I promised the House that I would, if possible, make a statement before the adjournment in regard to the price of maize for the coming season. The Government has, in consultation with the Mealie Control Board, given consideration to the question of the price to be fixed for the producer for the next season. In view of the small crop which producers will reap this year and the consequent high production cost per bag, the Government has decided to fix the price to the producer at 15s. per bag, free on rail producer’s station, for grades 2 and 6 in bags. The Board will also fix the prices of mealies and mealie meal to the consumer on the basis of 15s. per bag to the producer. Judging by the views expressed in the House, I feel sure that the price of 15s. per bag will give general satisfaction, but I want maize farmers to realise that this comparatively high price applies only in respect of the present year’s abnormal crop, and cannot serve as a basis for future crops. This is fully appreciated by the Board, which has assured me that it is satisfied that the price of 15s. per bag cannot serve as a basis for the future, but that next year’s crop will have to be dealt with on its own merits. The Government has also considered the question of a supplementary payment to small maize farmers. But as fully 90 per cent. of the maize which will be sold this year will fall within the first 500 bags sold, and, as the supplementary payment to small maize farmers had its origin in the consideration that during surplus years the small producer should have a larger share in the local market, the Government feels that there is no justification for differentiation in prices as regards the coming season’s crop. Actually the relatively high price of 15s. per bag was fixed with due regard to the fact that most maize farmers will not have large quantities of maize for sale this year.

I move—

1. (a) two hours in addition to the time already occupied shall be allotted for the Committee stage;
2. (b) one hour shall be allotted for the Report stage; and
3. (c) one hour shall be allotted for the Third Reading.

For the purposes of this resolution—

1. (1) Conclusion of stages.—At the conclusion of any period of hours allotted under paragraphs (a) and (c), Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall forthwith put the question before the House or the Committee and any amendments, other than amendments proposed by a Minister, which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop: Provided that on the Third Reading Mr. Speaker shall allow the Minister in charge of the Bill to reply to the debate before the question is put.
   Mr. Speaker or the Chairman shall thereupon proceed to put forthwith without debate any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister and thereafter only such further amendments as may be moved by a Minister and such questions, including Clauses as amended or as printed, as may be necessary to dispose of the stage.
   At the conclusion of each stage of the Bill the date for the next stage shall be fixed by a Minister.
2. (2) Report stage.—At the conclusion of the period allotted for the Report stage any amendments (other than amendments proposed by a Minister) which have been moved but not disposed of shall drop. Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith without debate any amendments which have been moved or may be moved by a Minister. Mr. Speaker shall next put the question “That the Bill as amended be adopted”, which shall also be decided without debate and shall be deemed to include any amendments made in Committee of the Whole House which have not been taken into consideration.
3. (3) Eleven o’clock Rule.—When business is interrupted at the conclusion of any period of hours allotted for any stage of proceedings specified above, the application of Standing Order No. 26 (eleven o’clock rule) shall be postponed until the proceedings on that stage have been completed.
4. (4) Dilatory motions, etc.—At no stage shall Mr. Speaker or the Chairman receive a motion that the Chairman report progress or do leave the Chair, or a motion to postpone a clause, or a motion for the adjournment of the House or of the debate, or a motion to recommit the Bill, unless moved by a Minister, and the question on such motion shall be put forthwith without debate.

I regret that the Government feels itself constrained to make this proposal. We recognise that the guillotine procedure is an exceptional procedure and that it should only be used in exceptional circumstances, but I feel that under the conditions which have now developed we have no alternative, and we have to ask the House to apply this special procedure of the guillotine to the Rents Bill. The Bill itself is essential in the opinion of the Government. It is an essential part of our programme this session, and the Government is determined to put it through. It is in the interest of the country, especially of the less well-to-do section of the population which is suffering hardships under existing conditions and which we want to relieve by the passage of this Bill. It is a measure of a social nature which in the opinion of the Government is essential.

We agree, we also want legislation.

I believe that it has been admitted from all sides of the House that this Bill must be put through. What has happened? We have now arrived at a late stage of the session. We want to finish the session next week. I myself informed the House that we hoped to conclude by the middle of next week. It now seems that we shall be a bit later, and that instead of concluding the session on Tuesday it may be perhaps Thursday or Friday before we shall finish. The time is so short that with the lengthy debates that are taking place on this Bill we shall not be able to get the measure through this session unless this special procedure is followed. The debate has been very much protracted. I don’t want to accuse anyone of obstruction.

We accuse the Minister of obstruction.

If the Minister is accused then I can make a counter charge which I do not want to make. I recognise that this is a Bill which occupies a good deal of time, but what has happened? How much time have we spent on this Bill already? The second reading has taken up more than four hours, four hours and eight minutes. The Committee stage has already taken nearly 12½ hours; two hours and forty seven minutes were spent on Clause 1; on Clause 2 two hours and twenty minutes were taken up, and that clause was only passed with the aid of the closure. On Clause 3 we devoted no less than four hours and eight minutes, and that clause was also passed with the aid of the closure, while Clause 4 has taken up one hour and five minutes, and Clause 5 two hours and three minutes, and that, too, was passed by means of the closure, so we have spent twelve and a half hours on five clauses. I am quoting these figures to get the House to understand that if these special steps are not taken to curtail the debate on this Bill we are going to be kept here for weeks.

We are in no hurry.

I don’t think that hon. members of this House wish to have such a protracted discussion on this Bill, and in view of the fact that sixteen or seventeen hours have already been spent on the measure I am moving this proposal.

I second.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister started off by saying that he was very sorry the Government felt itself constrained to make this proposal, namely, the application of the Guillotine to this important Bill. So far as the regret animating the Prime Minister is concerned I can say that that regret is fully shared by this side of the House. I think that this side of the House not only regrets this unusual procedure, but there is also a feeling of indignation on this side of the House. So far as the Prime Minister’s contention goes that the Government is constrained to apply this measure, I can only say that we certainly do not share that opinion. There has been no necessity, and there is no necessity to apply this guillotine procedure in this instance. The Prime Minister himself testified to that fact by pointing out that it is an important Bill. This Bill concerns social conditions. It affects a large portion of the population, and if he regards it as important then I want to tell him that we also regard it as an important measure. If he considers it necessary to pass the Bill this session then I want to say that we consider it just as important, but what he apparently does not consider important we do consider as important, and that is that just because this is such an important Bill the measure must be thoroughly and properly considered by this House. That is what he now wants to prevent by this guillotine measure which he is now proposing. This Bill is not only important but the measure is also to a large extent contentious in certain regards. Quite a number of the clauses, as has already been shown in the course of the discussion, are contentious, not alone between this side of the House and the other side of the House, but they are contentious even so far as the Benches behind the Minister are concerned. I look at the Order Paper and I find amendments there to this Rents Bill. Quite a number of amendments appear on the Order Paper. The first amendment is proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare himself; the second is proposed by Mr. Davis, the third by Mr. Friedlander, and the fourth by Mr. Trollip. All the amendments on the Order Paper are standing in the names of members opposite. That, therefore, is a clear indication of the fact that this Bill is important not only in the minds of hon. members on this side of the House, but it is a Bill which is to a large extent contentious, or at any rate it is a Bill to which hon. members on both sides of the House consider improvements should be effected, yet in those circumstances the Prime Minister comes here and wants to tie down the discussion on this important measure. We have only reached the fifth clause of the Bill and there are twenty-three clauses in it, and now the Prime Minister wants to restrict the further discussion to this short space of time which he has mentioned in his motion. I think there is something which we have a reason to complain of in this House in general, but this side of the House more particularly, and it is this: that an important Bill of this kind which has reached this important stage, and on which there are discussions about improvements necessary for the proper working of the Bill—that such an important Bill has been left over to this late stage of the session. I think the right thing for the Government to have done would have been to have introduced an important Bill like this very early in the session, to have discussed it early on, and to have dealt with it when there was ample time for it, but now it comes up at this late stage, towards the end of the session when members are actually packing their bags, ready for their departure. Now the Prime Minister comes here and wants to rush this Bill through the House. It is not fair to the House, it is not fair to the country. Such a measure should be introduced— although I have no such complaints in regard to this Bill, because it was introduced as long as six weeks ago—but why was it not brought up for discussion earlier, so that it could have been thoroughly discussed? One of the reasons why there has been delay in regard to the discussion of this measure is because this Bill, like so many of the Bills which the Government places before the House, has not been properly considered. The Bill, generally speaking, has been badly drafted. That is the complaint which we continually have to make about Bills introduced by this Government. That is why there are these long discussions and why there is all this delay. It is not the fault of the House, it is not the fault of this side of the House, and that is why we say the Government owes it to this House to allow it to have a proper consideration and a proper debate on legislation of this kind introduced by the Government.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to lodge my strongest protest against this action on the part of the Government. It seems that no social legislation can be introduced by this Government and by the Minister of Labour and Social Welfare and put through all the stages in this House without the application of the guillotine. We have already had experience of similar guillotine motions in regard to the former social legislation which this Government has introduced. In regard to the Factories Bill, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also moved a guillotine motion. Only a few clauses of that Bill could be dealt with in Committee, with the result that a half-baked Bill which could have been improved in very many respects has been put on the Statute Book. Numerous complaints have already been received in regard to improvements which should have been made and which have not been made. Now the Prime Minister comes here and again proposes this guillotine motion in regard to the further discussion of the Rents Bill. One should bear in mind the fact that this is not a contentious measure, but that it is a measure which is agreed to and which is acceptable to both sides of the House. But what has been done so far is that essential and important amendments have been proposed. To that I want to add that hon. members on this side of the House have done everything in their power to expedite the proceedings of this House so far as this Bill is concerned. Hon. members have even gone so far as to make their speeches in English in order to expedite the business of the House, because as we know the Minister in charge of this Bill, after having been a member of the House for thirty-two years, cannot yet understand Afrikaans. It would not have been necessary to do so if the Minister could at once get some idea of what we say in Afrikaans. Everything has been done from this side of the House to expedite the work. I want to say this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister: Rather than move this guillotine proposal he should have made some change in his Cabinet. He could have appointed another Minister of Labour to pilot this Bill through the House. The Bill would then have been passed very much more speedily. He should rather have changed some of his Ministers, and he should have put another Minister of Social Welfare there to look after this Bill. The Prime Minister says that we have already spent twelve hours to consider the first five clauses of this Bill in Committee. May I remind him that there are about twenty-three clauses. That means that another eighteen important clauses have to be discussed, yet what is the Prime Minister doing now? He gives us exactly two hours to discuss the following eighteen clauses! Among those eighteen clauses are clauses which are defective. There are clauses containing certain provisions of such a character that they are unacceptable to members on both sides of the House. But the Prime Minister now proposes that we are not to be allowed thoroughly to discuss those clauses; we have to pass everything within two hours. As I have said on a previous occasion it is apparently a characteristic of the Prime Minister and his Government that any social legislation coming before this House, and which is a step in the right direction, is expected not to be criticised, but has to be passed by acclamation. They think that if they come along with any improvement so far as social legislation is concerned it is not to be criticised, and we simply have to accept it as it is put before us. But surely that is not the duty of this House. It is the duty of this House thoroughly to scrutinise every Bill and to propose improvements which are considered important, and to advocate the making of those improvements. That is the duty of hon. members of this House. We must now take it that that is not how the Government looks at things. I want to point out, however, in regard to this Bill that Clause 14 is an important and contentious clause. I alone have seven or eight amendments to propose to that clause. The effect of this guillotine motion is that that clause will not even be reached, and the result is going to be that we are once more going to have an Act on the Statute Book, the first five clauses of which have been properly considered, but in connection with which the Minister has refused to accept necessary amendments, and of which about eighteen clauses have not been considered at all by the House. And furthermore, we find that the Prime Minister proposes that after the time set down for the Committee stage all the amendments proposed are not even to be voted on. In other words, he does not even allow the House the opportunity of expressing itself on those amendments. We are not allowed to vote on them. The reason for his doing so is very palpable. There has already been so much whipping up of members opposite in connection with their attitude towards this Bill that the Prime Minister dare not risk having these important amendments put to the vote. Most of the members have been sent away because they adopted a wrong attitude in connection with this Bill.

They are back again now.

This motion of the Prime Minister is very definitely a violation of the democratic rights of Parliament. It is a motion which so curtails, so restricts the debates of this House, that hon. members as a result of this motion will not have the opportunity of properly discussing the Bill, and of proposing the necessary very drastic amendments. I am convinced that the Government will have to bear the blame for it. Here is a Bill which does not affect just a small section of the community—it is a Bill which is going to affect thousands and tens of thousands of the citizens of the country in a most vital manner. It is a matter which to a certain degree affects their bread and butter, and yet the Government comes here and refuses to give us any further opportunity for discussion. It is one of the grossest violations of Parliamentary rights that has ever been committed by any Government, to propose a motion of this kind on an important Bill such as this, a Bill of such a drastic nature.

Anyone who is not aware of what has been happening here could have concluded from the speech of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister that there had been a certain degree of obstruction from this side of the House in regard to this Bill. There has been no obstruction from this side in regard to the Bill. It would not even be fair to say that there has been a lack of co-operation from this side of the House in regard to this important measure which everyone, although in an amended form, wants to see placed on the Statute Book. Still, I want to say this to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, that while it would be totally untrue and unfounded to say that there has been a lack of co-operation from this side of the House it is not impossible that if he wants to drive things through the House in this way there will in future be an absence of co-operation from this side of the House. Hon. members on this side of the House are only human, and if the Prime Minister now wants to show his contempt for the rights of the minority in this House and simply wants to force things through the House then he has not got the right to come to this House on other occasions and ask for our co-operation on important legislation which has to be placed on the Statute Book. When I say that the Prime Minister wants to force this matter through I feel that I am fully entitled to make a charge of that character. This session will be known as one of the shortest sessions the Union Parliament has had for years; I am not speaking of short intermediate sessions, or sessions which have taken place just before a General Election, but I am speaking of ordinary sessions, and I say that this is one of the shortest we have had for years in the history of Parliament. It is not yet three months ago since this Parliament came together, and where one would expect the Prime Minister to say, as he has already said, that these are abnormal times, and that for that reason we must have a short session, I can only say this, that other countries which have the same Parliamentary system which we have, do not feel the need to curtail the sessions of Parliament under these circumstances—as a matter of fact we find the very opposite, In these difficult times they feel compelled to give more opportunities to the House to have discussions on important questions, they feel it necessary to give more opportunities than used to be the case in ordinary years of peace. That argument which the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is going to use in his reply has already been fully answered by the example of other countries. We have a session now which is essentially a short one, and that being the case we now find that an extremely important Bill has to be dealt with at the end of this short session by this House, and then the Prime Minister comes here with a motion such as the one now before us, by which he practically wants to force a Bill like this through the House with the aid of the steam roller. Well, the Bill will look like a Bill which has been run over by a steam roller, if it is to be passed in that way. I only want to say this in that connection, that in the circumstances the Prime Minister has not the slightest right to do this, and that he cannot expect to get co-operation from this side of the House in connection with other legislation which he might have been entitled to expect in ordinary circumstances. If the Prime Minister acts like that, then he has not the right to expect the co-operation he might otherwise have expected. No, this session is not only the shortest but being the shortest, although there is no necessity for it being so short, the Prime Miniser comes here and places further restrictions on the rights of Parliament for the proper consideration of most important legislation. Not only has the Prime Minister shewn his contempt for the opinion of all those who do not agree with him, and not only has he shewn his contempt for the rights of every member of this House …

The hon. member should not say that the Prime Minister has shown contempt for the rights of hon. members.

Then I shall try to find another term which will perhaps not give the impression that the Prime Minister has contempt for the rights of members. I shall say that he ignores the rights of hon. members. He curtails the rights to which hon. members are accustomed and which they have to use to perform their duties, rights which the public expected to have and to use here so that we may properly scrutinise the affairs of the country. The Prime Minister by this guillotine motion of his is preventing us from doing so, and he is depriving us of those rights. Having made these few remarks in regard to the matter generally, I now want to deal with this guillotine motion, more particularly in relation to this case which it refers to, namely, whether the Prime Minister will be entitled in this particular instance to make use of the powers he has, but which we feel constitute a wrong use of those powers. Has the opposition to this particular Bill been unnecessary, and has that opposition amounted to obstruction? The Prime Minister will now say that the discussions have perhaps been unnecessarily protracted. If that were true, if it were true that the speeches of hon. members on this side of the House have been unduly drawn out, then the charge is not one which can be made against members on this side of the House, but it is a charge which the Prime Minister should make against the Minister who introduced this Bill. As the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has already said, it is very difficult in this House to bring anything home to the intelligence of the Minister in a language which he does not understand, because everything has to be interpreted, but, apart from that, we have had this phenomenon in regard to the first two clauses which have been disposed of—we have had this position that I would almost say, if you would not call me to order, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister’s attitude has been so arrogant that he has practically refused to listen to anyone, or to accept any advice. He has refused to accept any co-operation to get this Bill placed on the Statute Book in a better shape. The attitude adopted by the Minister would have given us on this side of the House the right to make things very difficult for the Minister, and if the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister perhaps wants to use the argument that this side of the House has spoken more than was necessary, then the fault does not lie with us, but it lies with the stubborn attitude adopted by his own Minister. The whole spirit created by the Minister in regard to this Bill has made it almost impossible for anyone to co-operate with him, if one refused to accept his dictatorial attitude, and if one refused to pass the Bill exactly as placed before us by the Minister. One should also remember that the Minister of Social Welfare in this one respect has the worst record of all so far as legislation is concerned. He is always in a hurry. He is hasty by nature. His is an unhealthy hurry. He is always rushing without looking where he is rushing, without looking to see whether his armour and his equipment are in order, and where his armour is a Bill, that armour is very inadequate. He rushes in with half-baked ammunition. His armament is faulty. The Minister may shake his head; he does not believe anyone except himself, and he accepts nobody’s advice but his own. He shakes his head in the same way as the British General Staff shook their heads when they arrived in France, and were told that their equipment and their armaments were not what they should be. The Minister ever since he has been Minister, has come to this House time and again with halfbaked and ill-considered legislation. During the past few years the Minister has not introduced a single important Bill into this House which did not have to be amended in the next session of Parliament, and in connection with which it was not necessary to introduce a whole series of improvements to close up the gaps and the leakages. What does that prove? It only proves that that legislation was not carefully considered and that it had been drafted in a slovenly manner. It proves that the matter had been dealt with superficially, and that this House had not had the opportunity carefully to scrutinise that legislation. As that is the Minister’s record, he cannot take it amiss that we want to assist on every point to improve his legislation. We must remember that we have had very slovenly legislation in the past from the Minister of Social Welfare. We don’t want to put slovenly legislation on our Statute Book, and that is why we on our part are making an honest effort to despatch that legislation through this House in a better form than it was in when it came to the House. Now, there is another question, too. Certain very important principles are contained in this Bill. There is the question of the appointment of the Control Boards and of the Rent Boards. There is the question of bilingualism on the part of members of those Boards, and this is a very important matter. This Bill to a very large extent will be applicable to the less privileged and less well educated section of our population. We know how difficult it is to attend to these people in a foreign language. Here we have a Cabinet Minister who has been a member of this House for thirty-two years and who is still so inept that he cannot understand us if we speak in our own language. How then can he expect the people who will appear before these Boards to be able to explain their standpoint in their evidence if the members of those Boards cannot understand their language? It is a very important principle, and because that important principle is contained in the Bill and because the Minister refuses to give in we have the right to take up time not to delay the Bill, but to put the point of view of the majority of the people of South Africa as against the attitude of the Minister, and we have the right to bring this to the notice of the House, of the country outside, and of the Minister himself. For these reasons we consider that the Prime Minister did not have the right to curtail the rights of members on this side of the House. We consider that he did not have the right in general to propose a motion like this, and we also say that he did not have the right to curtail our privileges in regard to this particular measure. We consider it a matter in the interest of the country and of the people who have to deal with it; we consider it important to have complete discussions on this subject, and we consider that adequate opportunity should be given to us to see to it that this Bill shall be placed on the Statute Book.

