has improved the lot of these old and aged persons, compared with what it would have been otherwise, but that sum is altogether inadequate for the purpose for which it was given to them. I especially want to put a question to the Minister of Finance, however. I understand that recently he received a deputation in connection with oudstryders’ pensions, and I would like to know from the Minister whether he promised that deputation that a more adequate oudstryder’s pension would be paid than has hitherto been the case. I read in the newspaper recently that the Minister submitted an alternative proposal to the deputation, namely, that either the pension would be increased to £5 a month, or otherwise a globular sum would be paid to the oudstryders.

That is apparently a misunderstanding.

For that reason I would like to have clarity, because I received letters from oudstryders who requested me to support one or other of the two alternatives, and I shall be glad if the Minister will make a statement, so that the position can be cleared up, not only with regard to this misunderstanding, but also with regard to the policy of the Government in the near future with reference to greater and better concessions to these pensioners.

The country has been promised a new war Pensions Bill, and the country, of course, is grateful. War pensions have been the source of considerable anxiety. But it is not only the Act itself which has been responsible for this feeling of anxiety and disquiet, it is also the Administration of our Pensions Law. I am not for a moment casting any reflection on the departmental officers. In point of fact they have shown their wide sympathy for pensioners, but it seems to be a tradition of the department to engage in a spirit of bargaining with would-be pensioners. I think that that becomes very obvious from the way in which gratuities are offered to those who have unsuccessfully applied for pensions. We have the case of a man who, believing he has a right to a pension, has pursued the course open to him and is notified in due course that the Board has turned down his request. He still believes that he has a claim; he is notified at the same time that if he is prepared to abandon the further course open to him which is to test that decision on appeal— if he is prepared to forego his claim, the department will entertain an application from him for an ex gratia payment. The man is put in this inviduous position; he is on the horns of a dilemma, he has no idea whether he will get an ex gratia payment and even if he does he has no idea as to what it is worth. He has to decide whether to abandon the claim which he believes is a legitimate claim for a pension or not. He has to decide whether he should forego that and put himself in the hands of the department with the possibility of getting an ex gratia payment, and being entirely in the dark as to what he is likely to get. The facts upon which the department would come to a decision as to whether he would get that ex gratia payment and what it would be—all those facts are at that time in the possession of the department, and the department in point of fact knows then, I submit, whether the petitioner would be entitled to an ex gratia payment, and what he would get. I ask whether it is in the right spirit to place the petitioner in this delimma, whether it is right to bargain with him, and if he makes a wrong decision to have scored as it were, off him. I cannot see what objection there is, and I think it would be more in conformity with equity, if when the petitioner is notified that he is not entitled to a pension, because of the decision of the Board, he were notified at the same time that he has the right of appeal, but that if he is prepared to abandon his right of appeal he will get paid to him by way of ex gratia payment a nominated sum. He is then in a position to determine for himself with all the facts before him whether he will accept the ex gratia payment in consideration of abandoning his claim to a pension. I mention this case specifically, but it by no means exhausts the instances in which the department is actuated—I say this reluctantly—by a spirit of bargaining. I say again that this is not intended to be a reflection on the officers of the department who in the first place administer the law, as they find it, but secondly, seem to have handed over to them this unfortunate tradition.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said just now that the oudstryders had sent a deputation to the Minister of Finance, and that there are rumours that the Minister promised that a globular sum of £50 would be paid to the oudstryders or a pension of £5 per month. Well, the Minister never made such a promise, because I was with the deputation. I received a letter this morning from the chairman of the Society of Oudstryders, telling me that there had been a mistake, and that the position is that the oudstryders intend submitting a scheme to the Minister, since the Minister promised them that if the oudstryders could put their house in order and organise properly, elect a chairman and secretary, he will again meet them. They want to submit a plan to him, but no promise was made by the Minister, as was stated in the newspapers, and I hope that the newspapers will rectify the position, so that the oudstryders will not remain under that impression. But in any event we feel convinced that the Minister will not disappoint the oudstryders, but that he will certainly investigate their case in order to see whether their pensions cannot be increased. When the Minister replied to the debate on my motion in this House, he said that he did not want to put his head in a noose by promising to pay a globular sum, since he did not know how many oudstryders there were who actually fought. The Commissioner of Pensions said that in the Archives 75 per cent. of the names of the oudstryders appeared which can be traced, and I feel convinced that we should at least give this 75 per cent. of the oudstryders what they are entitled to. With regard to the other 25 per cent., we will quite possibly get other people to sign their documents, and to furnish proof that they were, in fact, oudstryders. Why then did the oudstryders who made application, get a pension of £3 10s. per month? The Archives simply showed that they were oudstryders. I feel convinced that the oudstryders will overcome this difficulty, and that 99 per cent. of them will be able to furnish the necessary evidence that they were oudstryders, if the Minister wants to increase their pensions, or if he is prepared to pay out a globular sum to them.

I would refer the Minister to the estimates of State liability for “Old Age” “Blind Persons” and “War Veterans” pensions. I refer to the summary at the bottom of page 39, where I have totalled the amounts to £3,033,000. I would ask the Minister in the next few months to let his mind travel on the road toward increasing this amount by between 1¼ and 1½ million pounds. What I have in mind is that the present maximum of these pensions is £42 per annum, and the income when computing these pensions is £72. I would ask the Minister to regard £60 and £100 as something to be aimed at. I am sure the country would not grudge the extra amount—there are large amounts of State Funds being spent in other directions which might possibly be diverted in this direction.

An amount of £2,811,000 has been allocated to old age pensions. On the face of it, this seems to be a tremendous amount, and it represents an increase of £74,000 in comparison with last year, but when we bear in mind that this sum has to be divided amongst thousands of people, then the amount is comparatively small. These people cannot live on it, especially at this time when costs of living have risen surprisingly, and when rents are so high. One simply cannot live on it. Take two people in the platteland, not even to mention towns. They each receive £2 10s. or £5 between the two of them. That means £60 per year for two old people. Unfortunately the position has changed. These old people no longer receive charity, because people think, rightly or wrongly, that they are getting old age pensions, and they are no longer getting presents; they are no longer supported, as was formerly the case. Now they will perhaps have to pay a rental of £12, and that leaves them £42. These old people cannot possibly live on that, and I think the time has arrived for the Minister to consider the question of giving them more. I know of quite a number of cases in my neighbourhood where these people are experiencing great difficulties. They cannot make ends meet on this small pension. Their children, in the majority of cases, are poor and they have no families which can support them. Perhaps they cannot live with the farmers free of charge either, as was often the case formerly. It is a meagre sum, and I hope that the Minister will find the necessary money to give a bigger amount to these people. Money may be scarce, but it does not seem to be the case when we look at the sum spent on the war. Surely our own people should come first.

I wish to support those hon. members who have pleaded for an increase in the pay of these old people. In those far away parts of the country, those huge tracts of land, one finds that the cost of living has gone up to such an extent that the people getting those allowances cannot come out on them. I hope therefore that the Minister still has sympathy for those people and that he will realise that in the special conditions prevailing today something has to be done for them. I also want to express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to the system on which pensions are granted to people today. I don’t know who is responsible for it but in the first place I want to point out that there is often considerable delay in the granting of pensions. I know of one case where there was six months delay. The Minister will realise that it must hit those people very badly. These are special cases and I hope the Minister will give them his attention. I also want to draw the Minister’s attention particularly to the system in regard to the allocation of pensions to coloured people. I feel that in many cases they do not get the value of their pensions. One finds that the children often abuse the pensions which the old people get. I don’t want to repeat in detail what I have said on a previous occasion, but one finds that on the day when the old people draw their pensions at the Post Office, they are accompanied by a whole crowd of children, and on that day they have their jollification and they spend the money which the old people have received, in drink. The Minister will admit that it never was the intention that the pensions should be used in that way. I feel that it would be much better if those moneygrants were turned into food — if instead of these people being given money they were supplied with food and clothes, and perhaps a small amount in cash. I feel that it is undesirable to pay these old coloured people out in cash. They do not have proper control over their money; their intelligence is such that they are unable to look after their own interests. I know of instances where the coloured people have given powers of attorney to certain individuals to draw their money, and I am quite convinced that they do not always get the full value of the amount they have been granted. It may perhaps be said that my suggestion would increase the cost of administration, but I do not think it will cost very much extra. In the past we used to have the system of poor relief, and in those days the work in the smaller towns was usually done by the prison guards—they used to distribute food to the coloured people, and that system used to answer very well in the past. I feel that it could be introduced again so that these coloured people might derive greater benefit from their pensions. I don’t want to do an injustice to the coloured people; on the contrary, I want to protect them, and in times like the present particularly it is desirable that we should make such a change. At the moment there is a lot of drunkenness on the days when these old coloured people are paid their pensions, and one finds such conditions prevailing in front of the Post Offices that one is hardly able to get past them. They dance in the streets, and the present system is certainly not beneficial to the coloured people themselves. Especially in view of the increased cost of living one should see to it that the coloured people get the best value for their money and it is in their interest that the Government should buy food by tender and then supply it to the coloured people. In regard to clothingsome arrangement can also be made. The public in the country would like this to be done, and if such a step is taken the coloured people will receive the greatest possible amount of benefit from the money which the Government grants them in the form of pensions.

The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) has raised the question of Civil Service pensioners. I have already dealt with this in the House both by way of an answer to a question and in debate. I have pointed out that in the case of civil service pensioners you are dealing with people who receive payment in terms of a contract. We cannot vary the terms of payment to them in terms of that because of the increase in the value of money when it is to our advantage, and I cannot see that they have any right to expect us to vary the terms of the contract to their advantage, because of a decrease in the value of money.

I don’t say it is a right.

If my hon. friend is interested I would like to show him how the matter has been dealt with in Great Britain, where exactly the same point was raised and exactly the same answer was given. I shall be glad to show him that. I don’t see how we can justify discrimination in favour of a particular class of people with fixed incomes. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) who is not here, has asked whether there is an increase in the number of old age pensioners. Yes, sir, the total as at September 30th was 91,544. The corresponding figure last year was 89,349. In addition, provision is made for new pensions. He asked whether we are paying a cost of living allowance. Yes, we are, to old age pensioners, blind pensioners, and invalidity grant recipients. We have done that since last year, when provision was made in the budget, and the payments are made on the same basis as to public servants. In other words, as the cost of living goes up so does this cost of living allowance to pensioners. The hon. member for Jeppe (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) has asked that we should introduce a more prompt and elastic system. I wish we could do so, but, after all, you must first of all have your figures before you can base payments on them. That being so, I don’t see how we can get over that difficulty. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Goldberg), who is also not here, has talked about the spirit of bargaining amongst officials in the Pensions Department, indicating that they try to get an advantage over the people who apply for pensions and then he added that he made no reflections on those officials. He said they had the fullest sympathy with pensioners. Well, I don’t quite see how I can reconcile those two statements. He made a specific statement in regard to a certain circular dealing with the offer of gratuities. Well, I think my hon. friend will find that the figures given in that regard as the result of misinterpretation are likely to fall away when the new Act comes into force. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), if I understood him correctly, wants a very big increase in the rates of pensions. Well, sir, no doubt many of us would like to see that, but I am administering a law and I can only act in terms of the law, and I doubt very much whether in present circumstances, we can contemplate any such globular increase as my hon. friend advocates.