I want to say a few words on this motion and I want to do so with all due respect and all due moderation. I am still a young member and I don’t want to use any hard words in regard to this motion. What I am going to say, therefore, I shall say from my heart. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not object to this motion, and even at this late stage I still want to beg the Minister to withdraw it. I don’t know whether he realises what the consequences of it will be. I don’t know whether he realises what the significance of this motion of his is. Our Standing Rules and Orders provide for the length of speeches, they lay down how members can speak, how the debate is to be conducted on a subject, and also that the discussion must be to the point. Now I fail to see why we should depart from the Standing Rules and Orders in regard to this Bill now before us. The Prime Minister has only given us one reason for it, and that is that they want to finish up and go home. If they want to go home let them go, but let us stay behind here and continue the discussion on this Bill. It is admitted from all sides of the House that it is a very important Bill; it is admitted that there has been no waste of time. The Bill, in the way it is drafted now, looks a mess to me, if I may call it that. I want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that the Minister of Finance introduced a very important Bill containing over a hundred clauses. It was a very important Bill, but he had gone very thoroughly into the matter, and because he was reasonable and met our views that Bill went through the Committee in about an hour. When we started off with this Rents Bill it appeared that the Minister of Social Welfare wanted to be reasonable. In the first instance he accepted three amendments, but after that he adopted a different attitude. This Bill contains very important principles. Provision is made here, for instance, for an Appeal Board whose decision is going to be final, but there is no provision whatsoever in the Bill for a quorum, or for the procedure which is to be followed. It seems to me that the Minister thinks that those people can just go and sit round a table and because they have common-sense, as he puts it, they are simply to be allowed to carry on as they like. There are other people who have tried to carry on in that way; we have had experience of attempts which have been made to cut out and to alter the procedure of the courts, and we know the mess that it has led to. Because we feel very strongly on this matter we consider it our duty to take the public outside under our protection, and as against that we now find that the Minister is adopting such a stubborn attitude that we cannot induce him to realise that amendments have to be made. We have taken twelve hours on five of the important clauses of this Bill. We are now coming to another important clause. I have twelve amendments on one of those clauses. If these amendments were insignificant it would have been a different thing, but I want to point out to the Prime Minister that I moved four amendments to Clause 1 and the Minister has to admit that three of those amendments were essential. Surely that is ample evidence of the fact that the amendments I proposed were essential amendments? We on this side of the House who are not responsible for the drafting of Bills cannot help it if the Minister comes along with a Bill like this. It is our duty, where we think it is necessary to protect the public, to get up and put the position before the House. The Prime Minister says that he does not contend that it is our intention to delay the Bill, or put any obstacles in its way. He says that the only reason why he makes this proposal is that members want to go home. This kind of procedure shows up the weakness of our Parliamentary system because our rights our freedom to speak and to bring matters before Parliament, are taken away. This is the best type of advertisement for those people who don’t want this system. I feel that the Minister should give us the opportunity to discuss matters thoroughly, and even at this stage the Prime Minister can still withdraw his motion. He cannot blame us for feeling that the motion has been introduced for the purpose of stifling discussion. He cannot blame us for thinking that it is being done to protect the Minister of Labour and this futile Bill of his. I understand that it is the Prime Minister’s duty to protect his Ministers wherever he can, but it seems to me that the Prime Minister feels that there is something wrong here. There is quite enough trouble on the Prime Minister’s own side of the House. People who know something about these things— lawyers who have tried to put things right have been attacked and slandered to such an extent that they have been compelled to leave things alone. I do not think the Prime Minister has read the Bill, because if he had he would feel as we do. No lawyer with any knowledge of things would agree to a Bill like this. I have had large numbers of letters sent to me by people outside complaining of this Bill. I have had anonymous letters as well as others. People have come here to try and discuss the matter with us The position simply is this, that the public feel that we are dealing with a very important measure here which will affect many people and now we are to be muzzled. Five clauses have occupied twelve hours and now we are to pass the other seventeen in two hours. Immediately following the clauses which we have passed are a few very important clauses in which there are some serious gaps and anomalies. If we allow this kind of legislation to be passed in this way the Minister cannot blame us for feeling that there must be some other reason for the step that is now being proposed, except that hon. members want to go home. I cannot imagine that the Prime Minister, for the sake of a few days—if necessary we could even sit the whole night, or a few nights—would pass a motion like this. There must be some other reason for his wanting to muzzle us. I feel that it is not only an unwise step, but I also think that it is a step which the Minister will very much regret in days to come. He lays down the principle here that if you have a difficult Bill which you cannot get through, then you must muzzle the Opposition and only give the Opposition a couple of hours. The position being as it is we shall not get much further in these two hours than the next clause. There already is a general feeling that every time we deal with social legislation we have to be muzzled. Why cannot we have a free discussion? If the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister feels that this Bill is essential, let us discuss the matter thoroughly. And if there is no time, well, he can issue regulations in his usual autocratic manner so that we may later on be able to put this Bill in proper shape, because this Bill is not only going to be here for the time of the war— it will have to be there after the war as well. I feel the Prime Minister is taking the wrong step. He tells us that he had intended finishing the session next Wednesday. How could he expect that? There is a lot of important legislation to be dealt with. For instance, there is the Banking Bill; there is the Bill on base metals; the Natural Oils Bill and the Insurance Bill. How can the Minister expect all these measures to be passed before the end of next week, when there is still part of the Estimates left? I am just as keen on getting away as the Prime Minister is, and to get a bit of a rest. We have worked very hard and we have tried to do our duty, but we are quite willing, if there is work to be done, to stay here and discuss the legislation and put things right, so that these Bills will not see the light of day in a defective form, in a form which makes it impossible for them to be given effect to. It is absolutely essential that we should give our full attention to these important measures. We should sit here a full week on the Banking Bill alone. It is an entirely new measure and it contains many new principles, and there are many opinions on the subject. Then there is the Bill in regard to base metals which will also take time. It is quite impossible to get away by next Saturday—it is out of the question if we want to do our work properly. Too many mistakes are slipping into our legislation. Every time our laws are before the courts the judges say that they cannot understand them; they don’t know what the laws mean. All these things are due to the sort of step which the Prime Minister is now proposing to take. Discussion is balked and restricted so that we are unable to give proper attention to these matters. We have taken our work seriously and we have studied this Bill, and now we are to come here and just approve of anything the Minister proposes. We have gone out of our way to help the Minister but he has refused to accept our help; he simply wants to force this Bill through as it stands today. We have proposed amendments and made suggestions in regard to the composition of Control and Rent Boards, but the Minister refuses to listen. Quite a number of things have not been properly provided for, and we want this Bill to be put into proper shape, but all our proposals to bring about improvements are turned down. These proposals of ours concern the questions of right, justice, and fairplay. We want proper rules to be laid down for the Boards to tell them how they should conduct their proceedings, and we want their duties to be properly defined. If that is not done only trouble will result, but the Minister refuses to listen to us. Well, we have done our duty to our constituents, and we have stood up for their interests. If the Prime Minister wants to prevent us from doing our duty his be the responsibility. We are sitting here morning, afternoon and night; Select Committees are still carrying on while Parliament is sitting, and all this is done simply with the object of getting home as soon as we can. Everything has to be done in a hurry—how can one pass proper legislation when there is all this hurry, all this rush? I had to serve on a Select Committee this morning. We had to rush along to finish up and put in our report. After that I had to run along to come to the House. That is the way the country’s affairs are being handled. I say it is unfair and wrong. If the Prime Minister does not want to attend our discussions—if he is too big to attend the debates—let him sit in his office and do other work, and let the Minister who has to pilot the Bill through the House, do all the work, but let us do the work properly and thoroughly. I feel that it is an insult to this House and to the country for the Prime Minister to come here—and I say so with all due humility —and to demand of us to carry on in this way, so that the country does not know what is going on, and we are unable to pass proper legislation. If the Minister wants to act autocratically, let him turn himself into a dictator, because that is what all his actions amount to. He decides that a Bill has to be passed, no matter whether it is a good or bad Bill, no matter whether the country has had the opportunity of considering it or not. It is a violation of the rights of members of Parliament to deal with matters in that way. Let the Minister of Labour take his medicine. Why should he be backed up? He is an old Parliamentarian. Why should he be protected by the Prime Minister who comes here and tells us that this Bill introduced by the Minister of Labour is not to be discussed any further? Now, we are going to get a half-baked Bill, because it is full of gaps and full of defects, and we have the same thing year after year. Legislation is passed, and the next year amendments have to be passed to the same Act because possible eventualities have not been provided for. The primary reason why so many amending Bills are required is that the Bills are not printed in time, and are not distributed among members in time to give members a proper opportunity of studying those measures—members are not given the opportunity of discussing the Bills which have to be submitted to Parliament. A further reason is the kind of procedure which we are faced with now, this sort of motion which curtails our discussions. I assume that this Bill is wanted, and we are prepared to assist in getting it on to the Staute Book, but if we do give our co-operation, then we want to do the best we possibly can in order to get a good Act on to the Statute Book. Of course, the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister can smother all criticism by the aid of his slavish majority. Why does not he rather abolish Parliament altogether? He does not accuse us of unnecessarily delaying the passage of this Bill, and, as a matter of fact, he cannot accuse us of it. We have done everything we possibly could to help. We have given the Whips most of our amendments to hand to the Minister, and what is the result of it — the motion which is now before the House, to guillotine this debate. In that way we cannot possibly expect good, sound legislation to be placed on the Statute Book.

I have listened very attentively to the debate but I really cannot say that I found it very convincing. With all possible sympathy and all readiness to receive guidance from the other side of tile House I must say that I have had very little. Take the argument of the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Bill is not contentious in principle. I accept that. We agree on the principle. Hon. members opposite also say that they think it is necessary to pass this Bill, but now we get this position, that the Bill, the object of which all of us approve, and which we all regard as essential, calls forth an endless discussion on all kinds of points. One hon. member said that he had eight amendments on one clause, and another member said that he had twelve amendments.

That shows how badly the Bill has been drafted.

I don’t think any further arguments are needed. You can put any provision of a Bill in fifty or a hundred different ways. The Parliamentary draughtsmen who have handled this Bill have submitted their draft and that is what we are now dealing with, but I quite agree that if hon. members want to split hairs, they can suggest all sorts of changes without the actual principle of the Bill being affected.

That is not so, some very important changes and alterations are needed.

That is exactly my charge against hon. members. We do not differ on the principle, we do not differ about the object and the aim of the Bill.

We differ on the procedure.

Although we don’t differ on the principle we are yet unable to make any progress. One hon. member comes along with eight amendments and another one with twelve, and the result is that we shall simply not be able to get this Bill passed. Surely that is a ridiculous position. I am sorry that we feel constrained to apply the guillotine. I think it is an unusual procedure which we should avoid wherever we can do so, but I have waited and waited until we got to Clause No. 5 to see whether any improvement would set in. But the amendments have come like rain from the skies, and now we fear that a great many more are to be introduced. In the circumstances I am afraid we have to take this step. If minor mistakes slip into the Bill we can see about putting them right afterwards, but I don’t think we can allow the Bill to be wrecked. If we do not follow this procedure, and if we carry on in the way we have been doing so far with this Bill we shall never get it passed this session.

You may just as well abolish the whole of Parliament.

Some hon. members rather repeat themselves. I think when they have been in this House a little longer they will learn not to repeat the same thing a dozen times; it makes Parliamentarv procedure impossible. I am sorry therefore that I have to make this proposal.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—57:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christhoper, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—29:

Conradie, J. H.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

This clause reads as follows—

What difference is there between one magistrate’s office and another? Both issue summonses in the same way. If a witness lives outside the district the subpoena is served on him in that district. A special procedure has been laid down for the magistrate’s court and it is unnecessary to put in the words “By the magistrate’s court of the district in which the Board is sitting.” This can only lead to trouble. I therefore move—

Then I have another amendment. Hon. members will see that the clause contains the following provision—

Now let us take an extreme case. Say a woman appears before the Rent Board and she is asked what her age is. Many women do not want to say how old they are. If she gives her age as being one or two years less than what it is she can be put into gaol and fined £100. Our judicial system lays it down that only such questions can be put as are relevant to the matter at issue and which are material to the case. I therefore move—

It is unnecessary to have a penal clause in reagrd to matters which are immaterial to the case. It seems to me a sound principle that the questions which are asked must be relevant to the issue. It is unreasonable that questions can be asked which have nothing to do with the case. I therefore move—

Now I wish to move the following amendment—

Clause 6 (2) reads as follows—

We notice here that any questions can be put to him, and if the words which I am proposing in my amendment are not inserted, namely, that the questions must be material to the issue, then any question can simply be put to the man even if it is not at all relevant, and he can get into trouble if he gives the wrong answer. We further notice that this clause speaks of a person getting into trouble if he insults the chairman. That seems a very peculiar provision to me, and I therefore move the following amendment in that regard—

The same thing was originally proposed in the Factories Act, but it was left out afterwards. If an individual insults the chairman, well, there is always the law of libel.

But surely you don’t want to be offensive?

No, I don’t want to be, but there is no need to have such a provision in this Bill.

I shall now address the House in Afrikaans because it seems that the co-operation which we have tried to give the Minister is not being appreciated, or is being rejected with contempt. The Minister will therefore have to use his interpreter in the best way he possibly can. I just want to say in regard to the amendment which my hon. friend on my left has moved that the Minister’s argument will probably again be that he considers it necessary, that he wants it like that, and that is why he is going to have it like that. That is the only argument his intelligence enables him to adduce, simply because he does not understand the amendments which we are moving. In this connection I want to refer the Minister to a provision in the original Rents Act. Why this Bill does not follow certain provisions appearing in the original Act is beyond my conception. In the original Rents Act there is reference that any questions can be asked and any books can be demanded which are material to the subject at issue. That provision is expressly contained in Clause 2 of the original Rents Act, in which it is clearly laid down that the questions which are asked and the books which are demanded must be material to the matter under investigation. Special provision is made for that in the old Act. The individual is only obliged to produce documents and books before the Rents Board which are relevant to the investigation. Now we find that that important provision has been left out. Can the Minister tell us why? Has it been found in practice that those words, that is to say, that questions and documents must be relevant to the matter under investigation, have handicapped the enquiry? Is that the reason why this important provision has been left out? The Minister now expects us to pass this important Bill and to give the Rents Board the extraordinary power to compel any individual to submit any document or book for inspection, even if such documents or books have nothing to do with the matter under investigation. An owner may perhaps have a lot of houses which he lets. An investigation is made in connection with one specific house, yet the Rent Board can compel that man to submit documents and to submit his books in regard to all the houses he has, although they have nothing to do with the investigation which is being conducted. The same thing can happen with the lessee who has lodged a complaint. If the Rents Board considers it necessary it can compel the lessee to submit all his receipts in respect of the places where he has lived in the past and which have nothing at all to do with the case under investigation. He can be obliged to submit all those receipts to the Rents Board. They can try to damage the man’s character or the woman’s character, although the question of character has nothing whatever to do with the investigation. I therefore say that it is essential that those same provisions appearing in the old Act are taken up in this Bill now before the House. I must assume that there was a good and sound reason for those words being inserted in the old law. In regard to the other amendment which deals with the replies to questions, the Minister here proposes that any questions may be put. The hon. member’s amendment means that only such questions can be put as are material to the matter under investigation. We can again use the same arguments which we have used before in regard to the amendment which we proposed on the previous clause, namely, that they should only be allowed to put questions which are relevant to the enquiry. That same provision in the old Act contains the words that when questions are put by the Rent Board only such questions shall be put in regard to any matter relevant to the enquiry. The old Act definitely lays it down that only if a wrong answer is given in connection with any matter which is relevant to the enquiry will the individual be guilty of perjury. The Minister now says that that will be the position in regard to any question. It may perhaps be merely a minor matter; perhaps a woman will give her wrong age. It may perhaps have nothing at all to do with the subject under enquiry, but none the less the individual will be liable to a charge of perjury and to the penalties connected with such a charge. It should be remembered that whether an individual commits perjury on the subject of his age, or whether he commits perjury in regard to an important matter it is still perjury, and he or she is committing a crime. The Minister proposes that anyone appearing before the Rent Board will run the risk of unnecessary and unjust prosecution. This is a matter of the utmost importance and all we ask the Minister—there is nothing new about it—is that he must insert the same clause appearing in the old Act, in the Bill now before the House.

I have already moved amendments and I have given my reasons for moving them. I just want to say this to the Minister, that these things may appear to be trivialities and they may not appear to have any significance, but in our judicial system provision is made for all these matters and we now find that this Bill goes beyond our judicial system. Then there is another thing the Minister should realise. When an individual commits perjury in a Court of Law, he is in the hands of people who are trained in our legal procedure. There we are dealing with a magistrate who takes the statements, who reads them out and makes the position clear, but here we have a Rent Board composed of people who have no judicial knowledge; they have a secretary who sits there and makes notes, and I can quite imagine the difficulties that are going to arise. They are people who have no knowledge of law, and the result may be that an innocent person may be accused of this offence. Now I should like to hear from the Minister why these people are better than farmers. All Acts of this kind which relate to a farmer provide that if a farmer is sentenced he may be sentenced to a fine or imprisonment. Here provision is made for a fine, and if the fine is not paid the man can be put in gaol. Take the Excise Act. In that Act provision is made for a fine of £100 or six months imprisonment if the farmer contravenes the Act. The farmer may perhaps be fined £10 or a month’s imprisonment. Under this Act only a fine is imposed and no imprisonment. I want to know why there is this differentiation.

I do not want to be unreasonable, but I do want to suggest to my hon. friends that the wording here quite correctly interprets the intention where it states definitely that everything that is being done, is to be lawfully done. I think my hon. friends, especially my lawyer friends, will realise that that applies only to the investigation itself.

That was in the old Act.

Surely that is no reason why it should be in the new Act? I am quite prepared to have the words deleted, except the words “after district in which the Board is sitting”. The very first amendment my hon. friend, moves, he finds me ready to accept. May I suggest the following amendment—

Then I accept the amendment moved by my hon. friend. Both hon. members are very anxious to confine all the questions in all the books to the subject of the enquiry only, and in so far as that meets the Bill, I am quite prepared to accept it. We have to accept the insertion between “him” and “or” in line 50 of the words “concerning the subject of the investigation”. And then in line 51, between the word “control” and “he”, the words “which has any bearing on the subject of the enquiry”. Then in line 58 between “question” and “lawfully” the words “material to the issue”. And then the hon. member wants to have the opportunity of insulting the Chairman. I will accept that. Does that meet my hon. friend?

Yes, certainly.

Is the clause Al now?

Yes.

That is in order then.

Why did you not adopt that attitude days ago?

I have some amendments to move here. I move—

The effect of that is to see that this £5 which amounts to a fine, shall not be paid to the informer; it shall only go to the lessor or the lessee.

I am grateful that the Minister has accepted my former amendments and that he has moved this amendment. I had intended moving some five amendments to this clause, but as the Minister has now met us I only want to move a few amendments. Sub-clause (2) of this clause reads as follows—

I really don’t understand the word “vexatious” in this regard, and I therefore think that we ought to accept the following amendments—

These are the amendments I am moving to this sub-section. If the lessor has charged too much rent he has to pay the costs, and he should repay the amount he has overcharged. If the lessee unnecessarily goes to the Rent Board and causes the Rent Board unnecessary trouble then it does not seem reasonable to me that he should get out of it without any further ado. We should follow the same procedure as we do in court. I want to move an amendment in this connection, because in Clause 14 we find certain provisions.

Don’t use that as an argument because I am going to move an amendment to Clause 14.

I am glad to hear it and I shall be pleased if the Minister will remember it. This word “vexatious” (kwelsug) means something totally different from a man simply putting forth an unnecessary claim. We can get people into trouble by making an application without there being anything vexatious about it. Now I want to put this question to the Minister, and if he can explain the position to me then I shall not move any amendment. This Board can allow the tenant or the lessor up to £5 for expenses I want to know what expenses there are going to be? They cannot have any representation before the Board. A letter is written and the Rent Board gives its decision. If there have to be witnesses, the Rent Board subpoenas the witnesses and the costs are paid by the State. The man who has made the complaint has no expenses and the man against whom the complaint is made has no say. He has to be satisfied with what the Rent Board says, because he cannot appear. What expenses can there be for which £5 may be required? When we are concerned with costs in a court of law we know where we stand because costs are defined. Here it does not seem as if any provision is being made. No rules and regulations are laid down for the calculation of costs. One may get costs or one may not, there are no rules and regulations, and so far as I can see it does not seem that there are any costs which these people can incur. If the Minister can explain to me that the amendment I have suggested is unnecessary, and if he can tell me what scale is going to be applied, then I am prepared to listen to him and not to propose an amendment. I have moved these two amendments. I had a few other amendments as well but I am not going to put them now. Assuming a case is brought before the Rent Board and the Rent Board regards the rent as reasonable, then I assume that all the Rent Board will do is to say there is no case. Cannot the Rent Board, as it has heard all the statements, fix the rent or determine what is a reasonable rent? If it does that, the tenant knows what the position is and the lessor knows what the position is. No provision is made for that in the clause. Assuming an application is made to the Rent Board to say that a certain rent is not a reasonable one. The Rent Board makes its enquiry and comes to the conclusion that the rent is reasonable. It throws out the case but it does not determine what a reasonable rent is. If the rent is fixed the lessor and the lessee will know what is a reasonable rent for that house, but as I have already said no provision is made for that. I am not going to move an amendment. I am bringing this to the Minister’s notice, and I hope he will give us a reasonable explanation to show why he is doing this.

I hope my hon. friend will not consider that I am vexatious because I decline to accept either of these amendments.

If you will give me good reason I won’t think so.

Oh yes, a perfectly good reason. The good reason is this: Let us take both contesting parties. First take the lessee. Here we have these out of pocket expenses for the lessee, which presumably will include his travellingexpenses and any other expenses—but it does not necessarily cover loss of wages. If you say out of pocket expenses, I can see what a wonderful feast there would be for the lawyers in demonstrating that loss of wages is out of pocket expenses, and on the other hand the other lawyer trying to prove that it is not out of pocket expenses because the money has not been spent.

Well, if the man loses his wages—it is not actually out of pocket expenses.

Loss means expenses.

No. Loss does not always mean expenses.

I bow to my hon. friend’s legal knowledge, but in my ignorance I feel that my point of view is right. Anyhow, I don’t propose to accept it, nor do I accept the deletion of these words from “vexatious” onwards. My friend made great play of the fact that the person will be liable to a £5 fine, but it is not so, he is only liable to a sum not exceeding £5. And in regard to his expenses it is a sum not exceeding £5, and in either case it is within the discretion of the Board. I hope my hon. friend will agree to allow his amendment to be negatived.

The Board will have to fix a reasonable rent, but there is one difficulty I have experienced in practice; it is this, that you get a situation where a landlord allows a dwelling to fall into a state of hopeless disrepair, and the only remedy the tenant has is to go to the Rent Board and get the Rent Board to revalue the dwelling and fix the rent. But there is nothing to make the landlord—I submit there should be—repair the dwelling. I am therefore suggesting an amendment which I hope the Minister will consider, to add a further power to the powers possessed by the Board under this clause. I want to move—

I move that because if the state of repair is so bad that it is dangerous to the health or the safety of the tenant, then the Board should be able to order the landlord to make these repairs.

They have that power.

If the Minister can show me that they have that power then I shall withdraw my amendment. But if my amendment is passed there will be a consequential amendment in the next clause providing for what would be done if the landlord disobeys the order. I have a remedy for that too. If the landlord disobeys the order the Board should have the right to make an order for him to pay a sum of money and give the tenant the right to do the work. My experience, and I am sure, the experience of other members has been the same, is that this is a necessary provision. The Rent Board should have the right to order a landlord to make the repairs. If the landlord thinks the premises are not worth repairing then he can get rid of those premises. But it is necessary that something be done for the protection of the tenant.

The Minister has not replied to my question. My question was this: Assuming a tenant has made application to the Rent Board that the rent is too high, and the Rent Board decides that the rent is unreasonable. That is the end of it. The Rent Board does not say what the rent should be; it only says that the rent is unreasonable. Now, I want the Rent Board in a case of that kind to determine what a reasonable rent is, because otherwise one would have to go to court two or three times to find out whether the rent is reasonable or not. I hope the Minister will accept an amendment in that respect. Surely the Rent Board should say what a reasonable rent is, or, rather, they should determine for themselves what is a reasonable rent, because otherwise they cannot say that a rent is unreasonable. Let them say what is unreasonable, so that the tenant and the lessor know what the position is. I had intended moving an amendment to sub-section (2) of Clause 7, which reads as follows—

If a lessee has paid too much and the Rent Board decides against the lessor—say, for instance, he has paid £4, and the Board determines that £3 was a reasonable rent, the lessor has to refund the difference to the lessee. Now, I feel that if an individual out of vexatiousness lodges a complaint about his rent and the Board determines that the rent is reasonable, then the lessor should also have the right, if it is decided to fix the reasonable rent at a higher figure, to demand the difference from the tenant. I am prepared, however, not to insist upon that, provided the Minister accepts my amendment. I should like to know from the Minister why the Rent Board cannot determine what is a reasonable rent, and why it cannot be announced?

As the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cape, Western (Mr. Molteno) contains a new and important principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time, I am unable to put it to the Committee.

It is a pity the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) did not put his amendment on the Order Paper, so that one could have studied it. But I want to give him an indication of what is likely to happen if a person has made an application for a reduction of rent, and the court or the Board finds it to be a vexatious application.

Not necessarily vexatious, but wrong.

Finds it to be vexatious or such that he had no reasonable ground for getting a reduction. My friend goes further, and he wants to say that it must be “unfounded”. Well, let us take the language of the Bill. Assuming the Board finds the application to be vexatious. What is going to happen? The person against whom the declaration of vexatious conduct is brought will say: “Well, what’s wrong?” “What in your opinion is a reasonable rent if my application has been vexatious?” A declaration would then be made. Why does my hon. friend want them to go further and fix the rent only in order that the lessee should be made to disgorge.

I am quite prepared to leave that part out.

I hope so; in any case, I cannot accept the other. Immediately the landlord knows that a charge of vexatious conduct has been brought, he will at once himself ask for a fixation of the rent.

I move—

I have an amendment on this clause. Before moving my amendment, however, I want to explain what are the reasons for my moving this. As paragraph (2) (a) of Clause 8 reads, the position is that if the rent is reduced as a result of a decision of the Rent Board the tenant gets a certificate, in which it is stated that the rent of the particular property has been reduced, and consequently that certificate will be effective not only for the rent in connection with which an application had been made, or in connection with which a complaint had been made, but it will also apply to any future rent for that property. Then I also say that it not only relates to the present owner of the house. In other words, not only to the owner of a house at a particular stage when the tenant complained, but also to any future landlord or tenant of the house. The paragraph further says that the rent will be reduced immediately from the date of the decision given by the Rent Board, and consequently the lessor cannot take any legal steps against the tenant for any rent beyond the amount laid down by the Rent Board. I also want to give a little protection to the lessor. Let me try to put the position clearly in simple language. I lodge a complaint with the Rent Board in regard to the rent I am obliged to pay. The Rent Board decides in my favour and says that where I used to pay £10 per month I now have to pay £8 per month. That rent is reduced immediately. Instead of paying £10 I only pay £8 from the date of the Rent Board’s decision. Now the position is that the lessor still has the right to appeal. He may perhaps be dissatisfied with the Rent Board’s decision and he lodges an appeal with the Control Board. Possibly the Control Board will uphold his appeal. In terms of this paragraph, however, a reduction of rent has to be given immediately after the Rent Board’s decision. It may take three or four months before the appeal is eventually dealt with. Assuming now that the appeal is decided in favour of the lessor; then it means, in terms of the provisions of this Bill, that the tenant has to refund the arrear rent in respect of the amount which he has paid less in the meanwhile. To put the position more clearly, assuming the Rent Board has decided that the rent is to be reduced by £2 from the 1st May, that is to say, from £10 to £8. The lessee lodges an appeal. That appeal is only dealt with in September, and the Control Board then finds that the lessor’s appeal is well founded. It decides that the decision of the Rent Board has been unfair and that the lessor has to get the original rent of £10 per month. Well, then the lessee has for four months already been paying £2 per month less, namely, £8 less in all, than what the rent should have been for that period of time. Assuming the tenant, has left in the meanwhile. How is the lessor going to get his money back from that person? I therefore move the following amendment—

The meaning of this amendment is simply this, that when the Rent Board allows a reduction of rent and an appeal is lodged that reduction will not apply until such time as the appeal has been disposed of. When the appeal has been disposed of it will come into force. This protects the lessor because it means that if the Appeal Board decides that the decision of the Rent Board was unfounded and that there should have been no reduction in rent then the tenant has to refund that amount of rent which he has underpaid. The lessor will have to get a refund then. As the Bill now reads it will mean that the lessor will have to go to court in a case of that kind to obtain a refund. Possibly he will never get his arrear rent and it is no more than fair that he should be protected in this way, otherwise it may perhaps lead to a court case. It will mean additional costs, and even then he may perhaps not get his arrear rent back. I therefore move this amendment, the effect of which will be that the reduction of rent will only come into force after the Appeal Board has decided on the appeal.

There are a few things in this clause which seem wrong to me. Paragraph (b) of this clause reads as follows—

I think this should be the district where the lessor lives. If he does not live in the district where his house is situate, and if he lives in another district perhaps—well, there are thousands of people who have a property and who move to some other place, and have the rent collected by agents. They live in another district. The difficulty in connection with this can be prevented by an amendment, for instance, to avoid double costs and difficulties of that kind. I therefore move this amendment—

I shall first of all deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). The hon. member desires that no reduction in rent shall take place, though it may have been ordered by a Rent Board until an appeal has been heard and settled.

If an appeal has been instituted.

Can my hon. friend visualise any case where a landlord knowing this will not enter an appeal. He opens the door to constant appeals by landlords and all the difficulties arising therefrom. The tenant will be in all sorts of trouble. The tenant is badly enough off as it is. We are trying to protect the tenant, and Heaven alone knows it is difficult enough to protect him. The landlord knowing this to be the case would in every instance enter an appeal.

Why should he do so if he knows that if his appeal is disallowed he will have to repay the tenant?

Oh, I must thank the hon. member for mentioning that—he will do so in order to make it unpleasant for the tenant. That will be one way of victimising the tenant and forcing him to get out. No, I cannot accept this. Then the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) wants me to agree that the tenant will have to go into some other district than his own to have a writ served.

He has to, otherwise he cannot levy execution if his landlord lives in another district.

Yes, he can.

No, he cannot; he has to send the writ to the district where the lessor lives. He has to get it endorsed by the magistrate.

I am providing for that. If that is so, where is the point of the amendment? It is because he realises that it will put the tenant to considerable inconvenience and expense. Now, there is another thing. If the hon. member will look at the definition of lessor, lessor includes the lessor himself and his agent, and the hon. member knows that in every district where a lessor lets property he has an agent. So there is no purpose in this amendment except making it inconvenient for the tenants. I don’t say that that is the hon. member’s intention, but that is the effect of it.

The type of argument which we hear from the Minister is the reason for this Bill being so much delayed.

Why don’t you put your amendments on the Order Paper?

The Minister does not know the implications of the amendment so he imagines a few arguments in his fertile brain, and he puts them across the floor of the House.

Futile arguments.

They are worse than futile. The Minister cannot expect us to accept his arguments. He says my amendment will open the door—open it to what? What does the Minister’s argument mean? I have asked that the lessor should be protected. I have asked that when a reduction of rent is made and an appeal is lodged the reduction should not come into force until the appeal has been decided. It may take three or four months before the appeal is heard. The lessee may have moved away in the meantime. The Control Board then may decide to restore the old position. How then is the landlord going to recover his money? If the appeal is not upheld, the lessor will be compelled to pay back the amount paid in excess of the amount laid down by the Rent Board. I cannot see where there is any opening of doors. The Minister speaks about opening the door to victimisation. Who is going to be victimised? Who is going to be inconvenienced? The tenant does not have to appear before the Control Board. Everything is done through documents. It has nothing to do with the tenant who just continues to pay the same rental as previously. I don’t know where the Minister gets his arguments from. This proposal of mine will protect both the tenant and the landlord. The Minister says it will lead to victimisation. It is absurd. If the Minister can give us sound arguments we are prepared to accept them, but if he raises ridiculous arguments then obviously we have to go on pressing our amendments.

I shall speak in English because clearly the Minister does not follow what I am saying. The Bill provides that if a man charges too much rent he has to refund the balance over and above what the Court has fixed as a reasonable rent. To enable a lessee to get that amount he can use the order of the Rent Board and get a Writ. Now that Writ means nothing unless there is something to be attached. Well, you cannot sell a man’s land until you have sold the man’s loose assets. Now the owner lives in one district and the property is situated in another. You have to go to a different court to get the Writ for the district where the other man lives. You can take out your Writ in the one district but you have to get it endorsed by a magistrate in the other district. There is no power given here for a Writ to be moved from one district to another. You can do that in a magistrate’s court case but not under this Bill. You cannot have a Writ issued in one district executed in another district without the endorsement of a magistrate. The argument that it is going to cost more money does not hold water.

He has to go to the other district.

He has to go there anyhow, the man still has to take the Writ and send it to an attorney or to somebody in the other district, to go to a magistrate and have it endorsed and executed there. You have to take up the Writ after it is issued and send it to the magistrate in the other district.

You send it to the messenger.

The messenger cannot act on the Writ until the magistrate has endorsed it.

The messenger goes to the magistrate.

No, he does not. I know what takes place in practice. I have had hundreds of writs sent from one district to another. The argument does not hold water at all. I know what I am talking about, and unfortunately the Minister is not an attorney, and does not know what the position is.

Not unfortunately.

Perhaps unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the profession. If the writ has to be issued on a man residing in another district, it has to be endorsed for service by the magistrate in the other district, and the messenger does not do that.

He does; apparently other attorneys have different views.

My hon. friend cannot show me any clause in the Magistrate’s Court Act making it obligatory on the messenger to do it. Right throughout this Bill you have had this trouble. The Minister insists on being right, although he knows he is not right. But still, if he thinks he is right, he can stew in his own juice. I have no objection, if the Minister takes up that attitude, let him; he will come home to roost.

He is afraid of exceptions being taken.

Of course, exceptions will be taken. He is afraid of the courts because the courts are very much higher than what the Rent Boards are. These members of the Rent Boards are to be potentates and friends of the Minister’s. He is afraid of the courts because the judgments of the Rent Boards have been upset in the past. But, instead of keeping the tenants out of court, they are going to be dragged into court if this clause goes through as it stands.

Then you will be happy.

It is all my eye. The Minister knows as much about it as this bench does. He does not know as much about it as … has he ever had a Writ served on him? I hope he hasn’t. I know what I am talking about. But it is no use arguing with him. It is perfectly clear he does not want to listen. Well, let him do as he likes. I feel sorry for the Minister—he is getting into a sort of bottomless pit; he has to be guided by other people and the guidance he gets from those other people is wrong; no wonder he cannot get this Bill through without applying the guillotine.

Amendment proposed by Mr. B. J. Schoeman put and the Committe divided:

Ayes—31:

Bekker, S.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Dönges, T. E.