†*Several hon. members have raised the question of cost of living allowances. I want to say again that the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners, and people in receipt of invalidity allowances all receive a cost of living allowance on the same basis as the public servants. We therefore do take into account the increase in the cost of living, and the allowances go up as the cost of living goes up. Several hon. members have raised an important point in connection with the oudstryders, but we have already dealt with this matter very fully before, and I only want to refer very briefly to what I said on that occasion. I again want to point out that the trouble in regard to a payment of 5s. per day is that it is quite impossible now to determine how long people served in previous wars. The records may state that a particular individual served, but if we have to pay on a daily basis we have to know how many days an individual actually did serve. It is extremely difficult to determine, and in many cases it is quite impossible. As a result of the investigation by the commission which was appointed, pensions are, however, granted to those people. They get oudstryders’ pensions in accordance with the recommendations of the commission— they amount to anticipated old age pensions on the same basis as that on which old age pensions are granted. I am not prepared at this early stage to depart from that system which we introduced only recently. At the moment I am tied down by the Act under which we are working. Let us first of all see how that Act answers. I am not prepared to make a promise at this stage that I am going to amend it. There has been reference to a deputation of oudstryders which recently called on me, and it has been said that I made a promise to those people. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) has already replied to that. Apparently there was a misunderstanding. I made no promise. I only want to say that those people I met at that time could not really speak on behalf of the Bond of Oudstryders. There were certain difficulties in that body at the time, and I suggested that they should settle their differences. It appears from newspaper reports that the Bond of Oudstryders has again been constituted, and I have been asked whether I am prepared to meet a delegation from that body. I have already stated that I am willing to do so, and when I meet them we shall be able to discuss the matter further. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) spoke about fluctuations in the grants of old age pensions. As the law stands today, the income of pensioners has to be taken into account. We cannot get past that. It may perhaps be desirable to bring about closer co-operation between the Finance Department and the Miners’ Phthisis Board. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) discussed the basis of the granting of old age pensions. In regard to invalidity allowances, the first factor taken into account is the earning capacity of the individual, but so far as old age pensions are concerned, the first factor is the actual income, the actual amount earned by the individual. An interesting suggestion has been made in regard to a change in our system, namely, that we should rather assist the pensioners, and particularly the coloured people, by calling for tenders for bread, flour, etc. I don’t know how my department can carry that out, but perhaps the Department of Social Welfare may be able to give its attention to that. The hon. member for Prieska also raised that point, and he particularly referred to coloured people who abuse their pension. Under the law I can give instructions in individual cases where such abuses occur that an Individual is to receive his pension in some other way.

Will you give instructions to the magistrate?

They all know about it. I am continually havingcases of that kind brought to my notice, and if there are abuses instructions can be given for the pension to be paid out to a responsible person who can then let those people have what they are supposed to get in one form or another.

The magistrates don’t know anything about it.

Then we can bring it to their notice again.

I notice an increase in the amount for war allowances —there is an increase of £80,000. Is this for pensions or for allowances which are already being paid to people who have already been wounded in this war, or is that money which is paid to relatives of people who have been killed?

Yes, we estimate that the amount which we shall require this year will be £80,000 more.

And the amount of pensions to war veterans, is that intended for oudstryders?

Yes.

Last year the estimate was £150,000, and now it is only £75,000.

No, it was £75,000 last year, and the estimate is £150,000 for the next year.

I also want to draw the Minister’s attention to the question of old age pensions. At the beginning of the session notice was given of a motion which was subsequently withdrawn. The motion was—

We withdrew that motion, and the Minister has now replied to the representations which have been made here, but his answer is not satisfactory. I do not think it is necessary to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that it is impossible for people getting £8 per month by way of pension to come out on that in times like the present. Will not the Minister during this present session make provision on the Estimates for a larger allowance to people getting less than £8 per month in pensions? The maximum old age pension is £3 per individual, and the Minister knows that those who are in receipt of these old age pensions are often among the poorest of the poor. They cannot live on that pension in the way we would like to see our old people live. The people who have reached such an old age should not be in want, should not be suffering as a result of want, in this country of ours. Where people are in need the Government should step in and see to it that they are looked after in their old age, and are not in need. I don’t think it is necessary for me to say much about this matter. I only want to ask the Minister during the present session to do something for those people. There is another matter, too, which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. In the ordinary course of events we are to have an election again next year, and I can assure the Minister that the Committees which have to deal with old age pensions and which have to enquire into the question of the granting of old age pensions, often play an important part in elections. Cannot the Minister keep politics out as much as possible?

I do so.

I don’t want to blame the Minister, but let me just tell him what is actually happening in practice, and I want to ask him whether he cannot devise some other system. There are irresponsible people — and sometimes even fairly responsible people —who go about and say to the poor: “If you support the Government’s candidate we shall see whether we cannot get a little bigger old age pension for you.” This is being abused to a very large extent. I don’t blame the Minister, but I hope he will take my word for it that that sort of thing is going on.

So far as that point is concerned I have already stated that I strongly disapprove of any attempt that may be made to influence people in that way in regard to the recording of their vote, and I have clearly stated that the way people vote has nothing to do with their old age pensions. I say it again, and I am prepared to say it at any time. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that.

I want to thank the Minister for having given us that assurance again, and I hope we are allowed to use it outside and to say that he, as the responsible Minister, has stated that the old age pension does not depend on how people record their votes, but that the pensions are granted on the merits of the different cases.

Yes.

I don’t live in an area where there are many oudstryders but still I have come across a specific case and I should like to know something from the Minister. I understand from the individual concerned that he had to produce his baptismal certificate, but his baptismal certificate was destroyed in one of the many churches which were burnt down during the war. Now he cannot get his oudstryder’s pension. I hope the Minister will give his attention to that and will come to the assistance of those people. That difficulty should be removed. If my information is correct, I am also told that a man applying for such a pension is required to bring two people with him who were on Commando with him as witnesses. Is it not possible to make things a bit easier for these people? Cannot it be laid down that the witnesses need not necessarily be people who were on Commando with the man? In this particular instance the man concerned left the Transvaal many years ago and he does not even know today who was on Commando with him and whether any of them are still alive.

I shall go into it.

We should not make it impossible for those people to get their pensions.

A feeling of dissatisfaction is gradually coming into being in the platteland in regard to old age pensioners. People on the platteland frequently live in poor circumstances and although they receive an old age pension today, they feel that there is discrimination against them in comparison with people who receive old age pensions in the towns. I know of one case especially where two old persons, man and wife, who were formerly at Bloemfontein each received £3 10s. per month there. They had a house at Zastron which they let at £1 10s. per month. In Bloemfontein they rented a room at £1 per month, but they received their full pension of £7, £3 10s. each. Then they shifted back to Zastron again and lived in their own little house. They lost the £1 10s. per month which, of course, they no longer got as rental for the house.

When the House adjourned this afternoon I was pointing out how there was discrimination between platteland pensioners and urban pensioners. I did not want to go any further into this, but I hope that in this respect the hon. Minister will bring about a change. There is something else, too, which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is this. If ever anything has been instituted with a view to alleviating suffering, then it is old age pensions. The conditions under which these pensions are granted in the platteland cause great hardship. I know of people who were rehabilitated under the Farmers’ Relief Act. At the moment those people have no income at all, and nevertheless, because they live on a farm and possess a number of cattle which belongs to the State, they are not entitled to a pension. I know of a person who owned cattle, all of which belonged to the State. For a period of two years he experienced the greatest difficulties, and we made every effort to get an old age pension for him, but without success. Eventually he had to return the cattle to the State and he then shifted to town. We then again applied on his behalf, and I understand that he now receives an old age pension of £3. Now I want to ask the Minister whether steps cannot be taken so that it will not be necessary for such a person to hand back his cattle to the State. Because he could not be helped at that stage, he had to return all his cattle to the State and come to town, and now he will be a pensioner for the rest of his life. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it is not possible in such cases to grant a pension; if the circumstances of the person concerned then improve, the pension can be withdrawn later on. Is it not possible to grant this type of person a pension on the understanding that he has to submit an annual return in which he sets out his possessions; and if it then appears that it is no longer necessary to give him a pension, the pension can be withdrawn. There are aged people in the platteland who own a small plot of land which practically belongs to the State; their cattle belongs to the State; they have nothing to live on. I know of people who go to town and buy coffee for threepence and one or two candles to last for a whole week. They live in a state of the greatest poverty, but nevertheless they cannot get a pension for the sole reason that they own a small number of cattle which belongs to the Government. I know of a person, an oudstryder, who applied for an oudstryder’s pension, but simply because he had cattle which belonged to the State, the pension was not granted to him. I feel that it is unreasonable to treat the pensioners in the country in this manner. We are forcing all these people who in the future might still have been an asset to the State, to go to the towns and the slums of the cities, simply because they feel that they have a better chance of getting a pension in the cities. I know that it will perhaps be difficult to bring about this change, but since so much depends upon it I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way clear to alter the grant of the pension in such a way so that that type of person who cannot make a living and who really has no prospects and who suffers the greatest poverty, can also get a pension.

I only have one word to say with regard to Section H, paragraph 2, old age pensions provided for coloured people. There is a highly respectable amount here of £344,000, but that is divided among no less than 25,691 pensioners, and it works out at between 22s. and 23s. per month. I am not complaining at this time that there is discrimination, though I dislike that aspect of the matter. I know the conditions of the Act, and I am not so much complaining here about the amount, but I want to ask the Minister since the Act allows 35s. why we should stick at this low margin of less than two-thirds of what the Act allows. That is the first point. And the second one has regard to the additional allowance for extra cost of living. I understand that an allowance is made to European pensioners. I hope my information is correct.

Yes, the coloureds too.

That is the question I was asking—whether the allowance is the same for Europeans and coloureds. I hope very much the Minister will be able to assure me that this is so.

There are a few matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister. I want to ask this evening that, in the case of oudstryders’ pensions, the Minister should see to it that the Commissioner of Pensions does rot adhere so strictly to the limitations laid down in the regulations.

It is laid down by the Act.

Then I want to ask that a change be brought about.

The hon. member cannot advocate an alteration of the Act now.

I do not want to advocate an amendment of the Act, but I just want to ask the Minister that this be taken into consideration. There is the case of a person in regard to whom I wrote to the Minister; it is Mr. J. M. van der Merwe. Unfortunately he is one of those men who offered his all for his people. He offered and sacrificed everything for his people. This person has not yet reached the specified age limit. The doctors state that be is unfit, but now the Commissioner of Pensions wants to know whether he is totally unfit, even for light work. I then wrote to him and told him: “Unless you can convince your medical doctor in your district that you are medically unfit, even for light duties, there is no hope for you as far as this Government is concerned.” This is a man who went through thick and thin for his people. He received no compensation for his services. A promise was made by the Republican Government that certain people would be granted compensation. We on this side have repeatedly advocated that those promises should be fulfilled, but every time it was in vain. This evening I want to plead with the Minister of Finance to consider the matter with a view to seeing whether in these special cases something cannot be done. It may happen that such a person is not a favourite of the district surgeon concerned, and if the district surgeon reports that the person concerned, who has been in the hospital for months, is not medically unfit, he has no hope of getting a pension. He has a wife and children, but he is not assisted. In pleading here this evening, I do so specifically on behalf of the constituency which I represent. That district was sorely stricken last year, and also this year, not only by drought but thereafter the commando worms came along and devoured everything. Those people are suffering the greatest hardship and I now ask the Minister to do something so as to alleviate their burden. The other matter which I also wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister is in connection with an oudstryder who made application under the regulations. It is an old man aged 65. The Minister may think, judging by the data submitted by that person, that he possesses something. But I can assure the hon. Minister that he ownes very little. He ceded everything in favour of his children, and he cannot keep body and soul together. I do not want to mention his name in this House; the Minister knows to whom I am referring. I want to ask him please to do something so as to come to that person’s assistance.