Fagan, H. A.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard. G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—58:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

I beg to move—

The object of this is that a person shall only be liable for the penalty if he knowingly contravenes the provisions of the Act and charges a higher rent than that laid down by a Rent Board. A property may be sold and the new purchaser may not know that the Rent Board has fixed a certain rent. He may charge a slightly higher rent, and if he does then in terms of this Bill he would be liable to a penaly of £100. Whereas if he is not aware of the fact that the rent has been imposed by the Rent Board, he cannot be punished. If he does know he will be liable for the penalty because he would be knowingly contravening the provisions of the Act. It should be made clear that it is only a person who deliberately contravenes the Act who should be punished.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis). This is a very important amendment. We had intended moving a similar amendment. It is not fair that if the Rent Board has given a decision and the man knows nothing about it, he might be fined £100 if he does not give effect to that decision. This is a very important and very dangerous clause. This provides that if a lessor does not carry out the decision of the Rent Board he renders himself liable to a fine of £100. But again, as was the case under the previous clause, it is possible that the lessor may lodge an appeal against the decision of the Rent Board and if he has appealed it is no more than reasonable that he should not be liable to any prosecution or punishment until such time as his appeal has been disposed of. I therefore want to move an amendment—

I am trying to do now what I tried to do in the previous clause. I am trying to lay it down that the ordinary rent can be demanded of the tenant until the appeal has been disposed of, if there is an appeal. This again amounts to the same thing. It may happen that a lessor has to wait three months before an appeal is heard; perhaps it may take four or five months after an appeal has been lodged before a decision is given by the Appeal Board. In the meantime the lessor is obliged to reduce the rent at once. It is possible that after three or four months the control board may give a decision in favour of the lessor. He then has to try and get the money back from the tenant. Possibly the tenant has left in the meantime. I have had experience of that. Once a tenant has moved away you never get hold of him again. Or perhaps the tenant does not want to pay, and then the lessor will have to go to court to compel him to pay the arrears. In order to prevent all this trouble and difficulty I again move an amendment that until such time as the appeal has been decided, if there is an appeal, the reduction of rent will not come into force and effect. The tenant will therefore pay the full amount until such time as the appeal has been disposed of. If the appeal decision is given in favour of the tenant, the lessor will be obliged to refund to the tenant the amount he has overpaid. On the other hand, if the appeal results in favour of the lessor it will not be necessary to get an additional amount from the tenant. This provision is no more than fair, and I trust the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

I also want to make an appeal to the Minister and ask him to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis). As the Minister said in his second reading speech the Rent Board fixes the rents here but there is no provision in the law for the decision of the Board to be registered in court. If anyone buys that property and he does not know at what amount the rent is being fixed, if he knows nothing about the rent having been fixed, then it seems unfair that he can, without knowing anything about it, be fined. I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. In regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) I fail to see what objection there can be to that. It is the ordinary procedure. If one gets a judgment and an appeal is lodged the position remains as it was before until such time as the appeal has been decided. Here we have a court of review, and while that court is investigating the matter it has not been finally disposed of. The matter only becomes final after the Control Board has given its decision. I cannot see what objection there can be to the old rent having to be paid until such time as the Control Board has decided. The tenant will always be protected because he lives in the house, and he can get his money by simply deducting it from the rent, if the appeal is given in his favour and he has to get back what he has overpaid. The tenant is fully protected, but if the decision goes against the tenant and he has paid too little for a number of months it may be very difficult for him to repay the amount he has underpaid. Say for instance he is paid £1 per month too little and he has to make up the difference for a period of three or four months, the tenant may find the amount a very large one, and he may find it very difficult to pay. I therefore feel that while very little, or no inconvenience, will be done to the tenant, he will on the contrary be protected by this amendment. I cannot see how there can be any victimisation under any circumstances. If the lessor wants to victimise a man he can still do so by lodging an appeal.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) largely for the reason, which he found to be no reason, that I did not accept a similar amendment in the previous clause. The effect of it is to encourage the landlord to delay action, always appealing in the hope that he will succeed. I think in the light of the statement I am now going to make, however, my hon. friend will be prepared to allow his amendment to lapse. I have given a considerable amount of thought to the argument of the hon. member behind me (Mr. Davis) and to the argument of hon. members on that side, that it is not fair to the landlord who has come in, absolutely new, knows nothing about the original transaction, does not know what the rent was, though he ought to know it …

He may be misled.

But he is sure to make enquiries.

But he may nevertheless be misled.

Surely, the agents can tell him what it is; the agents would not mislead him. In fact, they are born in truth and they live in truth. I had some experience of agents, and I am speaking out of the wealth of that experience. I do see that there is a possibility of some injustice, and therefore I am prepared to accept the insertion of the word “knowingly”.

We have allowed these few amendments to pass through without much discussion. From the very nature of things we are practically compelled to do so, although hon. members must have noticed the very poor quality of the Minister s so-called arguments. Clause 10—subclause (1)—contains the following:—

It amounts to this, that the Rent Board can at any time give a fresh decision without an application having been made to it to change its previous decision. It is unnecessary to lodge an appeal or to make application again. No, in terms of this provision the Rent Board can at any time in future proceed to upset its own decision and to make any change exactly as it thinks fit. It is said here “on good cause shown”. What does that mean? That is one of those vague provisions which can be interpreted in a hundred and one different ways. Possibly the Minister may ask the Rent Board to change their decision and they can regard that as a good cause. One can interpret it in any wav I therefore move—

It will then read that a Rent Board will only be able to review a decision on the application of a tenant or a lessor. We delete the words “on good cause shown”. It will then mean that only on an application having been made by the tenant or the lessor will the Rent Board be able to revise or amend its previous decision. I think that that is very fair and I trust the Minister will accept this amendment.

I want to say I think that this whole clause as it stands here is very weak. I want the Minister to realise that this clause does not give any finality. It is not like a decision given by a court of law where one gets the verdict and that its the end of it, except that one can still lodge an appeal, but after the appeal it is all over and done with, but here we have no finality. The decision can be amended at any time. It says here that good cause has to be shewn and then the Rent Board can amend its decision. That does not give it finality. The Rent Board may decide today that £3 is a reasonable rent and in a week’s time it may decide that it should be £4 and a week later it may turn round again and say £2 is enough. It does not say here that a change can only be made and considered on the application of the lessee or the lessor. It only says that the Rent Board is entitled to amend its decision. I assume that if anyone wants to make application he can do so, but the Rent Board under this clause can on its own initiative, without any special request having been made, bring about an amendment. It seems unfair to me to give the Rent Board the right to make one decision today and a different one tomorrow. I know of instances where some very slight repairs had been effected to a house, after which the rent was raised by £1 per month. We will never get finality in that way. Even if an appeal is lodged and the Control Board has given its decision, the Rent Board can still go into the matter and change its decision, because this is what sub-section (2) says—

After the Control Board has given its decision the matter is again referred back to the Rent Board. Everything remains in the air. One does not get finality. The lessor can again make application afterwards and the tenant can also make application, and why should the Rent Board still have the power to interfere without any application having been made? You are creating a position of uncertainty and you will only achieve this, that people will no longer build houses for letting purposes.

May I in my poor way review the arguments advanced by those two hon. gentlemen in support, one of the amendment, and the other-I do not know what the object of the other was. He adopted the same line of examination as he has adopted all through the Bill. May I enter a protest at this stage against the manner in which these amendments have been moved. Judging by the arguments of those two hon. members, this amendment is very important in their eyes. In fact, all their amendments are very important, and they did not think it worth while to put one of them on the order paper. If they were so anxious to have these amendments accepted, surely it was only fair and just that those amendments be given to me.

Our Whips handed them to your Whips.

Oh no, they are not on that list. These are things that have been thought of since, and | this one especially has been thought of since. What does the hon. member for Fords burg want? He wants the Rent Board to be able to review and rescind only on the application of a lessor or lessee. He does not want a state of flux to set in. He wants the rent to be fixed, to be fixed for all time unless someone comes along and complains, irrespective of whether the dwelling deteriorates or not. The board must merely be an automaton, sitting there for the lessor or lessee to come along and to ask for a review. Let me say to my hon. friend that the clause, which contains these words ‘the rent board may on good cause shown,” includes the application of the lessor or the lessee or both. They are two of the persons who can show good cause. They can show good cause for the rent board reinvestigating and coming to a different conclusion. Another good cause shown is by medium of the inspector, who may complain that circumstances have so altered that the rent should be altered. He may come along and say “Three months ago you, Mr. Rent Board, fixed this rent at £10 a month.”

I will include that amendment.

I am leading up to the circumstances. He may say “Since then the landlord, feeling that he is in clover, has now resolved that he is not going to spend any money on the property; consequently the rent value has deteriorated, and consequently I ask you, Mr. Rent Board, to bring the rent down to £8 per month.” There is another portion of the good cause shown. What I am trying to make clear, as clear as it is to me, to hon. members on that side, is that “good cause shown” includes all circumstances that might arise including the representations of either the lessor or the lessee; and in consequence I cannot accept the amendment.

Our time is just about up. I believe we have about a minute or so left before the guillotine will drop. That is ample evidence of the unsatisfactory position in which we have been placed. Without wasting time, without introducing amendments having any semblance of obstruction, but only by moving constructive amendments, and having a very short and businesslike discussion, we have only disposed of three additional clauses. We are confronted with a stubborn and obstinate Minister, and the Minister’s improper conduct.

Order, order.

Without there having been any question of obstruction our time has expired, and we have no further opportunity of discussing this matter any further.

Why did you not put amendments on the Order Paper?

We have sent the Minister a host of amendments by our Whips. The Minister has had a whole heap of our amendments before him and now he asks why we have not put our amendments on the Order Paper. That is one of the most ridiculous excuses we have had from the Minister during the whole of this debate. The unfortunate part of the whole business is that the Minister cannot grasp the amendments, no matter what form we put them in. He sits there in deadly fear of accepting any amendment, because he is scared that he may perhaps put his foot into it. He dare not risk accepting any amendment whatsoever. It seems to me that he requires notice of an amendment a month in advance to enable him to study all its implications. We have other important amendments which we are very anxious to move but we have not got the time. Our object is to improve this Bill. In principle we are in favour of the Bill but the procedure which has been laid down is wrong. They should have given the Minister a training course, an educational course, on the subject now before the House before allowing him to introduce this Bill. He comes here now with a clause which talks of “good cause.” We moved an amendment to substitute certain other words. The Minister gave us a reply, but his argument was so childish that one would not expect that sort of thing from a responsible Minister. I do not know what the Minister really aims at. He is now introducing new things which have never existed in this legislation before. We have had the old Act in operation for twenty-years and it was never found necessary to have certain of these new provisions which the Minister is now introducing in that Act. The Minister comes here now with new stuff which apparently emanates from his fertile brain, and that is the way in which he thinks the procedure is going to be facilitated. We have moved amendments to improve the Bill and to facilitate the procedure and to make it more effective, but the Minister refuses to accept our amendments. He shuts us down. We have only dealt with ten clauses and we have not even had proper time to discuss those clauses. There are some eight or nine important clauses left which we shall not even be able to discuss. The steam-roller is put into operation and the Minister gets his Bill through and that is how it has gone with all his industrial legislation. The steam-roller is used. The Minister’s arguments are of such a character that one is astounded at so much stupid obstinacy. Well, the Minister will have to account for his attitude when he meets the public outside. I am sorry for him, because when the war is over and there is no more flagwagging he will have a very, very hard time indeed.

I move—

I move—

This pension of £400 to the widow of the late Maj.-Gen. Collyer seems to be a liberal one. She gets a pension of £400 in terms of the recommendation of the Pensions Committee, and as against that we find that the widow of the late Gen. Maritz had been granted a pension of £120. We also find that the widow of Gen. Bouwer has been awarded a pension of £120 and the question arises for what special reason this pension of £400 is being allotted? We want to know from the Chairman of the Pensions Committee what the special reason is why this widow is being awarded such a large pension in comparison with the other cases I mentioned. I want to know from the Chairman of the Select Committee whether they have enquired into the question of what Gen. Collyer’s earnings were, what his financial position was, how much he left his widow, and whether all these matters have been carefully enquired into? We find that special emphasis is always placed on the fact that the Pensions Committee must not create any precedents, because precedents may cause trouble. Yet we now find that the Pensions Committee is proposing a pension of this size. We find that the widow of the late Gen. de Wet, the former Commandant General of the Free State, a man of world fame, was first of all awarded a pension of £150, which was afterwards raised to £500. Now I want to say at once that if the widow of Maj-Gen Collyer has to get £400 then, on the merits of the case, the widow of the late Gen. de Wet should have been awarded a much higher amount. On these grounds I say again that the Chairman of the Select Committee owes us a clear explanation, and unless we can get a well-founded explanation which is satisfactory I shall feel compelled to move that this recommendation be referred back to the Select Committee. I am not moving it now because I first of all want to wait and see what the explanation of the Chairman of the Select Committee is going to be.

The hon. member has asked me to make a statement on this case. May I say that I am sorry if the hon. member, who is himself a member of the Committee, was not present when this matter was discussed, he might have been enlightened if he had been. In the first place the question of pensions to old warriors is one that is always treated generously by this House, and by old warriors I mean what may be called “national heroes”. Only two years ago we awarded £2,000 per annum to General Hertzog, and previous to that we awarded to the widow of one of South Africa’s greatest men and warriors, General Botha, a pension of £1,200 per annum. My hon. friend over there has quoted the case of General de Wet, in which case £500 was awarded.

At first it was £150.

Yes, under the Nationalist Government it was £150 but the Fusion Government increased it to £500. Let me say that in this case the Committee had to take into consideration several facts. The main fact was that under the Act the normal pension of the widow of a Major-General who dies or is killed on active service is £350 per annum plus a gratuity of £1,000 and plus a further gratuity for each child. In this case no gratuity is paid and a slightly higher pension was awarded on that account. General Collyer, it is true, was not on active service outside the Union when he died, and if he had been a pension of £350 plus a gratuity of £1,000 would have been awarded without any question to his widow. It would have been awarded departmentally, and his widow would have received that pension, but because of the fact that although General Collyer was not on military service outside the Union, he was doing yeoman service, the Committee thought that this pension was justified. It is splitting hairs almost to have to come to this House to ask for confirmation of a pension like this. My hon. friend must accept that that is one of the principal reasons for the amount of this award. In the second place it is a fact that Mrs. Collyer has no income whatever. Let us remember this that General Collyer was not only an old Boer War veteran, but he fought in the Great War and in the closing days of his life he retired on a pension and looked forward to a few years of peace, apart from work. It was only after the war broke out that he as an old man was brought back again and he devoted all his energies to the service of the country, and I do submit that remembering the pension his widow would have received had his death occurred on service outside the Union, I do hope the Committee will pass this award without any further discussion. It would be a gracious act I think to award this pension in the spirit in which these pensions are given. Many larger pensions have been granted, and I think enough has been said to justify the Committee in acting as it did. I hope the Committee will accept this award as a token of appreciation of a life given to the service of this country throughout all the wars in which we have been involved for the last 40 years.

I am disappointed that the Chairman of the Select Committee has not given us full particulars. I should like to know what Gen. Collyer’s estate was. The Chairman of the Select Committee tries to justify this recommendation on the ground of the new pension scale. But if we look back into South Africa’s history we find people who have fought in the Boer War, who have taken a prominent part in it, and whose wives have got nothing, and then we find that it is the Government’s policy not to give the widows and oudstryders anything. There are hundreds of them today in needy circumstances, and we have repeatedly pleaded for something to be done for those people. The Minister of Finance and his Government have always opposed any pension being paid to those people. I am not opposed to a pension being awarded in this case, but I want to add this, that we are asked to grant a pension of £400 here while the widow of the late Gen. de Wet originally only got £150 which was afterwards increased to £500. And we should bear in mind how hard the old Nationalist Party had to battle to get her this £500. Our attitude always was that it should be paid to her. Now the Pensions Committee comes here and immediately awards the widow of the late Gen. Collyer £400. We would like to know what Gen. Collyer’s estate was? Perhaps he was a comparatively rich man. We are entitled to have all the information available. The Chairman of the Pensions Committee reproached the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) and said that if he had attended all the meetings of the Committee he would have been conversant with all the details. I want to point out to him that we were not members of that Select Committee, and if the Select Committee makes this recommendation of £400 then we have the right to ask that all the facts shall be placed before us. The hon. member also referred to the pensions scheme which is still to be submitted to us. When it is placed before us we shall discuss it very definitely and we shall scrutinise it to see how far it is fair that this widow should receive a pension of £400 whereas the widows of oudstryders do not get a penny. The oudstryders themselves perhaps get £3 10s. per month and others get £2 10s. and £1 10s. per month. And in face of that we are so liberal as to vote £400 per year to the widow of the late Gen. Collyer. I hope the Chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions will give us the full details.

The Chairman of the Pensions Committee started his explanation to the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) by telling the hon. member that if he had attended the meetings of the Select Committee he would have been conversant with all the details, and there would have been no need to have come to this House to ask for that information. He tried to create the impression that we on this side of the House are jointly responsible for this pension of £400 per year to the widow of Maj.-Gen. Collyer. We just want to tell him that this side of the House has only three members on that Select Committee while the other side has eight members on it, and even if the hon. member for Malmesbury had been present, and even if he had objected, he could not have changed this, and he could not have stopped members opposite. That impression which the Chairman of the Select Committee has tried to create is quite wrong because we are in a small minority on that Committee.

The decision was unanimous.

The point I want to get at is not so much whether Gen. Collyer was rich or poor. As I understand it, the only reason adduced by the Chairman of the Select Committee for this pension is that Gen. Collyer fought in the Boer War, that he fought in the last war, and that he also gave service in this war, but that on account of his age he was unable to go North, but that if he had died up North his widow would have been entitled to a pension. That is the reason adduced by the Chairman. I have no objection to the widow of any person who has done good work for the country getting a pension of £400. But the unfortunate position which we on this side of the House have to take notice of is this, that the widow of the late Gen. Maritz was given a pension of £120 and a little later on we shall get to the proposal to grant the widow of the late Gen. Bouwer a pension of £120 per year too. Why is a pension in the case of an English speaking person of £400 recommended, while on the self same page the Committee puts forward a recommendation that the widow of a Boer General should be paid a pension of £120 per year? The one gets a pension of £400 per year and the other one gets £120 per year. I am aware of the fact that when this war broke out Gen. Collyer was reappointed. I knew him personally and I know that he was not a very rich man, but he was re-appointed. As an English general in the Boer War and also in the last war he received a large salary, and he also received a big salary as long as he was in military service, although the Boer generals received practically nothing. Gen. Collyer as the Chairman of the Select Committee has told us, gave his services to the Empire, and he was paid well for those services. The generals opposite know what good pay a general gets if he works for the Empire, but that did not apply to the Boer generals, and now we notice the difference that is being made in the treatment of the widows of these two generals. Now I want to put a very definite question to the Chairman of the Pensions Committee. He should not try to make insinuations that we are jointly responsible for this pension recommendation, because that is creating a totally wrong impression. I want to ask him to give us a clear reply why in the case of Maj.-Gen. Collyer’s widow a pension of £400 has been recommended, while in the case of the widows of two Boer generals only £120 is being recommended? I want the Chairman to give us a clear statement why there is that distinction between those two people? So far as I am able to make out the principle on which the Pensions Committee works is this, that in cases where the people concerned have rendered more or less similar services they take into account the amount of money the people have. Here we have cases where the widows are equally poor or equally rich, and yet we get this distinction, and we should like to have some explanation from the Chairman.