I asked the Minister of Finance this afternoon to take into review the case of Civil Service pensioners receiving small pensions. The Minister said it was a matter of contract as between employer and employee. I do not for one moment deny that. I recognise the contract, but the principle of increased costs of living has been recognised by the Government. Old age pensioners are getting increases because of the additional costs of living—an additional amount is paid by way of extra cost of living allowance. I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am not making a plea for the Civil Service pensioner who is in receipt of additional pay—additional to his pension, but there are numerous Civil Service pensioners receiving small pensions, and, owing to the high costs of living caused by the war, they are finding it very difficult to come out. Civil Servants are receiving additional allowances in the shape of war bonuses. The reason is because there is an increased cost of living. Those people who went on pension did not contract for conditions when there would be an increased cost of living. It is recognised that the cost of living has increased and war bonuses are paid out on that account, and I think there is a clear case for relief in the case of civil service pensioners who are in receipt of small pensions. I hope the Minister in his reply will tell the House that in respect of cases where pensioners are receiving small pensions and have no other means of income their cases will be taken into review.

I should just like to bring a matter to the notice of the hon. Minister again, which has already been raised this afternoon. I think the Minister ought to give his attention to this matter. After the Act was passed the oudstryders, whether rightly or wrongly, expected that they would now get a bigger pension. Now, I would like to know whether the Minister cannot notify the chairmen of those local committees that these people will be applying in vain. There are three reasons why I want to ask the hon. Minister to do that. In the first place, it causes a tremendous amount of work to put such an application through. It often takes from six to nine months to get hold of such a pension, and then the person concerned discovers that he is getting the same pension as formerly. In the second place, certain expenses are involved. In the first instance, there is the 1s. stamp which has to be put on the application form. Then, in the third place, these people often have to travel 40, 50 or 70 miles to get to the nearest town in order to make the application, under the great expectation that they will receive something extra. The applicant can be spared all this inconvenience and expense if the Minister would send a circular to the chairmen of the committees, so that these people can know where they stand. I also want to make use of this opportunity to ask the Minister to consider the question of giving these people something extra. If we compare the oudstryders with people who took part in other wars, then we find that, comparatively, they are treated very poorly. Then there is also this matter which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. We cannot understand why this unreasonableness is displayed towards the platteland pensioner. We ask the hon. Minister in this House whether he will not see to it that the dependants of coloured soldiers on farms should get a smaller pension, because this pension which is being paid to them serves as a bait to keep them away from work. The reply of the hon. Minister was that he could not make a class law, and give people in the country a lesser sum than people in the towns. Well, if that is the case, why, then, should there be discrimination between the pension drawn by the townsman and the pension drawn by the plattelander? One must not overlook the fact that in the towns there are boarding houses and other institutions, where a pensioner can get boarding for the £3 10s. which is paid to him. A person who receives a pension of £3 10s. can go to such a place, and he can make a good living. He can still get boarding for that sum; but in the platteland there are no such places. The plattelander has to pay house rent, and in the circumstances I feel that the Minister should not differentiate between the plattelander and the townsman. If we take into consideration the fact that these people are further removed from the places where they have to buy their necessities, and the fact that those articles are much dearer in the towns, then I do not know how the Minister can have the heart to give those people only £2 10s. In the majority of cases, they only receive £2 10s. I shall be very glad if the Minister will still indicate this evening that in future there will be no differentiation between the plattelander and the townsman, in so far as the pension is concerned. There is no differentiation in regard to the allowances paid to coloured people in the towns and coloured people in the platteland, and for that reason we ask that in the case of these old age pensions, there should not be discrimination either.

I am quite certain that anyone who is aged and indigent, whether he be an oudstryder or any other member of the community, would get the full support of these Benches if he is proposed for special consideration by way of pension, and it is for that reason that I want to ask the Minister what is the policy of the Government in relation to the application of old age pensions to all sections of the community.

Which sections?

There is a very large section of the community which receives no old age pension whatever, and I am hoping to get an expression of opinion from the Minister as to the policy of the Government in regard to these people. I need not mention them by name because that section is so well known that everyone knows who I am referring to. Times have changed very much. That particular section of the population is spread all over the country—some are in the reserves, some are in the towns, and many are on the farms.

Is the hon. member discussing pensions for natives?

I am discussing pensions for all members of the community and I am asking for a statement of policy as to the future intentions of the Government in that regard. I want to know why steps to do something for that particular section have been delayed. May I continue, Mr. Chairman?

Order!

I want to point out that conditions have changed. Formerly in the rural areas these people had a sort of communal arrangement whereby they could be supported by their own people, but economic conditions have changed and make that course difficult. Times have changed, too, in the farming areas. Once upon a time in the farming areas these servants used to live for generation after generation on the farms and when they became old and unfit for further service they continued to live there as old retainers—a sort of pension, but that system has also broken down. Large numbers of these people have drifted into the towns and there they cannot get any benefit whatsoever. I want an expression from the Minister whether these changed circumstances have been fully realised and whether in the near future we may expect a change of policy from the Government in relation to the application of old age pensions not only to Europeans and coloured people, but to all sections of the community.

Well, you got it out.

I feel that in this respect there is something wrong with the pension. The position is that as soon as a person reaches the age of 65 he is entitled to a pension; but the moment the person concerned takes employment and earns something himself, then the amount which he earns is deducted from his pension. Do you not think that we are teaching those old people to do practically nothing in their old age? The moment one does no work in one’s older years, one shortens one’s life. It stands to reason that the majority of aged people prefer to work in their old age, if their health permits. But the moment such a person works and earns £2 per month, for example, that amount is deducted from his pension. What is the result? The result is that that person does not put himself out to get work. Today there is a shortage of workers, and I would like to see that the hon. Minister changes his policy, and lays down that when a person earns £4, for example, he will be allowed to retain £2 of it; £2 can then be deducted from his pension. But do not deduct the total amount of his earnings. If you do that, then you encourage him to be idle. The moment such a person earns £3 10s. a month the entire pension is deducted. We are teaching our people to work today, even though they be 80 years old, but I say that we should then pay them for their work. The result of this procedure is that they are practically receiving no payment for their work. I think it is unfair that this amount which they earn should be deducted from their pensions. I want to ask the hon. Minister to make a clear statement this evening with reference to the benefits enjoyed by oudstryders. They only receive the benefit of the oudstryders’ pension when they are 65 years old; otherwise they receive no benefits of any description. I am an oudstryder, and I speak as one this evening. We suffered all these inconveniences while others remained at home. The result is that they are stronger today than people who went through the Boer War. I think it is no more than fair that the Minister of Finance should make an exception with reference to the oudstryders before they attain the age of 65 years. If he does not do so, these oudstryders are not being allowed anything extra. I want to ask the Minister to allow these people something extra, even if it is only 50 per cent. more. Let us show our gratitude for what they did for the country, but do not let us treat them on the same footing as others who did nothing for their country. We sacrificed our health and our education while others did not do so, and today we are being treated alike. If that is done, then it shows that at that time when we thought that we were fighting for freedom and right, we were not in reality fighting for freedom and right, because today we are being treated on the same footing as those people who did nothing. Why should we be treated on the same footing as those people who did not take part in the struggle? Does that show gratitude? If the Government treats the oudstryders in that manner, then it goes to show that they are not grateful for the fact that those oudstryders fought for freedom and right. Then there is something else which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. I spoke this afternoon about Section U, the amount allocated to war veterans. I should like to know how this amount is divided, and I should like to ask the Minister whether it includes only the English war or all the wars. Then I should also like to know from the Minister how much of this money will go to the oudstryders. According to my calculation they will not receive one-half of it, and the others will get more. The sum of £150,000 is allocated to oudstryders, and I should like the hon. Minister to give an explanation as to how much is allocated to each war, and then we shall see that the oudstryders are not getting their legitimate share.

I want some information from the Minister particularly in regard to item “C”, invalidity pensions. It was a year ago, I think, when it was discussed that a large amount of …

These are not the invalidity pensions you are referring to. They are on the Social Welfare Vote. These are simply pensions to Public Servants who retired because of ill-health — quite a different thing.

Then I will leave that over.

The hon. member for Durban, North (Rev. MilesCadman) has asked about coloured pensioners. Well, sir, it is perfectly true that the average amount which they get is less than the maximum, but that is because of the terms of the Act. We must in each case take account of the circumstances, and the average amount that the European gets is also less than the maximum. We cannot give everyone the maximum, for we have to carry out the terms of the Act. The hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) has returned to the question of the civilian pensioner. I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. There is this difference between a pensioned Public Servant and a Public Servant. The latter’s salary can be reduced when the State is in difficulties and has been reduced before now. The pension cannot be reduced, it is based on a law, on a contract. The hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) has raised the question of old age pensions for natives. Well, sir, I am afraid I cannot tell the hon. member what we may or may not be able to do in the years that lie ahead. We certainly have to take account of financial facts. It would be very rash of me to make any specific promises at this stage in regard to what it may be found possible to do next year or thereafter.

†*Then the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) and other members have again raised the question of the oudstryders. I have already dealt with that this afternoon but I don’t know whether the hon. member was here at the time. I want to make it clear that this Government is the first Government to have done something in regard to this matter. We had the report before us of the Committee which had been before the country for a whole year. I stated in my Budget speech at the time that we were going to accept the recommendations of the Committee. That announcement of mine was before the country for two months. We thereupon introduced legislation. I cannot see how there can have been any cause for misunderstanding. The report was a clear one. My statement made the position perfectly clear two months before the time and we thereupon introduced the Bill and made it clear that all we were going to do was to give the oudstryders an anticipated old age pension.

That is all.

That was the only recommendation we had and that was all we said we were going to do, and my hon. friend is somewhat unfair, now that this scheme has only been in operation for seven months, already to come and ask for more. He also asks whether this amount for war veterans includes all wars. Yes, that is so. I cannot give him the figures in respect of all the different wars, but I can tell him that the bulk of the money is in respect of the Anglo Boer War. I cannot give him the exact figure, but I can tell him that the major portion of the money is in connection with the Anglo Boer War. I don’t know whether I correctly understood the hon. member to say that he wanted us to take something off the pension to encourage people to work.

No, my complaint was that you immediately deducted everything they earned, and that you should not do so, but that you should encourage them to work.

Yes. I see what the hon. member means. My difficulty is that in terms of the law we have to take into account all the earnings which a person has, and so long as the law stands there I have to administer it. That also is the trouble in regard to the distinction between the town and the platteland. In terms of the law I have to take those factors into account.

Well, then, alter the law.

We are not allowed to discuss that now.

Will you consider that?

I am prepared to consider anything. Several hon. members have mentioned individual cases and individual types of cases. The hon. member for Smithfield (Mr. Fouché) mentioned such types. I am prepared to go into those questions with hon. members. We cannot discuss such individual cases across the floor of the House.

I am glad the Minister referred to the recommendation of the Committee. He has created the impression that this Government has done such a lot for the oudstryders and that it is this Government which has done so, and no other Government.

No, I did not mean to convey that impression.

That is the impression the Minister created, but let me say that that Committee was appointed by the previous Government. The Committee made its recommendations. Now I want to say at once that I have very little faith in such committees, and I say so because such Committees are generally influenced by the policy of the Government. That is an insinuation but I shall prove it. Let the Minister take the report of the evidence that was given throughout the country. We shall then be able to see whether those recommendations are in accordance with the evidence. Those Committees do not produce anything on the ground of the evidence they have taken. No, they are given a lead by the Government. I therefore say that these kinds of Committees in many respects are a hypocritical attempt to deal with the matter; And if those Committees were to lay the report of the evidence on the table our eyes would be opened and we would know better what to do in this House. I have pleaded for those oudstryders who have borne the hardships of the great war they have had to go through. When they are sixty five years of age they are no longer physically as strong and as healthy as other people of sixty five years of age who have not had to suffer all those hardships. Yet at that age there is no distinction made between them and these other people. I want the Minister to tell me whether that great fight we fought for our freedom was a fight for injustice? If it was not a fight for injustice, those oudstryders should be given their due, even at this late stage. I don’t want a penny for myself, but I am pleading the cause of those people who have had to suffer all the hardship that I have suffered, who got soaking wet—whose clothes have had to dry on their bodies; people who are broken in health today, many of whom are suffering from rhemuatism. Justice should be done to them and we cannot treat them in the same way as those who did not take part in that great struggle. I want to express the hope and I trust that even if it cannot be done this session a distinction will be drawn next session, between those two classes of people. When we fought in that war we did not get a penny but the people whom we fought against were paid for every day they fought, and now they are all being treated alike. Even the coloured men who fought against us were paid, but our people did not get a penny, yet they fought for their freedom and their rights. I don’t ask anything for myself, but I am thinking of my comrades. If you want to do justice to them, give them the pay which those other people drew first of all, and then treat them all alike. We did not get a penny but they drew their money, and it is an injustice to treat them all alike.