I did not intend to intervene in this debate at all, but the late General Collyer was one of my very great friends, I served with him for the best part of 25 years, and therefore I feel I must say something about it. There are several grave misunderstandings in the mind of the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) and the hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood), and I think I might just give a few points here. In the first instance, General Collyer was never an English General. He came out here as a young man of 18 years and joined the C.M.R. as a private, serving for several years at 5/- per day, and so through every single rank including medical orderly. He served in the Cape Colony Government and finally in the Union Government Service for 30 years. He was never an English General but served throughout his life with the South African Defence Force.

And was paid for it.

He was paid just like any other Civil Servant. Don’t let us get to quarrelling about that. He got paid for it like any other Civil Servant. But under the ordinary pension regulations he would, if he had died on active service, been entitled to £350 per annum and a £1,200 bonus. The fact is that when he died he had practically nothing. One hon. member asked what was his estate; as far as I know he had practically nothing. When he retired from the Defence Force and went on pension, he came back to the Army at the request of the Prime Minister.

No, at the request of my predecessor: Mr. Pirow got him back.

After he came back he first did a great work on the Military Defence Council and then when the war broke out he became Military Secretary to the Prime Minister. The question has been raised about his wife getting £400 as a pension. As a Major-General’s widow, if the General died on active service, she would have been entitled to £350 a year, plus a £1,200 bonus. She does not get the bonus, and if you take the interest on £1,200 you will find that that makes up the £50 which has been added to this pension. And Mrs. Collyer is getting no more than the wife of a Major-General would get who was killed on active service. A question has been raised here about other generals who fought in the Boer War. We have all got the greatest sympathy with the widows of those men, and it is perfectly justifiable that they should get something. But General Collyer was in a sense a civil servant all his life, because from the age of 18 he was in the service of this country until he retired, and I think it is the least that we can do, considering the service he rendered, how he helped to build up the first Military College at Bloemfontein and the Defence Force as we know it today. I say, the least I think we can do is to see that his widow does not suffer hardship. I do hope this Committee will without hesitation agree to this pension as Mrs. Collyer is absolutely entitled to it and, if she does not receive it, she will suffer great hardship.

I must say this to the Minister without Portfolio, that we can only look at this matter from the point of view of justice. I quite see that he is pleading on behalf of the widow of the late Gen. Collyer because he has told us that Gen Collyer was a lifelong friend of his, and he has to try and do his best for his friend, but when we have to deal with matters like this in this House then it is not a question of doing one’s best for a friend, it is a matter of doing what is right in the circumstances. This is the position. If we lay down the policy that we are going to award pensions on this very generous scale without getting proper information in regard to the particular subject, we don’t know where it is all going to end. I am not a member of the Pensions Committee and that is why I am anxious to know what the position is. The Minister tells us that the widow has practically nothing, but still there is an estate, and I have never yet seen an estate in which there is nothing. That is why we are entitled to know what the assets are in that estate. We want to know more or less what they are. Before we know that we cannot judge here whether we are entitled to grant a pension or whether we are not. Surely it was the duty of the Pensions Committee to go thoroughly into the matter and take evidence? I don’t know whether they have granted this pension in a casual manner without being able to say whether there are any assets in the estate or not. I am not a member of the Select Committee on Pensions, but so far as this House is concerned we do not know whether there is anything in the estate or not. Surely that is the first thing we should know before we can grant a pension like this. The question at issue is a pension of £400, and if we compare that with the pension awarded to the widows of other generals, who have rendered very valuable services to the country, then I must say that their pensions were very small as compared with the pension which is being proposed here. I want to take a man like Gen. Maritz as an instance. One of our most prominent generals. We may have our differences, but hon. members opposite will have to admit that he rendered great services to the people of South Africa during times of war. His widow only gets a precarious pension of £120. And what do we find further? In this self same report of the Select Committee on Pensions there is a recommendation for a pension to the widow of Gen. Bouwer. If there is one general who did a lot for the country, and who devoted his whole life to the services of the country, it was Gen. Ben Bouwer, yet we find that a pension of only £120 is recommended for his widow. Why this distinction? Here we have two similar cases. Both were generals and neither of them left anything. Both generals have rendered great services to the people and now this distinction is made, the one widow gets £120 and the other one gets £400. Why is the distinction made? One does not like to say it, but one almost feels that the distinction is made because the one is the widow of an English speaking officer, and the other is the widow of an Afrikaans speaking officer.

Don’t you believe it.

You know yourself what the answer is.

I should like to have an explanation from a responsible person as to why there is this great distinction made? Superficially the two should be treated on the same basis, and the explanations we have had so far have been very weak, especially from the Minister without Portfolio who should be well informed, and from whom we could have expected well founded reasons, we got nothing to tell us why this differentiation is justified. Before the House decides to grant this pension we should be given more information.

The Chairman of Select Committee for Pensions has referred to me and has said that I was not present when the Select Committee decided on this matter. That is quite true, I was not present, but if he wants to create the impression that members on his side are always present then he is giving the House the wrong impression. I feel that by saying that he tries to cast a reflection on me as a faithful member. He tries to detract attention from the real issue. I attend the meetings of the Select Committees to the best of my ability, and my attendance in this house shows how seriously I take my duties. Hon. members can look at any division as recorded in Hansard and I challenge any hon. member opposite to show a higher percentage of attendances. But it was very striking that the Chairman of the Select Committee has evaded my questions. I asked whether the Select Committee on Pensions, when dealing with this matter, had Mrs. Collyer’s financial position before them. I know as a member of the Select Committee that before we grant a pension the financial position of the widow is always carefully considered, but even if they did find that there were reasons for the award of a pension I still want to know why this distinction? When we considered the pension of the widow of the late Gen. Maritz we were told by the Chairman what the Minister of Finance was prepared to accept and what not. We as members of the Select Committee last year voted her a pension of £10 per month, because we knew that if we had awarded her a larger amount we were in danger of gettingnothing. The whole question is why such a striking distinction is made. As the Chairman has not given any sound reasons, I move—

I want to second the amendment. I second it not because I do not want to give the widow this sum of £400, but because the rules of the House do not permit us to move that the widows of Gen. Maritz and Gen. Bouwer, for example, should also get £400. We are not allowed to move an increase in pensions. For that reason I second the amendment as a protest against the decision of the Select Committee to grant a pension of £400 in the one case and a pension of £120 in the other case. The Minister without Portfolio pleaded here for Gen. Collyer’s widow, and I admire him for defending his late friend, and championing the rights of his old friend. In his opinion Gen. Gollyer did a great deal for the country. For that reason he champions him. Now I want to make an appeal to the Afrikaansspeaking members on the other side to champion the general of the Boer War, Gen. Bouwer, who also joined the Boer forces as a boy. He also fought, just as Gen. Collyer did, and was thereafter also in the Defence Force. These cases are very similar. I make an appeal to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). I want to ask him whether he thinks that there should be differentiation in the case of these two widows. Hon. members on the other side may, of course, think that Gen. Collyer, because he was on the side of the English, did South Africa a greater service than Gen. Bouwer. We again on this side, have no doubt that Gen. Bouwer rendered greater services to South Africa than Gen. Collyer. We do not want to reduce the pension of Gen. Collyer’s widow, but because we are not allowed to move that the pension of Gen. Bouwer’s widow, be increased, we move this amendment as a protest because of the differentiation in these two cases. We want to treat them alike. If we could get the assurance that the three widows we mentioned would receive the same attention by referring these cases back to the Select Committee on Pensions, then I am convinced that the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) would be prepared to withdraw his amendment. But we want right and justice for English speaking and Afrikaans speaking alike. I understand that neither of the widows is well off, and we want them to be treated on the same basis. If the other side can advance sound arguments to defend the award of a pension of £400 to the one widow, and only £120 to the other two, then we shall not be unreasonable and insist on reducing the amount in this case. But on what ground was the distinction made? The chairman of the Select Committee ought surely to give good reasons. So far he has not done so and the Minister without Portfolio, too, has failed to do so. Take the case of Gen. Maritz, for example. He had to flee from the country, and for a long time he was an exile from South Africa.

Why?

Because he was a good Afrikaner, which you are not. He had to flee whether what he did was right or wrong The hon. member will surely admit that he was an Afrikaner, and that he was not a cowardly Afrikaner who remained in the House of Parliament when there was a war on and drew a double salary.

He was a Nazi like you.

On a point of order, may an hon. member call another hon. member a Nazi? There is a ruling from the Chair that you may not call another hon. member a communistic propagandist.

I did not hear what the hon. member said. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) may proceed.

I do not care what that hon. member says. If he says anything ill of me it is a compliment. We also know that Gen. Maritz suffered great hardships and that he could leave his wife practically nothing.

Is she not a landowner?

If she has a piece of ground, could she eat it? She practically suffered starvation, and we do not know what the widow of Gen. Collver possesses. They are both poor, and why should £400 be granted in one case and £120 in the other case? I want to repeat that we would not like to reduce the pension, but as a measure of protest we move this amendment, since we are not allowed to move that the other pensions be increased.

I should like to make an appeal to the House to be very careful with such cases. Here we have the case of the widows of two generals who rendered the same services to the country, and whose widows were left in more or less the same circumstances. What reason is there for giving one a pension of £400 and the other a pension of £120? I just want to say that the friendly relationship between the various races will not be promoted by this type of thing, because you cannot get away from the fact that the Afrikaans speaking section of the community will feel that there is discrimination, because the one person belongs to a certain race, and the other to a different race, and that that is the reason why one gets a lesser pension than the other. For that reason, for the sake of friendly cooperation, I want to make an appeal to the House not to do this type of thing because it will engender a feeling in the hearts of the people that this is being done because the one individual belongs to one race and the other to a different race. Otherwise, the circumstances are exactly alike. One cannot get away from that. I cannot understand why the Select Committee on Pensions acted in this way. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance, if he can do anything in order to place this matter on an equal footing, to do his best to treat these three widows alike. We are not asking that the widow of Gen. Collyer should receive less, but as the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr’ van Nierop) correctly said, we cannot move an increase in pension in the other case. For that reason we make an appeal to the House: Let us try to keep the scale balanced.

I think I put a question to the chairman of the Select Committee to which I am at least entitled to get a reply. I put this question: When this pension was awarded to the widow of Gen. Collyer, did the Select Committee then have before it the financial return with references to the position of the widow? As the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, we do not want to reduce this pension, but we have to make this proposal as a measure of protest because we are not allowed to move an increase in the other pension. We must protest against this discrimination in the award of the pensions. That is the only way which is open to us in the circumstances. But as members of the Select Committee, we always consider the financial position of the widows. Has that been done in this case?

If you sit down I shall reply.

I should like to give you the opportunity.

I am very glad to answer the hon. member specifically. The information was laid before the Committee by the Treasury that there was practically no estate and that the widow of Gen. Collyer had no income whatever. That was the specific information laid before this Committee. My hon. friend is perfectly right, we always are swayed by the financial position of any petitioner and that was the position in this case. There was no estate and the widow had no income.

Why the distinction between her and other widows?

As far as that is concerned let me say this: the pensions awarded to the widows of Gen. Maritz and Gen. Bouwer are a recognition of services rendered during the Boer War. I think the hon. member should not have raised this question because my hon. friend, the member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser) knows that on that Committee the racial issue has never obtruded itself.

Why this difference?

The hon. member asked about the case of Mrs. Maritz. The racial issue was never raised there. I supported that pension. We have tried to deal fairly and squarely with both sections. The pensions awarded to the widows of Gen. Maritz and Gen. Bouwer were awarded in recognition of services rendered in the old days. This case is entirely different, and my hon. friend who is a member of this Committee realises that. Here is a widow who is technically outside the Pensions Act. Only technically. If Gen. Collyer’s death had occurred up North instead of in the Union the pension would have been granted. There is this technical difficulty, and therefore legally there was no liability on the Treasury, and there is no legal power on the Treasury to pay that pension, and so it came to the Committee and the Treasury said this—

And as there was merely that technicality the Committee did what it did in other cases. It is not a matter of racialism. It was simply a case of putting a technicality on one side and putting this widow in the position as if her husband’s death had occurred up North. Under the new Bill there is a Grants Committee and an amount of £50,000 has been placed at the disposal of that Committee to meet these specific cases. I think it could have been left for the new Act to come into operation, but it was a gracious act to remove that disbality at once. But we had the information that she could have been placed under the new Act, under the Special Grants Committee. But we thought it best to deal with the matter in the way we did.

Was the Committee unanimous?

Yes, there were two members of the Opposition present and five or six of the Government side. There was no suggestion from the two members representing the Opposition party by a motion to grant a smaller pension. I want to remove one more misapprehension which arose out of the remarks by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). He talked of the loose manner in which pensions were granted. There was no loose manner.

I did not say that.

Let me just emphasise that again. There was no estate. I cannot go further, and I hope this House is going to support the Committee. What we propose is a matter of right and not of sympathy; it is consonant with the policy of that Committee and it is the unanimous action of a Committee consisting of members of both sides.

I should like to clear up a misunderstanding under which the hon. member labours. I want to tell the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) that we do not object at all to the payment of a pension of £400 to the widow of Gen. Collyer. We do not find any fault in that. I said that I would be glad if we could give her even £400 more. But our only objection is that there is differentiation, and that the widow of Gen. Bouwer is only awarded £120. The hon. member now says that if Gen. Collyer had died outside the Union his widow would have been entitled to the pension, and that only on account of a technical point she cannot get it. As I have said, we cannot move an increase in the pension. We cannot ask the House to vote more money for another pension. Now we want to ask the hon. member as chairman of the Pensions Committee—and the Minister of Finance if he can see his way clear to do so—whether the two pensions which were awarded cannot be referred back to the Pensions Committee with the request that the same pension be awarded to each of the two widows. Then we on this side of the House will not object to the pension which is awarded to the widow of Gen. Collyer. I make an appeal to the Minister of Finance and to the hon. member as chairman of the Pensions Committee, to meet us and to award a pension of £400 to the widow of Gen. Bouwer also. If he will do that, we shall vote for these pensions with the greatest pleasure.

I want to say a word or two as a member of the committee which voted the pension. There was no divergence of opinion at all, there was full agreement on it. The point has been raised, and I want to emphasise it in my own person, I did raise a certain discordance and I was backed up by another member on the Government side. I did not object in any way to this pension being given, but I raised the point that if such a pension is given to the widow of a general who dies in the Union, it should also be given to the widows of other ranks who may happen to die in the same circumstances. I made it clear that I did not object to the pension, but I said “Here is a precedent established,” and I said “If it is done for any general’s widow it must be done for the widows of lesser ranks.”

We are not objecting to the pension.

That particular point was taken up and agreed to strongly by one particular member. As to the award of this particular pension, we were entirely at one.

I would just like to say something in regard to the two pensions. I think the last speaker knows what attitude I always adopted in connection with this question. But I knew both Gen Bouwer and Gen. Collyer. I knew Gen Bouwer from the Boer War. He came to the Cape together with Gen. Smuts from the Transvaal. He was later appointed to the permanent staff, and so was Gen. Collyer. I knew their financial position. Gen. Collyer received a bigger pension than Gen. Bouwer. They both did a great deal for South Africa. I think that they themselves should have made provision for their wives, but I think to discriminate here is entirely wrong. If that were to be done, then the wife of Gen. Bouwer should receive the biggest pension, because Gen. Bouwer was born in this country. I have nothing against Gen. Collyer, but to make this big difference in the pensions will create the impression that there is something wrong, and I cannot understand why the Pensions Committee makes such a distinction. I want to make an appeal to the hon. Minister. It seems to me that there is something wrong here. Throughout his whole life Gen. Bouwer was a professional soldier. He remained a soldier until he died, and it is unfair to give his widow this small pension.

I move—

I do not know whether I am now allowed to move on Item 4.

We have not yet reached it.

I shall move when we come to Item 4. I want to move this, so that the Committee can get the opportunity to take these two cases into review with the object of granting an equal amount to the two widows.

I want to second the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). I should like to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance as leader of the House. I want to make an appeal to him that we should not divide on this matter. We do not want to find fault with the pension, but we would like the widow of the late Gen. Bouwer to receive more, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to refer the matter back to the Pensions Committee with instructions to report on Tuesday. All that the Committee has to say is that it grants an equal amount of £400 to each of the widows. If they do that we on this side of the House will acclaim the fact that these two widows have been properly provided for in their old age. I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to give a lead in this respect.

I would just like to bring a few points to the notice of the Committee. I just want to say in passing that I am one of the members of the Pensions Committee. Gen. Collyer was a professional soldier. He had no other work, while Gen. Bouwer took part in only one war, and after the war he did not continue soldiering. The same applies in the case of Gen. Manie Maritz. I feel that on the strength of that a bigger pension ought to be awarded to the widow of Gen. Collyer, because he was a professional soldier. That was his means of livelihood. The other two were merely temporary officers. As you all know, I am in favour of higher pensions, but I do feel that we should be fair in this matter, and for that reason I just want to bring this point to the notice of the House. Those two Boer generals only fought in the Boer War. They were not professional soldiers. They only took part in the Boer War, and soldiering was not their means of livelihood.

You are under a misapprehension. Gen. Bouwer took part in more than one war.

If that is the case then I was under the wrong impression. Then I want to withdraw what I said regarding Gen. Bouwer; but I do not think that the same applies in the case of Gen. Manie Maritz.

The last speaker said that Gen. Collyer was a professional soldier and that Gen. Bouwer was not. But in the War of Independence Gen. Collyer undoubtedly drew hundreds and hundreds of pounds to fight against us, while Gen. Bouwer did not draw a penny. We lost that war, and Gen. Bouwer was thrown on the ashheap. You know how our Boers, generally speaking, were treated after the War of Independence. If we had won the War of Independence Gen. Bouwer would have been a professional soldier no less than Gen. Collyer. If there has to be a difference in the pension then I think that Gen. Collyer should rather get less because in the Second War of Independence he received money, while Gen. Bouwer received nothing. Gen. Bouwer was a commandant under whom we served when we trekked to the Cape, and I am sorry if the committee came to the decision that Gen. Bouwer was not a professional soldier. I say again that if we had not won the war Gen. Bouwer would have occupied a much higher post than he did later on. When we again restored the Defence Force in South Africa, he was one of the first people whom Gen. Smuts called in. He thought that Gen. Bouwer was his right hand man, and today the widow of Gen. Bouwer is neglected in comparison with the widow of Gen. Collyer. Gen. Bouwer was born in South Africa, and he carried out his duties as well as Gen. Collyer, if not better. I fully agree with the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood).