I am grateful for the reply which the Minister of Finance has given us. When we raise special cases here the Minister tells us that he will consider those special cases if we bring them to his notice. We know what happens. We go to him, and are told that the Department will have to consider those cases.

No, I shall deal with those cases personally.

What I am anxious to get from the Minister is this; I have just opened a letter from an old man who is eigthy six years of age. He was farming until two years ago. He does not want an old age pension, but he considers that he fought in the Anglo Boer War and in the native wars, and for that reason he is entitled to an oudstryder’s pension. His son is farming now but he is one of those people who does not believe in his children having to look after him. The farm on which his son is farming is only small, and the son is farming practically only for the purpose of paying interest and taxation. I am not going into the details of that case any further, because the Minister has said that he will discuss it with me personally. I am only mentioning those few cases and this case of a man who still has his self respect and his pride and who does not want an old age pension. I am therefore very glad that we shall be allowed to see the Minister personally and discuss these cases with him.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the immediate vicinity of Bloemfontein there are a number of people in receipt of old age pensions; now the people living outside the town get a smaller pension than the people living in the town.

No, not the people living on settlements in the immediate vicinity of the towns.

I want to point out that those people have just as much expense as the people in the towns. They buy their goods on the market and they have to pay just as much as the people in the town. I want to ask the Minister in future, when those people are granted old age pensions, to see to it that they get the same pensions as the people in the towns.

I shall go into that.

I should like to put this question to the Minister in regard to old age pensions. There is a regulation under which an investigation is made whether the children cannot contribute to the support of the parents, and if the children can do so, the old age pension is reduced. This causes a lot of trouble. I know that the Minister has been considering this question for a long time, and I appreciate his difficulty. There are children who do not contribute anything at all and the parents are not inclined to prosecute them, or to ask their children for favours. These are deserving cases. I want to ask the Minister not to keep such cases hanging over for years. First of all, a letter is written to the child, and an enquiry is made into his income, and then a letter is sent back, and in the meantime those old people live in the most miserable conditions. That is the whole trouble today. We have those self-same difficulties, both in regard to old age pensions and oudstryders’ pensions. I want to ask the Minister courteously and in a friendly way to make a statement about the position and to tell us whether, if a child will not pay, or if a reply is not received in time, the matter cannot be dealt with in a different way? The department, first of all, enquires whether the child cannot make some contribution. Then a letter is sent to the magistrate to find out what the circumstances of the children are, and that is referred back to the department, and so it goes up and down, and in the meantime those people are subject to all kinds of difficulties because they are getting nothing. I should like the Minister to tell us on this point how far he goes if the children are not prepared to pay, and in cases where there is a doubt as to whether they can or cannot pay. There are three possibilities, and we should like to know what the Minister’s policy is in regard to such cases.

I want to ask the Minister in regard to people drawing Government pensions, whether they are given any increase to cover the increased cost of living?

No.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think it fair, in view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up considerably, to give consideration to the question of increasing the pensions of those people? I feel this is a most reasonable request. Those people are paid a pension which is calculated on normal times, and under present conditions when the cost of living has been increased considerably it is very difficult for them to come out on their pensions. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of increasing their pensions.

I am sorry the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) has expressed his lack of confidence in committees in general, but it is not the present Government which appointed this committee to enquire into the question of pensions for oudstryders. It was the previous Government which did that, and if any instructions were given to that committee those instructions must have come from the previous Government. We are grateful that this Government has been the first Government to have had the courage to do something for the oudstryders. We don’t say that what has been done is adequate, but what we do say is that we are grateful for the little that has been done. I want to associate myself with those hon. members who feel that the oudstryders should be dealt with separately. The Minister has explained his reasons why he considers it impossible to pay out the 5s. per day that has been asked for, but the Minister of Finance knows exactly how many oudstryders there are who can apply, and I do want to express the hope that he will yet find it possible in the not too far distant future to grant an oudstryder pension, irrespective of the individual’s means.

I hope hon. members will not pursue this question any further. The matter has been fully discussed, and we have heard everything there is to be heard about it. I shall give consideration to what has been said here. In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Aliwal North (Capt. G. H. F. Strydom) I want to say that I am bound by the law. The law says that I must take into account the ability of the child to contribute.

Yes, I understand that that is what the law says, but if the law is such an obstacle, cannot the law be amended? That is our difficulty. I don’t want to talk about the oudstryders, but I do say that a distinction should be drawn between the oudstryders and the ordinary people who apply for a pension.

That is what the law provides.

But I still think that the Minister, with the experience he has had of these matters, should realise that a change must be made.

I did say that I would consider the question.

On this vote I want to draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the position in the Transvaal in connection with the Provincial Administration which is dealt with under this vote. There is definitely a reign of terrorism in the Transvaal, particularly in the Education Department. I want to bring this to the Minister’s notice, and it may perhaps be best if I read a circular letter to the House. The circular letter is this one—

1. (1) The names of departmental employees, teachers, school board officials and others, including non-Europeans, who can now be released for service in the Union Defence Forces, including any persons who previously were refused permission to go on military service. It must be stated in every case what position the official occupies, and whether a suitable qualified substitute can be found, and if possible the name of such a substitute should be mentioned.
2. (2) The names and the position occupied by all officials who are not able to serve in the Union Defence Forces but who are available for civic services elsewhere.
3. (3) This information is urgently required and must be supplied without delay through the medium of the responsible local body—the School Board, Governing Body, Advisory Committee, etc., as the case may be, which must please see to it that the complete reply is in the hands of the department within fourteen days from the date of this circular letter. School principals who are not affected must put in nil returns.

On a point of order, sir, is the hon. member entitled, under this vote, to discuss circulars issued by the Provincial Administrator in the Transvaal with relation to their own service?

There is a vote here in favour of the Transvaal Administration.

I think I should explain that this vote provides for the salaries of the administrators and auditors which are fixed by law. All that the vote provides is a subsidy which is also fixed by law. I am quite incapable of giving an account of the way in which the Provincial Administration is doing its duty. That surely is a matter for the Transvaal Provincial Council, I cannot go into these particular matters, I have no knowledge of them, it is purely a provincial matter.

I doubt whether this matter does come under this vote.

But an amount of money is to be voted here for the Transvaal and for education in the Transvaal. I am drawing the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a reign of terrorism in the Transvaal, especially in the Education Department, and I think we should be allowed to discuss it on this vote. Why is the Minister afraid to allow us to discuss it?

We are not voting money here for education but a subsidy for the province as a whole.

Exactly.

I again want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that we cannot go into the details of provincial policy here. We cannot control it. I as Minister cannot do it.

It is a scandal which is going on there.

That may be, but none the less I don’t decide about that, and we cannot discuss it on this vote.

But surely we are voting the salary of the Administrator here, and this circular letter does not emanate from the provincial department but from the Administrator. He is responsible for the circular letter, and as we are voting his salary on this vote we have the right to criticise the steps which he is taking. These steps are not being taken by the Provincial Council but by the Administrator.

By the Executive Committee. I am sorry but I doubt whether I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed.

I am sorry too, because the position is intolerable. But I shall try and find some other opportunity when the finance Bills are under discussion, to raise this matter.

Cannot we move that the Administrator’s salary be reduced so as to enable us to discuss this matter?

Still, we have to vote it on these estimates.

This is an amount appearing on the estimates. Why is it put on the estimates if we are not allowed to discuss the amount and if we cannot change it? I want to move that the amount be reduced by half, but perhaps it will be best if the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) does so. If we are not allowed to discuss that amount here why is it put on the estimates which are submitted to us? We should have a say over these amounts on the estimates, otherwise why are they put before us?

Then I want to move that the Administrator’s salary be reduced by £2,000. I do so in order that I may deal with the circular letter which has been sent to the teachers in the Transvaal in which the teachers are practically asked to go on military service. We have had statements from the Ministers that this war is to be run with volunteers. We have to accept those statements, and we cannot allow our teachers to be exploited in the way they are now being exploited in the Transvaal. The Government must surely know about it, because this smelling out Committee has also been appointed here. This smelling out Committee does not only work in connection with the Provincial Administration, but it works in all sections of the Public Service. It has to go round smelling out for the purpose of obtaining information as to which people can be forced to go to the front. It is nothing short of a scandal. We have to accept Minister’s statements that the war will be run with volunteers, but it seems that we are not doing that any more now because we hear Ministers say so often that circumstances have changed, and that because of those changes they have also had to change their promises — the change in circumstances is the reason for them not adhering to their promises. We were assured, however, that the war which to all intents and purposes constitutes an attempt to bring pressure to bear on the teachers of the Transvaal, and I suppose the other Administrators will send out a similar circular letter. As the Administrator of the Transvaal is so weak, and especially Mr. Knauer, I am moving this so as to draw attention to their actions in the Transvaal. I move—

I am sorry that I cannot accept this amendment for the reason that the law prevents me from doing so. The South Africa Act clearly states that the salary of an Administrator shall not be reduced during his period of office. Because of that I cannot accept the amendment. But my hon. friend has apparently achieved his object of ventilating this matter. I am sorry I am unable to give him any information about this circular letter. I have no knowledge of the affairs of the Transvaal, and as he has now achieved his object in ventilating this matter I hope he will leave it at that.