I should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood). It is quite clear to me from what the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) said here that she was not au fait with the actual position of Gen. Bouwer and of Gen. Collyer. She said here that Gen. Collyer was a professional soldier, and that he had devoted all his life to soldiering, and that Gen. Bouwer was not a professional soldier. But she was under a misapprehension. It is quite clear that that was not the case. The hon. member was under a misapprehension when she assisted in the committee in taking that decision. She was not familiar with the facts, and we must therefore take it that other members of the committee were not familiar with the facts either. It was decidedly wrong when she said, in the first instance, that Gen. Bouwer did not participate in the Boer War, and that he fought in the 1914-T8 war. He was, of course, an officer in that war. Well, in view of the fact that there is a serious doubt or rather a strong possibility that the members of the Pensions Committee were not all au fait with regard to the real position of the two officers, I think that the Minister should refer this matter back to the Pensions Committee, because it is unfair to make such a big difference between these two widows, and I think that an injustice will be committed towards the widow of Gen. Bouwer if this item were to be accepted.

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) said here that she was under a misapprehension with reference to the position of Gen. Bouwer. Well, I want to say that we do not object to the £400 per annum which is granted to the widow of Gen. Collyer. But the hon. member says here that because the one woman is the wife of a professional soldier she must get more than the wife of a soldier who only participated in one war. But she admitted that she was under the wrong impression. She said that she was under the impression that Gen. Bouwer had only participated in one war. For that reason, apparently, Gen. Collyer’s wife has to receive £400, and Gen. Bouwer’s wife £120. We do not want to object to the pension which is being granted to the widow of Gen. Collyer, but what we do want is that the widow of Gen. Bouwer, a person who served South Africa, should be looked after and not be neglected in comparison with the widow of Gen. Collyer. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Vrededorp has admitted that she was under a misapprehension, I hope that she will now get up and say that she was under the wrong impression in the committee, and that there may be other people who also got that wrong impression.

She has already said that.

Then I just want to make an appeal to the Minister. There is a woman in this House who voted on that committee whilst she was under a wrong impression. In view of that fact I hope that the Minister will agree with me that there may be other members who were under the same impression. I can give the Minister the assurance that I have no intention at all of objecting to the pension which is beinggranted to Gen. Collyer’s widow. But a few hundred pounds per year will surely not make a difference to the Treasury. We are treating this matter absolutely on its merits, we do not want to drag politics into the matter. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Minister and to the chairman of the committee to ask the Minister to give his permission that this matter be referred back to the Pensions Committee until Tuesday.

I think there was a misunderstanding in that committee. Col. Reitz, the Minister of Native Affairs, knows the history of Gen. Bouwer very well. He came through to the Cape with him. He and Gen. van Deventer were commandants. The Minister of Native Affairs knows the history of Gen. Bouwer very well.

The hon. member must confine himself to Item 1.

I just want to clear up a misunderstanding. He was a captain in the police, and from there he was transferred to the defence force.

I cannot allow that; the hon. member must confine himself to Item 1.

I am confining myself to the two pensions. Why should one widow get more than the other? The merits of the case are in favour of the widow of Gen. Bouwer, and not in favour of Gen. Collyer’s widow. I know this lady personally. She is well educated. She always lived very well when her husband was alive, and for that reason I feel all the more that she is entitled to receive the same amount as that received by Gen. Collyer’s widow.

I withdrew after I was given to understand that Gen. Bouwer had participated in other wars. But now I ask the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), why so inconsistent? They started off with three widows, these two and the widow of Gen. Maritz.

No, that was the previous year. We cannot refer that back now.

I ask that hon. members should not insist that those pensions be referred back to the Pensions Committee, since the Pensions Committee can no longer sit. If the pension has to stand over until next year …

That is not the intention at all. We said not later than Tuesday.

If that is the case then it is different.

You are wrong again.

I would ask hon. members opposite not to press this. The Pensions Committee is already dissolved, and at least one member has gone home. I don’t think this can be referred back to the committee this session, we cannot possibly sit again. The case of Mrs. Bouwer can be brought up next session.

That will be the end of it.

I just want to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member, namely, that some members of the committee have already gone home. If that is the case other members can be appointed in their place. The House will sit until the end of next week, and the Minister can appoint other members to take the place of the absent member. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) clearly said that she was not in possession of all the facts, and in those circumstances I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance to give the Select Committee a chance to reconsider this matter. Here a member of the Select Committee said herself that they did not know the merits of the case of Gen. Bouwer as they know it now, and for that reason there is more ground for us to insist on the two cases being referred back to the committee, and that they report on the matter before Tuesday.

With leave of the Committee the amendment proposed by Mr. Loubser was withdrawn. The motion proposed by Mr. Haywood was put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—27:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Conroy, E. A.

Fouche, J. J.

Fullard, G. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Grobler, J. H.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swart, A. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Noes—56:

Abrabamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Pocock, P. V.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

I want to move the following amendment—

As I have already said, I do this on account of the distinction which is made between the widows of these two generals, and I hope that the Minister of Finance will agree to refer this matter back to the Select Committee for reconsideration. I do not want to repeat what I have already said, but I think that the Minister of Finance is convinced that when this case was before the Select Committee the members did not appreciate that the merits of the two cases were precisely the same.

I am sorry that we cannot accept this motion. This matter has already been fully discussed; it was dealt with by the Select Committee which made this recommendation, and we cannot again postpone the matter. If the person concerned again applies for an increased pension, then the usual course can be followed and a new petition submitted.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance, when it is a question of Afrikaners, is not prepared to refer such a recommendation back, so that justice can be done to this widow. I am glad that the Prime Minister is present. He knows Gen. Bouwer very well. He not only served under him as a citizen, but in the Boer War he progressed, until shortly before the declaration of peace, he was appointed as general under the leadership of the Prime Minister. This same Gen. Bouwer on more than one occasion stepped into the breach for the Prime Minister, and he saved his life. Here we are now dealing with two cases which are exactly alike, one of an English-speaking person and the other of an Afrikaans-speaking person who served Afrikanerdom. In the case of the English-speaking person a pension of £400 is awarded, but in the case of the Afrikaansspeaking person, someone who served and defended his nation and who is placed in exactly the same circumstances, his widow receives £120 a year. How can one justify the treatment of an Afrikaans-speaking person in this way? For that reason I am bitterly disappointed that the Minister of Finance stood up here and refused to have the case of this poor widow of Gen. Bouwer’s referred back to the Select Committee, as we proposed. I can only say that after this action on the part of the Government, we know that the Afrikaner is being relegated to the background, and that he is unjustly treated. I hope that the Minister of Finance will not be so unfair. After all, he himself is descended from this nation, but it really seems that he is imbued with a desire to destroy the Afrikaner. We have no better proof of that than the manner in which the widow of Gen. Bouwer is being treated in contrast with the manner in which the widow of Gen. Collyer is being treated. For that reason I heartily support the amendment.

The rules of the House require that I should say that in its wisdom the House rejected the first motion to refer the pension of the widow of Gen. Collyer back to the Select Committee. If I had been outside, I should have said that the S.A.P.’s on the other side did so out of bitterness, ignorance and prejudice. But I am bitterly disappointed. I cannot but feel bitterly disappointed in the attitude which the Minister of Finance is adopting. After all, what would it mean to the Treasury to pay a few hundred pounds per annum to see justice done to the widow of a man like Gen. Bouwer, to give her a pension which is equivalent to that of Gen. Collyer’s widow? I should now like to ask the chairman of the Pensions Committee whether, after they decided on this pension, they did not receive other information which, if they had received it before their decision, would have resulted in their giving the same pension to the widow of Gen. Bouwer? I would like him to give me an honest reply. Did not information become available which you did not possess at the time when you decided to recommend £120 per annum for the widow of Gen. Bouwer? And is it not the case that if at that time you had that information, you would have awarded her a bigger pension? I am speaking today with deep disappointment. I thought that the House might vote against our first motion to refer the recommendattion in connection with the £400 back to the Select Committee. When it comes to this war, to salaries and double salaries, those hon. members are inclined to look well after themselves, but when it comes to the widow of a person for whom we have the greatest respect, to the widow of a Boer general, then they are not prepared to agree with us to see that justice is done to that person, but she has to come to the House again in the usual manner, as the Minister of Finance told the House. The Minister of Finance knows very well that if this person were again to submit a petition, it may take two or three years before the Pensions Committee can deal with her case. The Minister of Finance ought to know that there are large numbers of applications for pensions which have to stand over, because the Pensions Committee has not the time to consider them, and if this person were again to submit a petition, we do not know how long it will be before her case can be taken into consideration. The Minister of Finance cannot be unaware of that, but nevertheless he comes here and says that that person can apply in the usual manner, and then the Select Committee can go into the merits of the case in the usual manner. I hope they will go into the merits. In this case the Select Committee did not go into the merits. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) said that she was under a misapprehension, and surely she is much cleverer than many of the S.A.P.’s on the other side, and that is proof to us that many of them on the other side must also have been under a misapprehension. For the sake of right and justice I again want to ask the Minister of Finance to agree that this pension be referred back. It would mean another £280 to bring it to the same level as the other pension. We are convinced that that money can be saved in some manner or other, so as to give it to this widow. The Prime Minister need merely have one plane trip less to the North, and then the money will have been saved. The Prime Minister knows this widow well. It is said that Gen. Bouwer saved his life, and why should £120 per annum be given to this widow while the widow of Gen. Collyer receives £400? I again want to ask the Minister, for the sake of right and justice, to accept the motion of the hon. member for Bloemfontein district (Mr. Haywood).

As someone who had years of experience on the Pensions Committee, I gain the impression that with regard to this case members of the Pensions Committee did not deal with it on its merits. We have the case of one widow who receives £400 per annum, whilst the other receives £120 per annum. In both cases the people concerned occupied the same rank. Both were professional soldiers, and the only difference which I can see is that the one fought for the Boer nation, and the other fought against the Boer nation. After a number of years, they fought together again, and were together in military service. The impression which one gains is this. The one is penalised because he fought on the side of the Boers, and his widow receives £120 per annum, as against £400 which the widow of the other receives. For that reason I think it would be desirable for the Minister to take this case into review, and to see to it that justice is done to the widow of Gen. Bouwer.

I do not want to detain the House long. I just want to tell the House that I can understand that the first case cannot be referred back to the Pensions Committee, because members on the other side are satisfied with the £400. We are satisfied. But I at least expected that the Government would agree to recommend to the House the last amendment to the effect that this matter be referred back to the Select Committee. I spoke just now of the relationship between the two races. I can tell the Government that we Afrikaners are shocked to see how this widow of an Afrikaner is being treated. If the House is going to act on the suggestion of the Minister of Finance and reject this amendment, then the blame will be laid at the door of every hon. member on the other side that they do not want to give an Afrikaner what they are prepared to give an Englishman. They must not then tell us again that they are not racialists. Do not come and tell us that you want to keep the relationship between the two races in this country on a sound and healthy basis. You cannot do it, because every Afrikaner has the right to say that there has been this discrimination simply because the one person is English speaking and the other is Afrikaans speaking. Gen. Bouwer spent his whole life as a soldier in the Defence Force. There is no other reason why this difference is being made than that the one is an Afrikaner and the other an Englishman. This Act will make the relationship and feeling between the two races in the country worse than it has ever been before. You must not blame us for that. This side feels it deeply that such things are taking place.

We made an appeal to the Minister of Finance. Now I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and to ask him, if we now withdraw this motion, whether he would be prepared to accept a motion that we refer this matter to the Government? Is he prepared to accept such a motion?

I must say that I was very much disappointed with the remarks made by the Minister of Finance when he said that he would not accept this amendment. If, after this, we say in this country that there is discrimination between Afrikaans and English speaking persons, then nobody opposite will dare to contradict us. Here we have the case of two generals whose widows are left in poor circumstances, and the Government comes here and differentiates between the two pensions in an unfair and unjust manner, to the detriment of the Afrikaans speaking people. I can only say that we are deeply disappointed at the discrimination against Afrikaans speaking widows. It cannot be argued away that a great distinction is being made. If the Government wants to act fairly it should grant the widow of General Bower the same pension as that granted to the widow of Gen. Collyer, but that is not done, and the only reason we can look for is that the Government has acted on racial lines, because it takes up the attitude that the Afrikaans speaking people are inferior. There is no other reason. The Prime Minister and his Party are trying to get recruits among the Afrikaans speaking people, and when they do so they appeal to the sentiments of the Afrikaans speaking individuals to induce them to join up, but when they get an opportunity in this House to do justice to an Afrikaans speaking widow then they give the Afrikaner a slap in the face. It is a crying disgrace for a Government which pretends that it wants peace and concord in the country, that it wants both sections of the population to be treated fairly and justly, to do a thing like that. I tell the Government that we are going to make full use of this and we shall tell the people of the way in which the Afrikaans speaking people are fobbed off and are insulted. A great point has been made of the fact that two members of the Pensions Committee belonging to this side of the House voted for this recommendation. We now find that the full facts were not before the Select Committee. We now find that the two cases are exactly identical, and I defy the Minister of Finance to tell us what is the difference between those two people and why these two cases should not be treated in exactly the same way? The Minister now has the opportunity to get up and give us a full explanation of the position. He cannot do so and the public can therefore see what is happening. The only difference is that Gen. Bouwer was an Afrikaner and Gen. Collyer an Englishman. That is the only difference, and this discrimination is practised by people who have always got such a lot to say about equal treatment of the two races. Their deeds prove that their words are not true, and this action of theirs proves that the Government is quite prepared to slap the Afrikaner in the face. If the Minister of Finance wants to treat this matter in a decent manner there is no obstacle in his way preventing him from accepting this amendment. It can go back to the Select Committee, which can report on Tuesday and recommend an increase in the pension to £400. It can be done. Now the Minister says that another petition can be presented and that the Pensions Committee can then deal with the position again. I want to ask the Minister of Finance whether we have not had a precedent of a matter being referred back to the Select Committee in the same session with the object of a higher pension being granted? It has been done repeatedly. Why cannot it be done now? Why should Gen. Bouwer’s widow have to wait another year? And I am convinced that if she puts in another petition she will not get it either. I hope hon. members opposite, who are continually calling on the Afrikaans speaking people to join up to fight in this war, will also tell the Afrikaans speaking people that they are quite ready to discriminate to the detriment of Afrikaans speaking widows as against the widows of English speaking people.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance, but I know that it is merely a waste of time because he has no time for us or for the Afrikaans speakingpeople, so I prefer to make an appeal to the Prime Minister who is at the head of the Government, and under whom Gen. Bouwer fought at the beginning of the Boer War, and particularly on the occasion of his campaign into the Cape Province. Not only did Gen. Bouwer fight in the Anglo-Boer War, but in 1914, when I and others rebelled against the Government, he stood by the Prime Minister and fought on his side. Therefore, because of the loyalty which Gen. Bouwer showed to the Prime Minister of South Africa by standing by him through thick and thin both in the Boer War and in the Rebellion of 1914, something should be done for his widow. The Prime Minister sits there perfectly quietly and allows himself to be influenced by the Minister of Finance and he does nothing to prevent this discrimination which is taking place as between English speaking and Afrikaans speaking people. Here we have to behold that people who have trampled over this country, who have robbed us of our freedom and rights, here we have to behold that those people are being privileged over and above the Afrikaners. We further should take into account the fact that the Afrikaans speaking section constitutes 60 per cent. of the population. They pay taxes, but the newcomers, the exploiters, are compensated and paid, while the Afrikaner does not get those rights, and then those people travel through the country and tell the people that they stand for equal rights, that there must be no differentiation between Afrikaans and English speaking, and here we see how the British Imperialist is given preference over the others. As the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has said, we shall avail ourselves of this opportunity to show the platteland, and to show the people in the dorps how the interests of our own people are being sacrificed while the people who wanted to deprive us of our rights are receiving preferential treatment. We are deprived of our rights for their benefit. I hope that the Prime Minister will do something for what he feels is right. The Minister of Finance’s reply was that Gen. Bouwer’s widow should apply again in the ordinary course. If she had been an English speaking person he would not have made that remark, but he would have accepted the motion to refer this matter back to the Pensions Committee, but because she is an Afrikaans speaking woman the Minister has no sympathy for her case. I hope the Prime Minister will not keep silent but that he will listen to these appeals which are being made to him. We have hon. members sitting opposite who are related to the person who is mentioned here, and I assume that they will run away when the vote is taken, but I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I do not know whether it will be any use, but for the sake of this widow who is in a state of poverty and whose husband did not get a big salary, I want to make an appeal to him. Both Gen. Collyer and Gen. Bouwer were in the permanent service. Gen. Bouwer’s widow’s financial position is very much worse than Gen. Collyer’s widow’s, and I appeal to the Prime Minister to take action in this matter. If she has to wait a year longer she may perhaps not be there to enjoy her pension— she may no longer be there to draw the money to buy bread and butter, the money which may give her a certain degree of comfort, but it seems to me that hon. members begrudge her the opportunity of enjoying her old age and have those comforts which her own mother country can give her, comforts which are given to other people who have come here from elsewhere.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Finance. We have a very telling example before us now. We have two cases before us which are exactly alike. A pension is asked here for two widows, both the widows of Generals; both of them were in the Boer War, although they were in opposite camps, and after that they were professional soldiers. In the one case we have an English speaking person, and in the other an Afrikaans speaking. In the one case it is the widow of an English speaking general, and in the other case it is the widow of an Afrikaans speaking general, and what do we find? Here we are differentiating to such an extent that the widow of the Afrikaans speaking general is to get a pension of £120 a year, while the widow of the English speaking general is to get £400 per year. If we Afrikaans speaking members object, and if we say that a crying injustice is done to the Afrikaans speaking section, then we expect the other side of the House, if it is not true, to get up and to prove to us that there is a difference between the two cases, but if hon. members opposite cannot produce evidence to show that there is a difference, then it must be clear to every thinking person that serious discrimination is being indulged in here. A mistake may have slipped in, and that is why we propose that this matter be referred back to the Pensions Committee, and that that committee may report again on Tuesday. Is it too much trouble to remedy this injustice by referring the case back and asking the Select Committee to reconsider the matter? What is behind it? Why is this done? Is it because the other side of the House feels that the Afrikaans speaking man in his own country must be content to occupy a lower level of life? When two cases of pensions are brought forward and people have the same needs in life, and the one is granted a lower pension than the other, then surely it must mean one of two things—the one getting the lower pension must be in a better financial position to provide for his own needs than the other; and if that is not the case, then it must simply mean that that person must occupy a lower standard of living. That, then, must be the reason why the one is to get less than the other. In this particular instance we are dealing with people who have been accustomed to the same standard of living. The widow of the late General Bouwer has been accustomed to a decent standard of living, yet we find that the widow of the English speaking general gets £280 per year more than she does. We object most emphatically to this; we are indignant about it; it is our duty to object to it, and we do so because we feel that this discrimination against the widow of the late Gen. Bouwer is unjust and unfair. If there is discrimination between an English and Afrikaans speaking person, one can well imagine what the feeling of the people is going to be about an action of that kind. We can well imagine the feeling of bitterness that will be created among the public. A Government which allows things of that kind is stirring up the feelings of the Afrikaner nation, is creating a feeling of such bitterness that for many years we shall not be able to live in this country in friendship, the two races will not be able to live together. The Government is responsible for an act of injustice which cries out to Heaven, and we protest against this injustice which is being perpetrated against an Afrikaans speaking widow.