I move—

I shall explain to the Committee why I move this. This is closely connected with the point raised by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp). In the last war there was a very notorious individual in South Africa who was later on sent overseas by the Government as a spy, a certain Mr. Eli Du Plessis. He was sent overseas during the last war to do espionage work in Germany. He went to Holland and he tried to induce people who subsequently occupied important positions in the Public Service to give him recommendations to enable him to get into Germany. That individual subsequently returned to South Africa, after which he busied himself here to try and get one of our newspapers into trouble. He was sent here by certain members of the Government— one of the members of the Present Government was among them — to act here as an Agent Provocateur. After that he suddenly developed as a professor. He called himself “Professor” but nobody could find out where he had become a professor. For a time he was a member of the Potchefstroom Town Council, and the Town Council, while he was a member, took the step of appointing an official “chucker out” for the purpose of removing that individual from time to time from the Town Council. I could tell the House a lot about the distasteful actions of this individual, of this so called professor and his reputation. It is peculiar that an individual like that should be selected by the Government to do espionage work in our schools and universities, and that he should have been specially selected by the Provincial Administration of the Cape to be sent round to our different schools to do work there among the children and among the staffs of the schools, work which I can describe as nothing but espionage work. The principals of the schools and the teachers in our schools generally are honourable men with high reputations throughout South Africa, and if the authorities want to know anything about subversive activities which are going on in some school or other, there are open and decent ways of finding out these things, but to use a man of this calibre to crawl in like some reptile during the night and to carry on espionage work among the children is nothing but dirty, and I therefore move to reduce the salary of the Administrator of the Cape by £500 as a protest against the dirty work which is being done by Professor Eli du Plessis among the children, and among the staffs of our schools.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), and I must say that I am sorry that matters have developed to such a stage that we are now making a hopeless failure of our educational system in South Africa. I don’t know whether the Hon. the Minister is as well acquainted with this Professor Du Plessis as I am. Originally he came from Petrusville, and unfortunately I know his history very well. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) can also tell the House what kind of a man he is. But to think that such a person has been appointed to go round the country and to call the principals of our schools and the staffs of our schools together, in a masterful manner, and to lecture them as is happening daily here in Cape Town, is something beyond my conception. I like to read a letter about the scandalous things that are going on in connection with education in this country under the leadership of “Professor” Du Plessis, and if I do so the Minister will agree that we should not vote the Administrator’s salary until these things have been put right. Does not the Minister realise that things are going on which will ruin our youth, and our educational system? Through the instrumentality of this individual, steps similar to that taken by political agents, are being taken, namely, to establish “V” clubs in the schools. The honour and the liberty of the teacher depend on what the children report, and those reports about the teachers have to be handed in to this highly esteemed “Professor” Du Plessis. The Minister of the Interior told us that he had already appointed a hundred secret committees to gather the news which then has to be sent to “Professor” Du Plessis, and he promised us that that system was going to be extended. The work which Du Plessis is doing is so low and so undermining and so dangerous to the upbringing of our youth that I believe that the Minister himself will express his disapproval of it. I have a high opinion of the Minister as a learned man; at one time he was Administrator of the Transvaal, and I am deeply convinced that the Minister would never have approved of such things being done in our schools. I hope the Minister realises that if he insults and hurts the teachers tremendous harm must result to the youth of South Africa, harm which we shall not be able to remedy in the near future, and perhaps not even in the distant future. I am speaking as one who has had twenty years’ experience of education. One can only make a success of education if one has the confidence of the children, and if they love their teachers. Do hon. members realise what we are doing? We are creating the worst kind of enmity between child and teacher. Our whole educational system is going to be ruined as a result of Du Plessis being allowed to travel throughout the country and visit the schools, but that is not all. In the Cape Province a large number of teachers have been interned. It is difficult to say how many of those internments are due to the fact that this “professor” has sent in unfavourable reports about the teachers? How many teachers have not perhaps been innocently accused by this “professor”? I may perhaps at a later stage tell the House what is happening in South Africa, when I hope to inform hon. members of what has been tried against me personally during this past week. But I would be ruled out of order if I were to discuss it at this stage. I hope the Minister will use his influence to put an end to these things. Personal vindictiveness and political hatred are rife. At the Government Congress of the South African Party they went to the extent of saying that an espionage service was to be instituted in our schools. Now, I want to come to another point, and I want to ask why the Administrator of Natal is to receive a salary of £2,000, and why on top of that he is to draw his pension? Is it the practice when a person who has gone on pension is appointed to a new position, to pay him the full salary connected with his post? Now, I also want to say a few words about the subsidy which is paid to the various Provinces. Will not the Minister again consider the question of appointing a commission to report on the granting of subsidies? The Cape is still in a worse position than the other Provinces, as the Minister knows. There is not the slightest doubt that the children of the Cape Province are the sufferers. Surely the least we can expect is equal treatment with the other Provinces. If we had equal treatment there would be contentment. The Minister will say that the subsidy is based on an old recommendation by a commission which sat many years ago, and he will perhaps tell us that we are raising this question year in and year out. But we in the Cape Province feel that we have to continue raising this matter until we eventually succeed in rectifying matters. If one compares the position of the different Provinces one feels that in view of the geographical position of the Cape in comparison with other Provinces, the subsidy should be the other way round, and that the Cape should get a larger subsidy than the other Provinces in view of its great size. I want to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of this matter being rectified at some future date? The children are suffering as a result of the present position. There are parts of the North-Western Districts today where the children have no educational facilities at all, and where they get no education. I am thinking, for instance, of the Vergeleehostel. The Provincial Administration only allotted 48 bursaries for that institution. There are 16 more children boarding there, but those children are accommodated there not because the institution can afford to take them in, but simply because the institution cannot allow those children to grow up without receiving any education at all. If one approached the Provincial Council one is told that there are no funds. If the Cape Province were to get the subsidy it is entitled to get, the Provincial Council would be able to provide for all those cases. So far as Higher Education is concerned, bursaries for that purpose are very restricted. I know of one instance, where application was made for fifty bursaries for children who really needed such assistance, but only nineteen were granted, simply because there were not sufficient funds available to provide the necessary number of bursaries. If the Cape Province is given the amount of money it is entitled to, the Cape Provincial Council, which takes a great deal of interest in education, would be able to do justice to all those children. I hope the hon. the Minister will bring about some changes in the system in the near future.

I should like to go into the question now raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell). This is a matter which has been decided practically every year for some years past, but I want to read to the hon. member the ruling given by my predecessor on the same point—

The Chairman stated that in accordance with the rules and practice of the House and in the absence of a “Reserved List” of items not required to be voted, he was bound to put any reduction that was moved.

I might also add that since then I have also given the same ruling on two or three different occasions.

I well understand that according to that ruling any reduction in the salary of the Administrator may be moved. My point was not that. My point was whether under this vote we could freely discuss any matter of provincial administration, whether, for instance, we are dissatisfied with the way the province conducts its affairs, or with the way a provincial official acts. It is really a different point from the one on which you gave your ruling.

Whenever any sum has to be voted the Committee has the right to discuss any matter relative to that sum.

I want to say a few words on the subject of politics being dragged into our schools by the Government Party. In my constituency a teacher of history has been interned, and my information is to the effect that school children were used to testify against him, and that those school children were even taken to Cape Town by certain gentlemen to come here and testify against that teacher. As far as one is able to gather that teacher is innocent, but my information further is to the effect that those children were given a small sum of money after they had made their statement. I think this shows up the scandalous position that is in existence today. If this case is true there must be other similar cases. Smelling out of teachers is going on and the children are being used for that purpose. I don’t know whether we should mention any names in this connection. But I do not think the Government Party is innocent of this malcondition which exists. They are trying to put up a smokescreen and to create the impression that it is the re-United Nationalist Party which is introducing politics into the schools. All the time it is they themselves who are doing it. It is they themselves who are stirring up the children against their teachers, so that innocent teachers are in the internment camps today and are not even given the opportunity of being tried without delay. I think it is a scandal, and we should discuss this matter openly. It does not become hon. members opposite today that we are dragging politics into the schools, while they are busy themselves putting up the children against the teachers. I think we should tackle this matter and say that it should be stopped. If hon. members want evidence against the teachers is it right to agitate the children, and to say to them: “Listen to everything the teacher says”? In this instance they even brought children to Cape Town to give evidence here. I hope we shall be able to enquire a little later to find out whether the statement that sums of money have been paid to the children is correct. Today a teacher is in the internment camp—a history teacher, a man with an excellent reputation in the educational world, a man known for his moderate opinions. Those who were with him at the university will remember that he made his mark at the university, and in the educational world, and not having any other evidence against him the children are now to be used to testify against him. And we cannot find out what evidence the children have given. All we know is that he has been put in an internment camp and that his family have been left behind without any provision having been made for them. That is the kind of scandal that is going on in South Africa today, and the sooner we can stop the Government side from carrying on in this way the better. Young children are put up against their teachers, and I ask hon. members what the future is going to hold for us if we carry on in this way.

I have very much sympathy with the last point raised by the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. Du P. Viljoen). It is a matter which has often been raised in this House, namely the unfair way in which the Cape Province suffers in the matter of the subsidy. I am not going to enlarge upon it but I think the hon. member raised a very good point. I think the Cape is the Cinderella of the Provinces and is entitled to a complete alteration of the subsidy system which does not give it fairlpay today. There is one point I want to raise. It is this question of the grant for native education. I have received an appeal from the Transvaal African Teachers’ Association. I want to acknowledge at once the increase in the percentage of the Poll Tax. The Minister has agreed himself that this only given for the welfare of the natives allows for present commitments and the system has been described by the Minister as a most inelastic one. I want the Minister to see whether it is not possible to base the grant on some other basis, on something that will allow native teachers to get a more appropriate salary, something that will allow for a more extensive system of native education for adults and children. I would appeal to the Minister for a more generous attitude on the Government’s part for native education. I don’t want to go into details now, but I think in the matter of teachers’ salaries for instance something should be done to pay them salaries commensurate to their professional standing, and provision should be made for the education of native adults and for the compulsory education of native children.

May I just deal with the points raised so far as I am able to deal with them. The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) has dealt with the question of Native education—I don’t think this is an appropriate time to deal with that. This is a grant fixed by law. £340,000 is fixed by the Act of 1925.

You want it “unfixed?” *

You can’t unfix it. My hon. friend is barking up the wrong tree. Over and above this we pay a percentage of the native general tax and that varies with the amount of the tax. At the present moment the percentage is twothirds. That is over and above the £340,000. I promised in the Budget speech to raise that two-thirds to five-sixths. I shall have to introduce legislation to do that but the hon. member is not satisfied with that five-sixths. He should really have raised that point on the Budget. Failing that he can raise it when the legislation is introduced, but here we are dealing with an amount fixed by law. The other thing is the amount which is subject to adjustment either by amendment of the law or by an increase in the yield.

†*The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. Du P. Viljoen) raised the question of a subsidy basis. He asked that we should have the matter enquired into. I only want to tell him that a Commission is at the present moment investigating this matter. Last year, after consultation with the provincial administration, we appointed a Commission which is looking into the facts and which will report on the subsidy position of the provinces. We expect to get the report within a few months when we shall consider the matter further. Naturally, we cannot make any alterations without legislation. In the circumstances we cannot at this stage discuss the desirability of any amendments, and I can do no more than assure the House that we shall consider the matter in the light of the facts which the Commission will place before us. In regard to the Administrator of Natal the position is that when he was originally appointed, I believe in 1928, he was a public servant whose post had been abolished, and because of that a contrast was entered into with him at the time on the basis that he would get his pension plus the salary. In regard to the other points raised here I am sorry I cannot go into them. I think it must be perfectly clear to everybody that it will be most unfair to expect the Minister of Finance, who is only responsible for the provision of a certain amount of money, as laid down by law, to reply to all kinds of points of provincial policy and administration. It is quite impossible, and I am sorry I am unable to give any information on those points.

The discussion gives rise to various points of view in connection with the internment of teachers who have trouble in the schools. At the last Congress of the United Party in the Transvaal, there were members of the Congress who complained that teachers were making Nazi propaganda in the schools.

Yes.

None other than the Minister of the Interior said at the Congress that he could not simply go and intern all the teachers, but he said that in various towns vigilance committees had been appointed, and that they were to keep an eye on the teachers and to submit reports, so that they would know what they had to contend with. The Minister advised them to appoint vigilance committees in all the schools in order to spy on the teachers. I have a report here from Montagu which appeared in the newspapers—

That is the position which prevails in the country today, and sworn declarations against teachers are obtained in this manner, and then it is said that they make Nazi propaganda in the schools, although the information officer of the Government of the day—and he admits he is an information officer; a certain Mr. Eli du Plessis; I do not know much about him—admits that they warn teachers to be careful in what they say. It is said that the Government is not bluffing, and that it will soundly punish the teachers. If that is the type of thing which we have in our country, then I fear for the future of our educational system in this country. We do not want politics in the schools, but politics are dragged into the schools every day by the party supporters of the Government, and then they use what I cannot describe as other than despicable methods in order to incite children to make sworn declarations against the teachers. I have always heard that English school children thought it despicable to tell tales concerning fellowscholars, or anything which goes on at school. But this principle has, of course, been thrown overboard, and today hatred is exercised against the Afrikaner teacher because he stands up for his people, and because he teaches the history of his people to the children at the schools. Because he does that he is accused of making Nazi propaganda. He is now told frankly: “We will intern you.” I think it is a disgrace for the Government of the day to allow such things.