If I look at these two cases which are now before the House, entirely apart from the attitude of the Minister of Finance, then I ask myself, if I were an English speaking member sitting opposite, whether I would not have had the decency to vote for the amendment, so that there would be no discrimination against an Afrikaans speaking person. I am not even speaking of the Afrikaans speaking members opposite. I hope the English speaking members opposite will have the decency and the courtesy not to allow discrimination to be indulged in in this way against a widow of an Afrikaans speaking general. Before I say any more on this subject I want to touch on another aspect of this matter, and I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister of Finance. I am now speaking of Gen. Collyer’s case. Here we have a man who was in the Public Service for years drawing a big salary. I don’t know whether the Minister has told us what his salary was, for how many years he had drawn that salary and what his pension was. After he had resigned he drew a pension, and we have already been told that he was subsequently re-employed in the Service at a large salary. Did Gen. Collyer receive that salary, plus his pension?

No.

Is not that the principle which is usually followed?

The pension is taken into account.

Is the pension deducted? I should very much like to know what the position is.

That is not the question which we are considering now.

I want to discuss the principle. Here we have a man who occupied a high position in the Public Service. He drew his salary, and afterwards he was paid a pension. Are we to lay down the principle now that if he has not provided for his widow during his lifetime, we have to do so now? Is that the principle which we are going to apply to all our officials in the Public Service? On what grounds is it to be justified that the widow of a highly placed official is granted this pension, while there are large numbers of highly placed officers from the Boer War whose widows get £5 and £6 per month? I am now dealing with the widows of Boer officers, commandants, and others. I know that some of them are drawing pensions of £6, £7 and £8 per month. They are the widows of men who did not fight for a salary, men who did not have an opportunity during their lifetime to provide for their widows, whereas Gen. Collyer with his big salary had every opportunity of doing so, and out of his pension he also had the opportunity of making provision for his widow. If we have to pay the widow of every official a pension, the Minister of Finance will realise what it is going to mean. Take all the officials in the Public Service, in the Army, the Police, and the Railways, drawing salaries of £1,000 and more. What is the position going to be if we lay down the principle that they need not make provision for their widows? If the principle is laid down that officials need not make provision for their widows when they die we shall have to pay a great many more pensions. Does the Minister realise what is ahead of us? And, if he does not want to make it a general principle to award such pensions, then it means that he is measuring with two different measures. Now I come to the present case, the differentiation that is being made between the two widows. I understand that the argument adduced by hon. members opposite, not by the Minister, is that the one was a general and the other not. Is that so? Gen. Bouwer was not only in the three years’ war, but he was also appointed under this Government as a general before he left the Service. He was not a colonel when he left the Service, but he held the rank of general. If he was a general, on what basis does the Minister give the one a pension of £400, and the other a pension of £120? Did the Minister go into the question whether Mrs. Bouwer’s financial position is worse than Mrs. Collyer’s? And if her financial position is not better than Mrs. Collyer’s, how can the Minister come here and give the one a bigger pension than the other? Can the Minister adduce any reasons for this differentiation? So far as I can see, he has not got a solitary argument which can hold water, except this, that the widow of the one is the widow of an English general, and the other a widow of a Boer general.

You know that that is not so.

I hope the Minister will get up and tell us what the financial position of these widows is.

You know perfectly well that we are not influenced by the name.

It is not merely a case of the name, but very often the political views of people are considered when different standards are applied. I hope that the Minister of Finance will realise the unfairness of the position, and that he will produce other reasons, better reasons than those put forward by hon. members opposite as a result of a lack of judgment, and as a result of a lack of sense of equity and fairness. I hope that he, as Minister of Finance, will not do that sort of thing, but that he will see to it that this case is referred back to the Select Committee, so that a recommendation may be made under which right and justice will be done to both widows, both of whom are in financial need.

I am sorry to see that this case has developed into a racial wrangle. The Opposition are always prepared to make political capital out of anything of this nature. I was on the Pensions Committee for five years, and I must say there was not a single case in that five years of one individual being treated in any way different to another. I think in this case the House is entitled to some further explanation. As an English speaking member of this House, I object strongly to anyone getting up and stating that there has been a difference made because one person is English speaking and another one Afrikaans speaking. That sort of argument does no good in this House or outside it. I have known prominent members of the House take up the cudgels for the Afrikaans speaking section, and I know a large number of members on this side of the House have had letters of thanks from Afrikaans speaking people for efforts on their behalf, after their own countrymen had dropped their cases. It might be said that everyone in the past has been shabbily treated in the light of the new Pensions Bill which is now before the House on account of the increased benefits which that Bill confers on people who have served. I refuse to believe that the Pensions Committee were influenced in any way by the fact that one person was Afrikaans speaking and the other one English speaking. I suggest to the Minister that he should take some action in regard to this case of Gen. Bouwer. We are told the Committee has been dissolved, but any hon. member can bring forward a petition for next session.

How long must they wait?

It can be made retrospective. Any member can bring it up before the Committee at the next session of Parliament and let it be dealt with on its merits.

Why should justice wait?

My experience is that the case is rather the reverse. We English speaking members suffer from the attitude taken up by our own Ministers. We can get little or nothing for the English speakingsection, while our Ministers are not behindhand in getting privileges and benefits for the Afrikaans speaking section. Probably that is as it should be, and I am not complaining, but I am sorry that this racial debate has taken place, due, I am perfectly certain, to some misunderstanding, because there is no single member of the Pensions Committee who would attempt to say “This individual is Afrikaans speaking and therefore must get £120, and the other one is English speaking and must receive £400.”

Why do they get it then? We cannot get it.

I think instead of allowing this debate to continue, the Minister should get up and explain the difference.

The Chairman of the Committee has given you the explanation.

I am not au fait with what took place in the Committee, but I am perfectly certain that there has been no racial discrimination in regard to this, but hon. members know that when the Opposition want something to use on the platteland to inflame the Afrikaans speaking people once more against the English speaking section, they will get it. You always get a square deal as far as the English speaking section is concerned, and there are a hundred and one instances to prove it. When benefits are given to the Afrikaans speaking section do you find the English speaking section objecting?

No, they get £400 and we get £120.

I hope hon. members will drop this. There will be an opportunity of petitioning Parliament next session, and anything that is done can be made retrospective, and I assure hon. members opposite they will get support for it.

I fail to understand why such a long debate should take place over a matter like this. If the Chairman of the Select Committee of Pensions or the Minister can give us a satisfactory explanation why there is a distinction made between these two widows, and if the reasons are well founded then I shall be satisfied.

Very well, I shall do so.

It is a peculiar thing to me that we are dealing here with the widows of two former generals of our Defence Force in South Africa. The one widow gets a pension of £400 and the other one gets a pension of £120. Surely one can understand that it must give rise to dissatisfaction unless a satisfactory explanation is given for this discrimination. I don’t want to say that the differentiation is due to the fact that the name of the one is English and the other Afrikaans, but unless we are given an explanation I must say that it seems to me that that is the reason for the discrimination. I don’t say it is so but I want to have a satisfactory explanation.

I shall give it.

Very well, then I shall sit down.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Conroy) was apparently not here when the Chairman of the Select Committee made his statement.

He said nothing.

He explained the position. In Gen. Collyer’s case we were dealing with a man who was in military service when he died; purely as a result of a technical difficulty his widow could not get the pension to which she would have been entitled if he had died up North.

How much would his widow have got then?

A pension of £350 plus a gratuity of £1,200. Purely on technical grounds therefore she could not get her pension. Bearing that in mind the Select Committee recommended that she should get a pension of £400. The case of Gen. Bouwer’s was different. He resigned and went on pension. He died while he was on pension, I believe almost four years ago. He was not on military service when he died, and for that reason the case of his widow is dealt with in the same way as other cases of pensions are dealt with in similar circumstances.

I think it would be well if we were to give the House an idea more or less of what happened in the Select Committee. I don’t know why the Chairman of the Select Committee has not done so but he can correct me if I am wrong. I just want to explain how the Select Committee arrived at fixing the amount of £10 per month for Gen. Bouwer’s widow. I understand that what happened was more or less this: the year before a pension was granted to Gen. Maritz’ widow, and she was given £10 per month. Some members wanted to give her more than £10, but that was all we could get, and in the circumstances we thought that we should take what we could get for the widow; not that the members of the Select Committee belonging to this side were satisfied with £10, but they had to accept that or get nothing at all. When the application of Gen. Collyer’s widow came before the Select Committee the members on the other side of the House remained silent as the grave about the fact that Gen. Maritz’ widow had only got £10, but when subsequently the application by Gen. Bouwer’s widow came before the Select Committee it was said that a precedent was created last year and that Gen. Maritz’ widow was given £10, and on that basis they fixed the £10. It was not fixed on the merits of the case. In regard to the pension of £400 for Gen. Collyer’s widow, here we are dealing with a special pension. It is very seldom that such a high pension is granted in such circumstances. We are not finding fault with the amount, because a pension of £120 for a widow is much too small. In any case, the precedent of Mrs. Maritz’ pension influenced the Select Committee in granting £10 in Mrs. Bouwer’s case, because those two cases were identical, but in the case of Gen. Collyer’s widow they did not speak about a precedent. In the one case they kept quiet about the precedent, but in the other case they immediately referred to the precedent of Gen. Maritz’ widow. The hon. member for Durban, Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) said that he regretted the fact that the debate had developed on racial lines. I also regretted it. I call on any member here to testify to the fact that we kept politics entirely out of the matter and that we did not discuss these questions on racial lines. After the Select Committee had voted a pension of £400 in the first case the second case came up, which was an identical one, except that there was a difference in names, and the Select Committee suddenly turned round, so far as the majority was concerned, and they came forward with the precedent and only awarded Mrs. Bouwer £120. We asked what the reason was. The Minister of Finance who has been blessed by Providence with a ready tongue got up and could give practically no reason. All he could say was that Gen. Collyer had died in the wrong place. If he had died somewhere else his widow would have got her pension. Is it right and fair for the Minister to use an argument like that? I feel that the Minister himself must realise that it was a very poor argument. As a rule when he gets up he uses arguments one can listen to, arguments which have something in them in defence of his attitude, but he will have to admit that the reason he has adduced in this case, the so-called reason, does not hold water at all. There may perhaps be arguments that have not yet been used. Perhaps the Chairman of the Select Committee does not want to mention those arguments but unless we have very sound arguments we are not entitled to differentiate. We are continually hearing the argument that we need all the money we can get to carry on the war. If that is so, why is £400 awarded in the one case and only £120 in the other case? If a residence has to be built for the Prime Minister there is £100,000 available for it, but for the widows of our Boer Generals there is no money and all they can get is £10 per month. The coloured wives of soldiers are paid £8 per month, but the widows of Boer Generals are only paid £10 per month. Where does the fairness come in? There is ample money to spend on the war, and the Minister cannot give that as a reason why this pension cannot be raised. I want to say this to hon. members opposite, especially to the Afrikaans speaking members, that they must not violate their consciences but must see to it that this case is referred back to the Select Committee so that it can be brought up again on Tuesday. There are always people who want to use whatever we say here outside, and who want to distort what we say, and I therefore say again that we cannot propose an increase in the pension to Mrs. Bouwer of £400 because the Standing Rules do not allow it, but we can put off the matter until Tuesday and when we meet again on Tuesday we can also grant the other widows £400. If it is a fact that the Select Committee has already been dissolved, as the hon. member for Greyville says, then there must surely be another way of dealing with the matter. He is an old member of this House and he knows that it is no use saying that a petition can be handed in again next year. He knows that if a petition for a pension is presented, it takes two or three years before the case is dealt with, because the cases are dealt with in sequence, as they are presented. So it will not be possible in the ordinary way to obtain a pension of £400 for Mrs. Bouwer next year. Two or three years will have to pass before we can deal with her case again and in the meantime the other widow will be drawing £400. The reasons adduced here for the difference are not fair, but as I have already said there is another way of dealing with the matter. If the Select Committee has already been dissolved, the matter can be referred to the Cabinet and the Cabinet has the right to award the widow £400. I therefore appeal to the Ministers who are here to make use of the power they have. Let them agree to refer the matter to the Cabinet with a view to increasing Mrs. Bouwer’s pension. There is a principle at stake; we want to do justice. Now it is said that Gen. Collyer was on active service when he died and that that is why his case is different. Let us be honest. When Gen. Collyer died he was not on active service. He was one of those who did active service by donning uniform and staying at home. Gen. Collyer could not do any more active service on account of his age. He walked about in uniform and he drew a good salary, but on account of his age he could in no circumstances go up North. Now the Minister of Finance comes here and says that if he had not died in the Union but if he had died up North his widow would have got her pension. The Minister knows that he could not go North and that he was only appointed here to do certain little bits of work. I must say that I tried to curb my suspicion, because I don’t like giving way to my suspicion, and spoiling a good case by it. That is why I tried to deal with the case on its merits, but I want to ask the Minister whether, if he judges the case impartially, he does not feel that an unfair action has been committed. [Time limit].

I am very disappointed with the reply that has been given on this matter. I want to say at once that I feel that the Minister’s grounds are not very sound. He said that if Gen. Collyer had not died here, but if he had died up North, his widow would have got her pension, but the Minister knows that Gen. Collyer on account of his age was not fit to go North. Now, the Minister pretends that it was accidental that Gen. Collyer was in South Africa when he died, instead of being up North. The Minister has not given any reasons to justify the differentiation that is made here. I want to say at once that I do not agree with the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) when he only wants to refer this special case to the Cabinet. After Gen. Collyer’s case, all these cases of the Boer generals and their widows should be referred to the Cabinet for review. I hope the people outside this House will hear it; I want all the widows of Boer generals to send in petitions next year in view of Gen. Collyer’s case, so that they can also get such a big pension. I think I owe it to the memory of the Boer generals to draw attention to it, so that the widows of our generals will not be done out of what they are entitled to, but will get what is their due. Gen. Maritz’ case has been mentioned, and so have other cases. I want to say at once that through the good services of the Chairman of the Select Committee, we succeeded last year in getting a pension for Mrs. Maritz. Mrs. Maritz still has children at school today, children who are not yet able to stand on their own. Has Mrs. Collyer any children at home whom she has to look after? I don’t think so. There, again, Mrs. Maritz should have received preferential treatment. I don’t want to draw any conclusions, but I am compelled to say that a serious blunder has been committed by the way these two cases have been treated. The Minister cannot defend it. He cannot justify the argument that Gen. Collyer died on active service. He was not able to do any active service. The only service he could still render was perhaps to act as adviser on the Defence Council, or something similar. With his administrative abilities he could perhaps be used for that kind of work, but to use the argument that he practically died on active service is surely going too far. He was on pension, and it was to his benefit when the Government called on him again to put on uniform at a good salary. But he could not do active service. I therefore hope that the Minister will realise that that is not an argument he can use. I don’t know what word I can use …

It is a blot.

Yes, let me call it by that name. The Minister is measuring by two standards; I say so definitely. I served for years on the Select Committee of Pensions, like the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire). He says that there must be a reason because otherwise the Select Committee could not have made such a mistake. I doubt it.

I am sure we have never heard a more miserable excuse than that which was adduced by the Minister of Finance in regard to these matters. He has told us that it is only because of technical reasons that Gen. Collyer’s widow was considered for a pension. If somebody in the Police Service is injured he is entitled to his pension, and if he is injured outside the service he does not get a pension. But in this case we make an exception. We all know that Gen. Collyer was not physically fit for military service.

I think hon. members should refrain from repeating arguments

I don’t want to repeat, but the Minister used this argument …

That matter has been discussed the whole afternoon.

I want to point out that we are dealing here with a case where we are asking the Minister to refer this matter back to the Pensions Committee. We are adducing reasons which have not been adduced before. Now, I want to ask the Minister, if a police official who is exposed to danger all day long is injured, will he not be entitled to a pension? How can one expect, seeing that Gen. Collyer was up North only for a few days with the Prime Minister, that he must also be paid a pension? Are we to take it that if the Prime Minister is injured, his widow will be entitled to a pension because of his military service, just because the Prime Minister was up North for a few days? I want to appeal to the Minister to refer this matter back to the Committee. This distinction he draws in the case of these two people will create a very bad impression in the country. The Minister is now aware of the fact that members of the Committee who voted this pension did not know all the details. It has been proved that they were under a wrong impression—at least, some of them were. It is possible that not all the members of the Pensions Committee were fully aware of the position. If they had been aware of the position of Gen Bouwer might quite possibly have got a bigger pension.

I shall not repeat what was said this afternoon.

Then you can say nothing.

I want to reply, in fact, to what that hon. member said. I want to give the Committee the assurance this evening that the widow Bouwer does not own a piece of land or a house.

Then the Committee may have been brought under the wrong impression.

There we have yet another definite statement that the Committee might have been brought under an erroneous impression. But I want to go further. Not only does that widow not own a house or land, but she does not possess a penny, and she is dependent upon her family. The Minister heard this now that one of the hon. members on his side said that the Committee was brought under an erroneous impression. Here again is an admission that the Committee was not familiar with the facts when the pension was awarded. In the circumstances there are now two members who were members of the Committee who say that the Committee was not familiar with the facts when the pension was granted.

You are wrong. I mean that your facts are not correct.

My facts are quite correct.

Order order!