I won’t keep the House more than a couple of minutes, but I also have my troubles with regard to this grant for native education of £340,000. It does seem to me that if we make a grant some moral responsibility for the administration of that grant rests on us. If the Minister has no direct control I hope he will have some suggestion to make.

The Department of Native Affairs controls the actual expenditure on native education. That is where you should have raised it.

I was not here, unfortunately, to raise it at that stage. No doubt, Mr. Chairman, you will stop me without mercy if I am entirely out of order, but I feel I must raise a question brought to my notice by the priest in charge of St. Augustine’s Mission at Reunion in Natal. It has to do more particularly with native teachers. He has there on that one piece of glebe land a number of native teachers, qualified T3, T4, T5, T6 and so on. The proper salary, or what I should call the improper but the actual salary for T4 native teachers, is £4 10s. per month. Not a very big sum when we think that to such people is committed this great task of lifting up the natives. Even this £4 10s. is not forthcoming because there is no sort of post available for quite a number of these people. I have letters here—I shall not read them— simply begging for jobs of any kind, written by T4 teachers willing to be nursemaids, or to do anything which will bring in even 30s. a month. It does seem to me a great shame and a great waste that these intellectually superior natives should save up, go to college and qualify as teachers, and then no arrangement is made between this Government and the province for any suitable employment for them. I have a list here of fourteen foolscap pages of such teachers who are lacking posts—there are at least 400 of them. If they cannot be found jobs in schools, superior work of some kind might be found for them, as postmasters or postmistresses, inspectors of schools, or clerks or something of that kind. I say there is a great waste here of trained material, which in one way or another we should help the provinces to overcome.

All the hon. members on this side who spoke before me, raised a matter affecting my constituency. I thought that the correct place to raise this matter would be with the Minister of the Interior, but since other hon. members have now raised the matter, I would be neglecting my duty if I did not do it too. I just want to say this, that the method used in the schools is extremely low. The children who have to receive instruction from the teachers are incited by all sorts of people against those teachers, and by their parents, to spy on the teachers; in other words, the teacher is there by the grace of the school child. Now you can realise the position of the teacher in relation to the child. If the teachers were people who were not honest and who were not honourable, one might have expected something like that to happen. There may be weaklings among the teachers, but I can give you the assurance that there are no weaklings among the teachers in my constituency. I have a letter here which I do not want to read out, but I just want to say that the Minister ought to have steps taken to prevent that sort of thing. He is going to destroy the educational system and make the relationship between the teacher and the child impossible. The teacher will not be in a position to control the children properly if these things go on. Now a certain Mr. Eli du Plessis and a teacher came there in order to arrest the teachers and to intern them. Luckily for Montagu, however, he first made investigations and ascertained that the children had not been telling the truth. It is a despicable method of carrying on. If the Government has knowledge of these things and does nothing, then I cannot think that they are any better, because it seems so unfair to me to allow children to spy on their teachers. I served on school boards for years and had a great deal to do with schools. Formerly the position was that the best people were selected for teachers’ positions, but now one finds that the school committees in some places consist of S.A.P.’s who think that it is their duty to make trouble where there are teachers who are Nationalists. They actually had one teacher before them who spoke to the children on the occasion of the Kruger Day procession, and there was a long speech in which he was told that they would get him into trouble. If we had to do that to the English speaking teachers, what would happen to the educational system? If Montagu starts to do it, the others will do it at Robertson. Someone said that politics were not preached in the schools, but I say emphatically that it does happen in certain schools. Since we are accused of doing it, I want to give everyone the assurance that at Robertson, where the teachers are all Nationalists, it has never been done. Why then should the S.A.P.’s drag politics into the schools? If a stop is not put to these things there will be trouble later on. Now this person, Mr. du Plessis, is sent to the school to warn the teachers. I do not know him. But I heard that he goes about as a spy, and I heard that he is a peculiar type of man. I do not want to say anything against him, but in any event it seems to me that that is not the type of person that they should use. He is described in this letter as an information officer. He comes to the school with a detective. The teachers are called together and they are told that they will be interned. Surely teachers are grown-up people. Why should he try to frighten them? They will not allow themselves to be frightened. The Minister knows what the position is, and if he does not take steps to improve matters, we shall have to take steps in some other way at a later date.

Many of the hon. members on the other side who spoke on this subject this evening, are lawyers. They should possess a certain degree of intelligence, and I now want to ask them, if politics are preached in the schools by any section to whom do they preach politics? The children attend the schools, and if the teachers talk politics, of course, it is to the children. And who are therefore the best witnesses? The children. I notice that the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is laughing. I do not know what happens in Robertson, but I can assure the hon. member that in other places where the circumstances are known to me, there is Nazi propaganda, and I can furnish the evidence for it.

Give us the particulars then.

Many of the parents of the children have complained to me.

If an hon. member says that he can furnish evidence, must he not do so then?

I am furnishing that evidence now.

Your liver is too weak for it.

In those cases parents came to complain to me. I then said: “Are you prepared to have your children make declarations?” I personally saw many of those children, and I do not doubt that what they said was the truth. The parents told me that they did not want the matter to go any further. They are poor people, and they cannot afford to take their children out of the school and to send them to another school. They know that if their children make statements they will be victimised in the school concerned; and hon. members on the other side know that as well as I do. In so far as the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) is concerned, I want to say that perhaps his conscience is pricking him. Perhaps he feels guilty in regard to what the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) said of him, namely, that he was an expert in the sphere of political intrigue. There is probably no one in this House who excels him in that sphere. That is why he wants to put up a smoke screen this evening, and to shift the blame to this side of the House. Those hon. members know that if politics are preached in the schools, it is not done by supporters of this side of the House. We need not even talk about schools.

Order. With reference to which vote is the hon. member talking now?

I am replying to what hon. members on the other side said.

You are not in a synagogue now.

We know that teachers have already been interned. There were cases which were so striking that the Government could not tolerate it to allow them to continue. We know that politics are preached on the other side. Hon. members on the other side know well enough that their teachers are guilty of it. If they want to do their duty to the people, then they should make an appeal to those teachers not to preach politics in the schools.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson). I have noticed in the past that when there is anything of this nature, then he is always in the forefront. It is remarkable to me that the procedure which the Afrikaans supporters of the Government follow today, is precisely the same as the procedure which was followed in earlier years. The English say nothing, and they talk. I want to tell the hon. member this, that if there are politics in schools, then it has been dragged in by this Government’s propaganda. Imperialistic politics are more and more forced on the children. Nothing may be said of the national aspirations of the Afrikaner. When that is done, it is called Nazi propaganda. I have here an extract from an article which appeared in “Die Unie” in which it is said that vigilance committees have been established. “Die Unie” is the journal of the Cape Province teachers. It is said that vigilance committees have been established to spy on the teachers. The editor of this journal is Professor G. G. Cilliers of Stellenbosch, an eminent person, and he will not protest in the teachers’ journal unless there are good reasons for it. He says that vigilance committees have been established in every dorp, and the children have been asked to find out what the teachers say. When I was a child at school, I was taught that I should not tell any tales concerning my teachers. One’s home is not the place to speak to a child concerning his teacher. But today they are stirring up the children against the teachers. They are being made tell-tales, and I say that it has a pernicious influence on the children. Here they stir up the children against their teachers, and the Minister knows that there are numerous teachers who, as a result of the tale-bearing of children, have been placed in internment camps. And after having been in the internment camps for a certain period, it was discovered that the evidence on the strength of which the teachers were interned, was false, and the teachers were again released. I now want co ask the hon. Minister to bring these matters to the notice of the different Administrators, and especially to the notice of the Administrator of the Cape Province. I do not know what happens in the other provinces, but I am convinced that these things do take place in the Cape Province.

It is remarkable to me to learn that the policy which is followed in the schools, should be discussed in this House.

There are many things which you still have to learn.

I feel very dissatisfied that the time of this House should be taken up with this sort of thing. The seriousness and the enthusiasm with which hon. members on the other side discuss this matter, betrays their guilty consciences. One notices that the front benchers of that party are not saying anything. They know that propaganda is made in the schools by that side. It is the Opposition which makes the propaganda, and they know, as the old farmer would say, that “their coat has been caught in the wheel” this time. There are many cases which I could mention in this House, but I consider it beneath the dignity of the House to come and blurt out all these tales here. We know that the teachers have already been interned. It is really a disgrace to the teaching profession that anything of that nature should have happened.

It is a much bigger disgrace to you that they were interned.

The hon. member says that it is a disgrace that they were interned; but that is not the case at all; it is a disgrace to the person who conducted himself in such a way that he had to be interned. I do not think that this is the right place to discuss anything like this, and we should leave the matter at that. If the teachers are innocent, hon. members on the other side would not champion their cause so seriously this evening.

The hon. member who has just sat down, says that we feel guilty because teachers make propaganda against the Government. But he did not furnish the slightest evidence to show that this, that, and the other person did so. We on this side of the House are regarded as racialists. Is that so?

Yes.

You know that we differ from hon. members on the other side with regard to the war policy. Now, I want to say this. Children at school are allowed to wear a badge, namely, the letter “V”. I want to tell the House that that “V” causes the teachers a great deal of trouble. The only effect of that “V” worn by the children is racialism amongst the youth.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote under discussion, and not wander so far from it.

I am only referring to something which hon. members have already mentioned. My children have to look at that “V”. Is that the type of education which our children must get? Our children who are against that “V” must continually see the “V”, and they are not allowed to wear any badge. Is that justice? We often hear of British fairplay. Yes, everything which is to their liking is British fairplay; but as soon as we have to get our legitimate share, then that British fairplay is completely pushed aside. You must give me a chance, Mr. Chairman, to continue, otherwise there will be a great deal of trouble at the schools. If those children are allowed to wear a “V”, and my children, on the strength of that, wear the Vierkleur, they are arrested. My little son is nine years old, and if the other children wear a “V” he is going to wear a Vierkleur. And let them then arrest him. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, they are the racialists. Supporters of the Government may wear a “V”, but we may not wear any badge which is dear to us. You are the instigators here, but we shall break you.

The hon. member must address the Chair.

The education of our children is a matter of the greatest importance to our schools. I have seven children, and three of them are at university. Today I have to listen to insinuations, and it is said openly that propaganda is made to bring up my children as Nazis. It is no use making these wild statements here; let hon. members on the other side advance facts. What prescribed books are there in the schools which teach children Nazism. The prescribed books which there are teach them nationalism only, but they want prescribed books which will teach the children Imperialism. When that is done, then they are Afrikaners. I would be ashamed. My neck is not red yet. The circular which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) read out makes me think that the steps which are being taken today are calculated to drive the young teachers into the Army. I personally know that old teachers are being appointed today. In many cases their best days are over. Now they want to force the young teachers into the Army, and appoint old teachers in their places. And then I still have to pay taxes for them! At the moment the Army receives preference to our schools, and we who are against the war policy have to swallow all those things. We have to be satisfied with the “V”: we have to be satisfied with those old people. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister said that he was going to fight this war with volunteers. If he wants to fulfil that promise. I want to tell him that he should see to it that no pressure either directly or indirectly is brought to bear on the people. With regard to the Executive Committee of the Transvaal, I very much feel like moving —but unfortunately I have not the right— that their salaries should be reduced, because I think that they are also the cause of such a circular having been sent out. Must circulars be sent to the teachers secretly? Is that right? Are the parents not allowed to know of it? What is happening to our country? What is happening to the democracy for which they are supposed to be fighting?

That is a bogey.

I should like to hear this from the Minister: I notice that there is an increase of £31,905 in the grant to Natal. I do not know whether the population in Natal has increased to the extent of justifying that.

The school population has increased.

Whose children brought that increase about? Why did the Transvaal and the Cape Province not get an increase too?

It is due to a decrease in school attendance.

The hon. Minister gives that money to the Administrators and he does not ascertain from them why the increase is necessary. I should like to hear why there is an increase in the one case and a decrease in other cases. I am convinced that this increase which we find in Natal today is due to the refugees from other countries; and now we have to pay for it. Those people are not Union subjects. I am sorry for those refugees, because we were also persecuted by the English in the past, and we know what it is to suffer these things. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the children of these refugees are also getting free education. I should like to have a reply from him on this question. Do the children of those refugees who come here receive free education, and what taxes are paid by those aliens who come to our country? We know that our subjects are taxed and we want to hear what taxes are paid by those refugees. If they do not pay taxes, then their children are not entitled to free education. The Minister should see to it that those foreigners pay for the education of their children, either monthly or quarterly. The school children in Natal could not have increased to such an extent during one year that this big increase is necessary. We know that usually the shifting took place to the Transvaal, but now I notice that there is a decrease in the Transvaal. The Minister knows that there are numerous children on the Rand who cannot get proper tuition in a proper school, and nevertheless there is a decrease there is a reduction in the case of Transvaal education. If the Minister cannot give us this information now, then I trust that he will enquire from the Administration of Natal, the Transvaal and the Cape Province, and then tell us what the reasons are for the increase and the reduction.

The hon. member who has just sat down, I understand, made some criticism of the grant accorded to Natal. I suppose the hon. member knows that this is merely a grant given to children attending school, and if he has any objection to children who come from bombed cities in various parts of the world and are now attending schools in Natal, or in other parts of South Africa—I don’t think what I know of my hon. friend that he really does object. It is quite possible that there are a certain number of children who have come from Egypt, from Singapore or from Hong Kong. They may have arrived in South Africa or some other part of the world.

Must we pay for it?

Surely the honourable and gallant gentleman with his past record and his great war service does not object to anyone’s child receiving education here. Would he not be prepared to pay his little mite towards it? I am surprised at the hon. member.

Do you want it to be done at the expense of the South African children?

Not at the expense of the South African child, that is absolutely impossible—it is quite out of the question that any child whose parents have been bombed out of any city would deprive any South African child of education.

Well, that is the position.

No, that is not the position. It is not so so far as Natal is concerned. There may be isolated cases, but the hon. member only has to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that any child is not receiving the education which he is entitled to by law, and the matter will be put right. We never know that our South African children may not have to find homes in some other part of the world. This war is not over yet and that is not impossible. How would hon. members like their children to be landed in some foreign country; how would they like their children to be denied the right to receive a little education? I am surprised to think that there are any human beings here who would be so callous as to deprive any children of the education that they can get. I want to touch on one matter which I think I should be allowed to raise— it is also in regard to schools. I want to raise the question of single medium schools in South Africa, and I say that it is definitely wrong that we should have single medium schools.

Is not that purely within the province of the provincial council?

Yes, I realise that. But on this Vote we have discussed the question of V signs being introduced into the schools and we have discussed matters of education, and as we are spending millions virtually on subsidies and payments to provincial councils I submit that it is the Union Treasury which is voting and which is responsible for that amount of money annually, and I submit that this is a question of policy which definitely affects the Union Government as well, and I submit that I am justified in calling the attention of the Minister to the policy that has been adopted in certain parts of the Union.

I hope the hon. member will not go too deeply into that question.

No, I realise that it is a border line case but I view it very seriously. I think it is perfectly scandalous that we should have in South Africa a barbed wire fence put round sections of our community due to single medium schools. If our children were allowed to mix together in all the schools we would in less than a generation have a different race of people. I believe that that is the solution of the racial problems of South Africa, and I believe that it is in the power of the Minister and of the Government in some way or other to let it be known that so far as the Union Government is concerned they consider it to be in the interest of the country that single medium schools should be done away with. These children, if they mix together and learn each other’s language and each other’s traditions, will develop friendships which will last for ever. There is not the least doubt that racialism would completely disappear if that were done. It is only by keeping them apart in their youth that they grow apart as the grow older—it is because they have not been able to make contact in their childhood days that they don’t come together later. It has been proved all over the country that little children play with coloured and native children and that they know nothing of racialism. But if they are kept apart from the other section of the community they grow apart. We know in this House that when members get better acquainted with each other, when members on this side get to know members opposite, they realise that they are not as bad as they are sometimes made out to be. It is only by having contact with each other that we get to understand the differences in the two races, and I say that South Africa will never become a big and a bilingual country unless these single medium schools are done away with. It is the solution to the whole language question in South Africa. There would never be any question of a person being unilingual. I speak for Natal. In Natal it is impossible for a person to learn Afrikaans, but if they are put together in school and mix with each other they automatically learn the other’s language and the question of bilingualism will automatically disappear. I believe the Minister himself has said that. He did not believe in single medium schools. I hope the Government will take this matter up and will impress on the provincial councils the necessity of remedying what I consider as being a blot on South Africa for many years.

The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has raised a very interesting and important question, but I do want to appeal to the Committee to consider whether it is really appropriate for us to debate matters like this on this vote. I am here as Minister of Finance.

Where can we raise it?

It can be raised by a specific motion. We have had notice given of such a motion.

Yes, and it will never be reached.

It could have been raised on the Budget debate, or on the Appropriation debate, but surely it should not be raised where you have a Minister in charge who departmentally is not concerned with the matter. The hon. member says I might as Minister of Finance tell the Natal Province what they should do. I am surprised at a Natal member telling me that. That is the very last thing I would dare to do. Natal has time and again fought the battle of Provincial Autonomy, and no doubt they will do so again, but then they must not when they think they can get something in that way, try to induce a Minister to interfere with Natal’s autonomy. Hon. members should realise that this is not the appropriate opportunity to discuss this. These are important and interesting matters, but they are not relevant; they are not relevant to a Treasury vote.

†*The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) asked me a question which is quite applicable in connection with the increased provision for certain Provinces, and the decreased provision for other Provinces. We have to act in terms of the law. I have to make provision on the estimates for a subsidy which is calculated in accordance with a certificate from the Provincial Auditor on the basis of a law, and I cannot make an alteration in that basis without an amendment of the Act. If my hon. friend asks me why that subsidy is smaller in the case of the Transvaal, and larger in the case of Natal, then I can only say that more children have attended school in Natal. I admit that it probably includes refugee children. If my hon. friend will look at the return at the beginning of the Estimates, and if he will compare that with last year’s return, he will notice that there has been a big development in Natal in regard to non-European education as well; that refers to Indians and coloured people, and in terms of the law they also have to get subsidy for that. Consequently, only a small amount will be due to the children of refugees attending school there, but they are also taxpayers. While those refugees are here they pay taxes, and we cannot take up the attitude that they are not allowed to send their children to school.

I feel in view of what the Minister says, that I should not let this opportunity pass without saying a few words on this vote. I do hope, Mr. Chairman, that you will give me latitude for a few seconds to make an explanation with regard to a motion I had on the Order Paper dealing with this particular subject—I shall not strain your generosity too long. The Minister has said that language medium in schools is an interesting subject. I have for two sessions had a motion dealing with single medium schools on the Order Paper, and I have not been able to introduce it into this House. The Minister himself has suggested that it could be introduced by way of a motion. The hon. member for Greyville approached me on this matter a few minutes ago, and said that he would like to raise this question. I told him that I did not think he would be allowed to discuss it, because I had already spoken to you, Mr. Chairman, about it, and was told that discussion on single medium would not be allowed. The House can judge how the hon. member has respected my position as the mover of that motion. I think, however, that the Minister should use his influence as Minister of Education to see that this motion is given an Opportunity next session. That would be the third time I have raised this matter. I am intensely interested in education in this country, and I have a lot to say about is, and I feel that ten minute speeches, or even an half-hour spell, would not do justice to this subject. I am sure there are many members who would like to express their views, and I hope the Minister will use his influence next session to see that this particular subject is given the thorough ventilation which it deserves.

I want to support the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Klopper) in regard to the point he has raised, and I hope the Minister will give us an opportunity to discuss this motion—a motion which hon. members opposite are making a lot of fuss about right throughout the country. Let me give the hon. member the assurance that if the Minister is using his influence to keep this motion out of the House he is doing so because he knows better than the hon. member himself what the position is. He knows only too well that by the introduction of this motion the hon. member would knock another nail into the coffin of the South African Party because the motion means tampering with the principle of mother tongue education, which is something the people of this country will not tolerate.

On a point of explanation, the hon. member does not know what my motion actually means. He is assuming that my motion is intended to do away with Afrikaner rights. I assure him right now that there is no such intention on my part whatever. He is definitely wrong.

The hon. member must confine himself to an explanation.

The hon. member during his speech ascribed certain motives to me. He said that I wished to give the Afrikaner language a “doodslag” (deathblow). That is certainly not the intention of my motion.

I am sorry to notice that the hon. member does not know what his own motion which he has on the Order Paper contains. The Hon. the Minister of Finance understands his motion better than he does himself, and that is why he has not allowed it to be discussed. It is a most important matter and I hope the Minister will give us an opportunity to express our disapproval of the motion. The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Col. Jacob Wilkens) has given certain reasons why the subsidies to certain provinces are smaller than they are in the case of other provinces. He mentioned one very important reason. Now I want to know whether the Minister of Education is aware of the fact that in the Cape Province last year there were 1,069 fewer white children attending school. The Provincial Council in the Education Department’s report gave the reason for this reduction, namely, that children on a large scale are accepting employment after standard VI, and even after standards IV and V when they reach the age of 16. There is work for those children. Now I don’t want to make any insinuations, but if what the Department of Education says here in the Cape—well, we have refugee children here as well, and notwithstanding that there is a falling off in school attendance in the Cape— if it is a fact that there are more openings for employment in the Cape Province than in Natal for instance, cannot we deduce from that that in these parts of the Cape even the Afrikaans speaking people do their duty in regard to the war to a greater extent than the people in Natal are doing. Natal should bring that to the notice of its people. They are not joining up, and that is why there are no vacancies for their children. I only want to say this to the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire), that the hon. member for Ventersdorp was not in any way ungracious or unmerciful in his remarks. In the first instance I brought directly to the notice of the Minister cases such as those of Vergelegen on the Molopo River where the quota hostel is 48. There are no more bursaries available and sixteen children are already accommodated there free of charge at the expense of the church, simply because the Provincial Council replies that it has no more funds available for those children. How can we pass by the South African child? How can we allow the South African child to suffer in this way and then look after the refugee children? We have already had the case in this House of a foreigner who was admitted to our universities to obtain a doctor’s degree while the children of our own Union nationals were turned away. I think the Minister should go into this question and look into the matter to see whether an injustice is not being done to our children, and whether the refugee children are not receiving education at the expense of our own children. We have not the slightest objection to their receiving the necessary education, but provision should first of all be made for our own children. Surely blood is thicker than water. Natal would not tolerate the Afrikaans speaking child being provided for first, and the English speaking child coming after. It makes no difference to me whether it is Afrikaans or English children, but the South African child must receive preference over the foreigner. Then there is another small point which I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. We have the position today that the Provincial Council has laid down a rule that all the children of Europeans or coloured people who have joined the army, and of those who become casualties up North, will receive free education up to standard X. I wonder whether the Minister has considered the far-reaching effects this is going to have. The children of the supporter of the Government’s war effort gets very much greater privileges than the children of the parents who object to the war. This principle means that the coloured child will receive free education up to standard X, but the other children have to suffer. I therefore want to say again that if the Minister provides for the necessary equality of subsidy then the Cape Provincial Council will no longer have the excuse that it has not got the necessary funds to provide for free education for all the children up to standard X. But an injustice is being done at the present moment. I believe that about 20,000 coloured people from the Cape Province have already joined the army and the children of those people get free education and will continue to get free education up to standard X. I therefore feel that the Minister should step in and see to it that the European child in the Cape also shares in those privileges, namely, of getting free education up to standard X.

In regard to this vote, I wish to raise a question under “A”, namely, the mail service between Cape Town and Durban, £15,300. The position in connection with this amount of money is that when the last mail contract was entered into between the Union of South Africa and the Union-Castle Company, there was provision for a weekly mail service to South Africa. The ships would come here every week, and they would carry certain goods to this country at a fixed rate, and provision was also made for the conveyance of perishable products from South Africa to England. For those services, which they were to give us a subsidy of £178,000 per year, has been paid. An agreement was entered into at the time of the establishment of Union with the Union-Castle Company, and that agreement was amended from time to time. Of latter years that agreement was extended from time to time, but the arrangement, so far as the mail agreement is concerned, is more or less the same as it was before. From 1910 up to the present time it has remained more or less the same, and the main thing for which provision was made was the weekly service from England to this country, and for that service they were to get this subsidy, but at the time of the establishment of Union the Durbanites as usual felt somewhat aggrieved. The people of Durban are very proud. They don’t like anyone to overlook Durban. If we look at the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) one can see that the Durbanites have just as much pride as there are bananas in Durban. Durban was not going to be overlooked, and that in spite of the fact that the mail boats in those days experienced the greatest difficulty in getting over the Bar. At high tide they were able to get over the Bar, but for no reason on earth, and for no use to South Africa, a provision was inserted that the mail boats had to waste their time when they came here by going all the way to Durban and back every week. The Union-Castle people rightly asked why they had to go there. There was no business there for them, there was no need for them to go there, and if we wanted them to go there in order to humour Durban, then South Africa had to pay for it. So it was agreed that a subsidy would be paid in order to pander to Durban’s pride. The service we are rendering the Durbanites is a very expensive one—we pay an amount of £30,000 for it—it is of no benefit to South Africa, but it softens the inferiority complex of the hon. member for Greyville and of other members from Natal to a certain extent. It is bad enough that we have to pay these amounts for the ships which go there, but what makes the thing still worse is this: we have been paying the Union-Castle Company to a certain extent for the services which it has been rendering us between South Africa and England. We are paying for this weekly service from Cape Town to Durban and back, and, although we could have objected to it, we still have had the service of those ships going there. This year we find that there is a reduction in the amount from £30,870 to £15,332. But the question I want to ask is whether we are getting any service for this amount of £15,332. What services are we getting? Are those ships to go every fourteen days?

It amounts to that. The amount is calculated on the number of ships that go.

As far as they are able to.

No, it is calculated on the ships that actually go.

Let us assume for argument’s sake that it is so. What are the services which those ships have to render, except that Durban has to be satisfied? They had to carry the mail from Cape Town to Durban, but they are no longer doing that, because the mail is carried by plane, and we are today spending £8,000 for the conveyance of the mail.

Not by aeroplane.

On the postal vote there is an amount of £8,000 this year, whereas last year it was £10,000 for the conveyance of the mail.

No.

Does the Minister want to tell me that Durban would be prepared to wait an extra day if it had to be carried by train? Surely the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) would never allow it? The mail is no longer carried by ship, but by aeroplane, and the heavy mail is carried by train. Apart from this payment to the Union-Castle Company for services which are no longer rendered, we still have the mail contract between England and South Africa. I do not want to deal with that now, but the position in that regard is really a scandal. We are dealing with one aspect of the matter here, however, and that is the traffic between Cape Town and Durban, and I object to our paying that money only to pander to Durban’s feelings— we are paying for services which are no longer being given.

May I just explain that we are very definitely getting service for this money. The object of the contract was not merely to carry the mails but also to have ships to provide facilities for our trade. I think it is a long time ago when the mail, at any rate so far as letters are concerned, was carried by ship from Cape Town to Durban. I doubt whether it happened since Union but in spite of that the contract was renewed for all those years, even though the letters were not carried by mail boat. The position has not changed in that regard. The only change is that there are fewer ships going on to Durban and in terms of the contract the amount which is paid is calculated on the number of ships. This amount is only an estimate and it is quite possible that we shall pay out less than that amount if the number of ships is less than the amount we are estimating for. It is not correct therefore to say that we are not getting service. We are getting exactly the same service as in the past with this difference only, that fewer ships are run between here and Durban.

Can it be reasonably assumed that those ships will not call at Durban if this money is not paid?

This contract was not made by me, but there is one clause which provides that if there is less than one ship per week the amount is reduced.

When was that put in?

A long time ago. Last year we voted £30,000 but we did not spend £30,000. I believe that we paid about £15,000 to the Union Castle Company. That also applies to the mail contract between England and South Africa, for which an amount of £178,000 is provided as against £198,000 last year, but in all probability we shall not spend £178,000; if fewer ships belonging to the Union-Castle Company do the trip we shall have to provide for the conveyance of our mails by other ships between overseas countries and Cape Town, and we shall then have to pay for it, not to the Union-Castle Company but to other companies. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be able to give further information, but quite possibly less than £178,000 will be spent under the mail contract, but more than £20,000 in regard to provision which is made to carry mail on other ships. But here we are only dealing with the conveyance between Cape Town and Durban and that amount is calculated on the number of ships.

It is a rotten contract.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to another item here, namely, the provision which is being made for the Minister without Portfolio. The Government and the Minister particularly are always telling us that in days like the present, in war time, we must be economical, and I want to ask the Minister whether there is any reason why we should have a Minister without Portfolio. We see that last year an amount of £1,980 was voted for the Minister without Portfolio while this year £2,068 is to be voted. I think it is unnecessary to vote that amount, because the Minister does not do any more work than any ordinary member. We find that under the heading of “travelling and subsistence allowance, and incidental expenses,” an amount of £900 has to be voted. I don’t find those amounts on the votes of other Ministers. Why should the Minister who has least work of all, and who to our minds does not do any work of any importance, get so much for travelling expenses? He has a private secretary, a shorthand typiste and a chauffeur, and these people also get cost of living allowances. I want to protest strongly against all these amounts which are being spent here.

The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has brought this question forward for the last five years and has received the same answer. Evidently he is not yet satisfied, and the reason is that this is a British company and naturally the hon. member and his friends do not like anything to do with Britain or a British company.

Is Durban part of Britain?

Does not the hon. member realise that the surplus that the Minister of Railways and Harbours has had during the last two or three years has been directly due to British ships coming here and the way they are rooked—I use the word advisedly—rooked for the different charges that are being made by the Administration. This is a sore point with hon. members opposite. I would like to take their minds back to 1933 when there was an agitation throughout the country because the party that the hon. member represents gave an Italian line £150,000 every year for nothing. We were supposed to get a shipping service. We got nothing, and we paid away £750,000 perfectly good taxpayers’ money for nothing, absolutely nothing. We got nothing in return for it. I remember in those days, Mr. Chairman, we did not have the hon. member for Humansdorp getting on his feet and decrying this subsidy for the Italian shipping company. I don’t remember any member of the old Nationalist Party ever raising that question. When we questioned the advisability of it we were told it was a legacy of the old Nationalist Party. Now the remnants of that party are very much concerned about £15,000 of the taxpayers’ money being paid to a British company. They forget all about the hundreds of thousands they squandered or gave away to other foreigners.

Other foreigners?

They have nothing to say about that. The hon. member knows quite well and so do other hon. members that the Union-Castle Company has done as much as any other company in the world to help to build up South Africa.

And profit for themselves.

Of course it has been a business proposition, and you have had jolly good service. It is now a matter of three years since the company reduced the freights on citrus an absolute loss to the company of something like £40,000 to help the South African citrus growers. It is a matter of common knowledge that the company has carried pedigree stock for the South African farmers, and in many ways they have assisted the people of this country, but because it is a British company hon. members like the hon. member for Humansdorp raise this point every year. They may have a perfectly good Japanese service here within the next year or two, and hon. members over there may be prepared to grant them a subsidy of £150,000 a year. I think, however, in that case there will not be any subsidy because they will take the lot and probably take the hon. member for Humansdorp with them.

May I by way of reply say something on the point raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) ? In the first place I want to make it clear that the Minister without Portfolio does not get any ministerial salary, or any remuneration of any kind.

Why then this £500?

That does not go to him. This increase of £88 is only due to the ordinary annual increases in the salaries of the members of his staff, and also to provide for the cost of living allowances the same as are paid other officials.

But the £900?

That is for travelling and subsistence, and there the Minister with Portfolio is treated in the same way as other Ministers. The members of his staff get subsistence allowances when they are here in Cape Town, just the same as other officials. That is what we make provision for here. We do not find this provision on the votes of other Ministers in the same way, because on those votes general provision is made for travelling and subsistence expenses.

This £900 is for these three people who are mentioned here?

The Minister himself does not draw any subsistence allowance, but the members of his staff when they are on Parliamentary Service do. The Minister’s travelling expenses and expenses in connection with motor transport are paid for, just the same as is the case with other Ministers.

The Minister has introduced an Excise Bill this session, and I feel it my duty to make another appeal to him in regard to the excise on brandy. The Minister, of course, is well aware of our difficulties. He also knows that we are very proud of the brandy we produce; not only is it excellent brandy but I think it is as good as any brandy in the world. There appears to be an idea, however, that we can still improve it. I agree. A commission was appointed which went into the question to make suggestions in regard to the improvement of the quality.

That Commission was appointed by the Minister of Agriculture.

That Commission among other things proposed a refund of 1s. per gallon per year on the maturing of brandy for a longer period than three years. If the Minister really has the wellbeing of the wine farmers at heart, he will do everything he can to try and see to it that the commodity produced by them is improved to such an extent that we give the best product we possibly can. The Minister knows that the value of brandy lies in the way it is matured. The longer brandy is kept the greater the value, but under the existing sales system we cannot improve the quality without the assistance of the Government. I consider a rebate should be allowed for ten years, but then the Government will perhaps say that they will have to give up too much and I therefore propose we should make it at least five years. Give a rebate of 1s. on the excise for five years or 5s. per gallon. I think I am entitled to ask that. This is not the first time I am making this request, but as the Minister is busy with an Excise Bill I should like him to give this matter his serious attention.

The hon. member cannot advocate fresh legislation now.

I want the Minister to consider the desirability of making such provision.

I shall co so.

I shall be glad if the Minister will do it. We are passing through times when we more and more have to look after ourselves. We can no longer import liquor, and now is the time for us to manufacture our own liquor, and to see that it becomes popular. In order to achieve that, we want some encouragement from the Government. I therefore feel that I am entitled to make this request to the Minister.

I think all that it is necessary for me to say is that the Minister of Agriculture, to a certain extent, on my representations, has appointed a commission to which the hon. member has already referred. We recently received the report of that commission. That report has already received a certain amount of attention, but I have not yet had the opportunity of going into all the points. It will, however, be very carefully considered. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with that assurance.

I only want to ask why expenditure in connection with the training ship “General Botha” should appear here under the heading of Customs and Excise?

That is a matter of tradition; it has always been the case.

I want to ask the Minister to what extent these young fellows are being trained there to become sailors? The ship does not look at all effective for its purpose any longer. I am in favour of our young fellows being trained to become young sailors, so that in days to come we may have our own men to man our own ships, but this ship is lying at anchor a short distance away from Cape Town. It is a small ship, with very little accommodation. How do those young fellows get their training? Do they go out to sea in other ships?

They only get their preliminary training there, and very good work is done there.

I should like to know why this vote has been increased by £10,000?

I shall reply to that at once. As a result of our increased expenditure, particularly in connection with defence, more auditing has to be done, and that is why we have to make provision here.

I move—

That the Chairman report progress and ask leave to sit again.