I also want to say this to that side of the House. There are members who talk of widows and of sons who offer their blood in this war. The person in respect of whom we plead here for an increased pension, a person who possesses nothing of her own, has one son, and that son joined the Air Force. Now I want to ask hon. members on the other side who are concerned about the war and who are so keen on having recruits, how that mother must feel. Her son joined the Air Force. How would that son feel in regard to the support which his mother is getting after the death of his father? How would he feel if he learns that this meagre pension has been awarded to his mother? The Chairman of the Committee said this afternoon that they take into consideration all the facts in granting a pension. May we just briefly summarise the facts? I do not want to repeat, and I am not going to enlarge upon this; but we have two cases here which are absolutely identical. In the one case we are granting £400, and in the other case we are giving £120. In the one case the person concerned may possess something; in the other case the woman possesses nothing. But in the one case we give £400 and we only give £120 to the person who possesses nothing. In the one case the mother gives her son to go and fight in the war which we do not want, but which members on the other side want, and the compensation which she receives is £120, whilst the other receives £400. In the one case the name is Bouwer: in the other case the name is Collyer. I want to give the House the assurance that we have no ulterior motives. I am pleading here for a person whom I do not know, and who, as far as I know, I have never seen. I understand that the Chairman of the Committee acted fairly in the Pensions Committee. I do not want to talk of his politics; his politics are hopeless. But I talk of him as Chairman of the Committee. There he was fair, but it is remarkable that in this House he adopts such a silent attitude. I am certain that if he had still been on the Committee this evening, he would have said, “We made a mistake, and we must grant a pension of £400.” I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I hope that he has had a good meal this evening, and that his heart has now become softened. I want to make an appeal to him to grant this increased pension.

I move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—51:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman. H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—22:

Bremer, K.

Conroy, E. A.

De Wet, J. C.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. J. van Nierop.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Motion proposed by Mr. Haywood put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—22:

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Schoeman, N. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes-51:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

We should like to ascertain from the Chairman of the Committee the reason for the award in this case.

This is the case of a man who attested in the Cape Coloured Corps in 1915. He was discharged as temporarily unfit for war service for three months. He was treated in hospital on three occasions. He was released from military service and made no reservation in respect of his malaria disability. It was only in 1934 that he submitted his claim with evidence that his state of health was definitely connected with the malaria which he had contracted while up North on service and this recommendation merely gives him the benefit which he would have been entitled to if he had made application within a prescribed time. He is not given a definite award, but he will be treated as if he had made application in the specified time. It is always done if medical evidence is produced to show that his state of health can be attributed to his war service. In that case his case is reopened and he is given the benefit of being allowed to make his application as if he had not waived his claim at the time he should have made it.

In connection with this case, as explained by the Chairman of the Pensions Committee, I should like to know this. We have cases of oudstryders, for example, who did not make application for a pension within the prescribed time. Some of those people are today in this position, that owing to wounds which they received they are incapable of working, but they receive no pension under this Act. If they apply for a pension under this Act, they are required to appear before a medical board, and that board then has to certify that they are unfit to a certain extent, and only thereafter the pension which they ought to receive is granted to them. The Chairman of the Pensions Committee said that these people furnished medical certificates that they contracted malaria during the war, and that for that reason the pension was granted. Now I should like to ask whether this person also appeared before a medical board, and whether he was properly examined before the pension was granted to him. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee will give us this information.

I think that if the medical board had dealt with this case, then no petition would have been submitted. This shows that the medical board rejected this case, and for that reason the petition was submitted. Last year I submitted the petition of a man who was wounded in the Jameson Raid, and who later received two wounds in the War of Independence. He was turned down by the medical board, and by the Chairman of the Pensions Committee. I should like him to get up here and to say whether or not this applicant was before the medical board and whether he was turned down and then made application.

The effect of the acceptance of this item under discussion is not that this person receives a pension, but only that he will have the right to appear before the Medical Board. He will only get his pension if the Medical Board finds that he is entitled to it according to law. This item only makes it possible for his case to be investigated.

I thought that any person who served in the war, and who received wounds, had the right to appear before the Medical Board?

Not after a certain date, unless he gets leave to do so.

What about the oudstryders?

The same applies to them.

The oudstryders must then first make inquiries before they can go to the Medical Board. With regard to the Medical Board; I want to say that the people who sit on it are, generally speaking, not favourably disposed towards the oudstryders. I have shown previously that a person who received a wound in the Jameson Raid, and two wounds in the War of Independence, and who received a pension of £4 per month in the old republican days, was turned down by the Medical Board. I asked that the Minister of Finance should take this into review, and he refused.

I call the hon. member’s attention to the previous item just passed, the award to I. J. van Heerden, an ex-Burgher of the Boer War, with effect from the 1st April, 1940. That is compensation which he would have been entitled to under the War Pensions Act of 1919, in respect of malaria and its effects, had the application been made prior to April, 1932. This is an exactly similar case of an oudstryder. We treat them all the same. If a man who has not applied within the prescribed time comes forward with sufficient evidence to show that his trouble is connected with his war service, this committee, no matter whether he is an Englishman, Irishman, Scotsman, or Afrikaans speaking man, whoever he is, he is treated in exactly the same way. We give them the opportunity of going back to be re-examined, and if they prove their case, then we give them the pension they would have got if application had been made in time.

I should like to get certain information in regard to the circumstances in which this pension was granted, and whether all the requirements of the law were complied with.

In this particular case, this matter was gone into by the Commissioner of Pensions, and the fact that the death of the husband, Maj. Ridley, had occurred more than seven years after his discharge from military service, the Pensions Board could not award her as big a pension as they wanted to give her. So they came to the committee and they said: “We want you to include this item which gives this widow more favourable treatment than we are able to afford her, in view of the fact that her husband died more than seven years after the end of the war.” They asked us to treat her as if she had been entitled, or rather, as if she had conformed, to the provisions of the Act.

I should like to get certain information from the chairman of the Pensions Committee. Here an amount of £933 7s. 0d. is paid out as a gratuity to the widow. Her husband was a judge of the Native High Court. I cannot understand why such a large sum is paid out by way of gratuity.

Before Union the Natal Government promulgated a regulation under which if any pensioner died within ten years of his going on pension, his widow was entitled to one year’s pension. This particular case is an award in the case of an old Natal judge. Some two years after Union the law advisers advised the Government that it was ultra vires, for what reason I do not know, to make this particular grant of one years’ pension. Successive Governments, right up to now, have always realised that these women were entitled at least morally to the benefits of that old regulation, and the only way to grant that benefit without passing a special Act, is to refer these cases to the Pensions Committee, and in every case this one year’s pension has been granted. This is something that successive Governments have always honoured, and I do not think that anybody would want to go back on a regulation which has been honoured for over 30 years. It would be a great hardship to do it now.

I should like to know when this person died. Did that person pay into the Pensions Fund? I understand that the widow is entitled to the pension for one year if her husband dies within a certain time after his retirement.

She only gets the gratuity if he dies within ten years after retiring on pension.

And when did this person die?

Only if the pensioner dies, before he has enjoyed his pension for ten years. Then the widow is entitled to this amount. In this particular case, the husband died 9½ years after he retired on pension.

I should like to get information in regard to the amount of £397 14s. which is being paid out. These amounts are very large, and for that reason we should like to get this information from the chairman of the Select Committee.

It is identically the same case as the previous one.

I should like to know from the chairman of the Select Committee whether it is an exception this year that we get this type of recommendation. I understand that this man died in 1892?

No.

Then the S.A.P.s on the other side differ. Is this the usual thing, or is it an exception?

It appears to me that this person died long before Union.

No, he died in 1942.

I understood that he died in 1892.

This is an exactly similar case. The husband’s death occurred within the period of ten years of his retirement. He died on the 27th February, 1942, and he went on pension nine years before that. He went on pension after having 30 years’ service with the Government.

I should like to get certain information from the Chairman of the Select Committee. I think that this pension was granted in terms of Section 26 of Act No. 32 of 1936. But certain conditions are attached to it, and I should like to know whether these conditions have been complied with. We notice that the amount is fairly big, and there must be certain reasons why the provisions of the Act were not resorted to, and why this matter went to the Pensions Committee. For that reason I should like to get further information, and I particularly want to know whether the conditions of the Act have been complied with.

This is a Provincial case, and you will find two more similar cases. This man originally joined the Cape service as a teacher. In 1934 he was appointed inspector, and then instead of his pension being governed by the Cape regulations, it fell under the Union Act. He had a certain option given him at that time to transfer his rights, to take advantage of certain benefits, which he did not do, because that involved the payment of a certain sum of money which he did not feel able to pay. Indeed, some of these men were not in a position to pay that sum. Eventually the Provincial people, some time later, said they would relieve the inspectors who had transferred of this big payment, and put them in a very much better position than those who had not made the election when they came over. So the Province then approached the Union Government and asked them to accept the position that these men would be entitled to the pension benefits to which they would have been entitled had they made the election in 1934, and the Province said it was prepared to pay all expenses. They had already done this in the case of certain other inspectors who had made the election. This has really nothing to do with us, it is a request from the Provincial Government, who were prepared to pay if we would authorise them to do so. It is not a matter which affects us or our finances.

Is that not a way of encouraging these people first of all not to avail themselves of the provisions of the Act and the benefits under the Act, because at that time it did not suit them, but afterwards when a certain time has elapsed they find out that it is better for them to avail themselves of the Act, then they come to this Parliament and ask for relief. I think we should not encourage cases like this.

I want to point out that there were a number of men involved at the time. A certain number said they would pay this money and take advantage of the Act, but others said they were not in the position, as the amount was too much to pay. Then after a few years the Provincial Government came to the relief of these men who had made the election, and said it would meet the payments. Then, of course, these other men, like the man in the present case, said if they had known that the Province was going to do this and relieve these men of this responsibility, naturally they would have taken advantage of it. This has already been granted in the case of two others, and it is the financial responsibility of the Province.

I want to ask the Minister of Railways to give his attention to this item. Here we have a case where the breakin-service of a railway official is condoned for pension purposes. I have cases in my constituency of officials who had a break in their service, and if this case is accepted, I hope that those cases will also be treated in accordance with this precedent which is being created. I have nothing against this case; let me say that immediately. But since a precedent is being created here, we must also meet those other cases in the future.

I may explain for the benefit of the hon. member that there are special circumstances attaching to this case, and wherever there are special circumstances, consideration is given as far as the Railways are concerned.

What are the special circumstances?

This particular servant wanted to transfer from Johannesburg to Durban for the sake of his wife’s health. The transfer was delayed because there was no one to send down in his place. Later on somebody offered to go down, but through an error the man was told he would have to pay his own expenses, which he would not do. The transfer was therefore not possible, and the man whose case was under consideration had to resign, because he could not work at the coast while his wife was in Johannesburg. Immediately he had resigned it was found that the Railways were in error in refusing to pay the expenses of the other man. If those expenses had been paid, the pensioner would not have been compelled to resign. He was taken back, and, as it was the fault of the Administration that his service was broken, it was felt to be only fair that that should be made good.

I should like to get certain information from the Minister of Railways and Harbours. He will agree with me that the object of giving a pension to a person after retiring from service is to give him an income, so that he can be assured that he will be cared for in his old age. Well, there is a provision in the Act, according to Section 9, that a portion of the pension can be converted into a globular sum. I should like to know whether this case does not fall under Section 9, and why it has to be dealt with as a special case. I should like to get this information from the Minister, because I notice that Parliament itself has to give its permission. Was it not the intention in this case that that Act should be applied, and why is this person being specially allowed, instead of an annual pension, to convert a portion of it into a globular sum? I should like to know from the Minister what the reason is.

All these three cases come under the same category. These officers were transferred from the South African Police to the Railway Police for the first time. Therefore they were transferred under conditions which did not give them the right to commute. All that we are doing is that we are applying to them the rights which were given to the South African Police under whom their pension rights fall. We are giving them the same rights that were given to the South African Police in 1926. It was their misfortune they were transferred just before that new commutation benefit in Section 9 was applied.

I should like to know from the Chairman of the Select Committee why the case of Gen. C. H. Muller is being referred to the Government? He was in the Second War of Independence, and his condition is extremely serious. He has been ill for years, and cannot do anything for himself. His house has practically been converted into a hospital. Formerly his wife had employment, but she had to abandon it in order to take care of her husband, and she practically had to convert her house into a hospital. Now he makes application for a pension because he has practically no income, and the Select Committee is referring this case to the Government. I cannot understand why the Select Committee did not, as in other cases, grant a pension to this deserving general of the Boer War. Here, again, is a case where it seems that when it comes to an Afrikaner who took part in the Second War of Independence, he is neglected. Surely we must do something for such a man during the last years of his life. He is 70 years old, and has been seriously ill for some years. The Minister of Finance knows that, too, and I hoped that we would see to it that during his last days, at any rate, he will get a pension on which he can live. I should like to get information in regard to this matter from the Chairman of the Select Committee.

The position is that Gen. Muller was a member of the Land Bank up to the time he retired. When he retired the Central Board, in view of the long and valuable services rendered by him, awarded him a gratuity of £1,000 payable at the rate of £200 per annum, but they attached to that the following condition, that in the event of a State pension being granted to Gen. Muller the amount paid to him by the bank would be reduced by the amount of such a State pension. So if we had awarded him £200 per year, as we probably would have done, they would simply have cancelled the £200 from the Land Bank. He could not draw the two under the condition under which the Land Bank had granted him the award, so we thought it just as well to make the recommendation which we did make. Representations have been made to the Minister to assure Gen. Muller that at the expiry of five years—when the Land Bank award finishes—the Government would treat the case very sympathetically, and I understand that that pledge has been given to Gen. Muller and that he is perfectly satisfied.

I should like to refer to one of those unfortunate cases in which the Committee has found it impossible to make any recommendations. The case to which I refer is No. 69, Mrs. L. D. Marais— quite a good Afrikaans name.

Why do you make that remark?

I make that remark simply to show that it is quite possible for an English speaking member to take up the case for a person with an Afrikaans name. This case is one where I think more sympathetic consideration might have been given by the Committee. I think it is a particularly hard case and for the benefit of the Committee I shall just briefly give its history. Mrs. Marais divorced her husband, and when granted an Order for Divorce, the court made an award against her husband of £17 per month maintenance of the two minor children. After the divorce, Marais enlisted in the Air Force in which he held a commission. Before proceeding on active service he visited his ex-wife at Port Elizabeth, they became reconciled, and had agreed on his return from the North to be re-married. It is unfortunate they did not do so prior to his leaving, as unfortunately within about a month of his reaching the North he made the supreme sacrifice. And now the position is this, legally his minor children are only entitled to a very inadequate pension of about £50 per year. Through their father doing what he considered his duty to the country, and having given his life in that cause, these children have been deprived of the support which they would have had from him, and the difference is £150 per year. I am quite aware that in this case it is no use pleading for the ex-wife. I am inclined to think that what may have influenced the Committee is the fact that Mrs. Marais had secured employment at the profession she followed previous to her marriage, that of a teacher. But I would like to express this opinion, that the award having been made for the maintenance of the children, the mother’s earnings should not be taken into consideration, because after all, although she may be earning a fairly reasonable salary, one can easily realise that while she is engaged on her work day after day she must make provision for someone to look after her children. The result is this, that the children cannot now have the advantages which they would have had had their father not done what he conceived it his duty to do, and for that reason I am disappointed to find that the Committee would not show more sympathetic consideration to this case. If we consider that the provision of a pension of £50 per year between two minor children is all that is given, and if the mother only has that in addition to her own earnings, to bring up the children, then the father has made a sacrifice for which the children are paying very dearly, and I do not think it is much to the credit of the country. I feel there must have been some lack of sympathy. I know that there is no legal claim, but I maintain that these children have a very strong moral claim on the Government, and that, I think, should have been taken into consideration. And more than that, the fact that they cannot now have what they would have had had their father chosen to remain here instead of going North, I don’t think that they should be called upon to suffer as they must do under present circumstances. I therefore move—

The statement of this case as set out by the hon. member who has just sat down is substantially correct. This woman had been divorced from her husband. There may or there may not have been a reconciliation. Under the Act she is a divorced woman, and the Pensions Act provides no pension in respect of a divorced wife, but it does provide for a pension which these children get of £26 and £24 per year respectively. Now, the Pensions Committee cannot start increasing pensions laid down by the Act, except for very special reasons, and then only on the ground of compassion. If we are to convert ourselves into a legislative body and start increasing pensions we should very soon get the sack from the Minister. Therefore we can only deal with these matters on compassionate grounds. I personally approached the Provincial authorities and found out Mrs. Marais’ position. She is getting £240 per year with annual increments; she is on the permanent staff of the Provincial Council as a teacher, and she will in due course get her pension. You cannot say that a woman drawing £240 per year and getting another £50 per year in respect of two children is in a state of poverty. You cannot say that compassion enters into the case, and there was no ground on which we could attack this position. Then we were further actuated by the fact that it was indicated to us that under the new Pensions Act it is proposed to increase the award per child up to an amount of £72 in respect of each child. There is no doubt that when this Act is passed, which we all hope it will be, a much bigger grant will be enjoyed by these children under these more liberal provisions, so the committee has no option but to turn it down. I do not think the House will say that the element of compassion enters into the case of a woman who for herself and two children get £300 per year, with a chance of another £100 in the case of the children. I don’t think any good purpose will be served by referring this matter back to the committee. I purposely put the question to my hon. friend, do you wish to approach this matter from the point of view of compassion, or do you take up the attitude that every person should be entitled to a pension equivalent to the amount which their supporter enjoyed during his lifetime, and my hon. friend said he took up the position that this woman having received a maintenance order of £17 per month should be entitled to enjoy her £17, irrespective of the fact that she was divorced. We could not take up that attitude that you could increase the award under those circumstances. The argument is all wrong, but if the House chooses to refer it back I shall not raise any objections, but I want the House to realise the position and the reasons which actuated the committee in coming to this decision.

If the Chairman of the Select Committee is prepared to accept the motion as moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Col. Wares), then I shall sit down.

I shall not oppose it.

Then I shall sit down.

I would like to ask the Chairman of the Committee why no gratuity or pension can be granted in this case. This a case of a young Afrikaner who joined the police force. He was physically strong and healthy when he joined and he had completed nearly 20 years’ service. During that time he was specially mentioned more than three times. He got the medal for loyal service, and on two occasions special mention was made of the exceptional services rendered by him. Unfortunately he thereafter became ill and was discharged from the service as medically unfit. Now, I should like to know from the chairman why no provision can be made in this case? I know that the medical examination was a factor, but I would like to know why his application was turned down, since I shall have to give an account of this case.

This was a case which gave the Committee grounds for considerable consideration. The hon. member will know that the Committee had great difficulty in coming to a decision. The real plea was based on the fact that this man had had service in the desert and in the Karroo and the sand, the dust the heat and the glare had affected his eyes, and the position he found himself in was said to be entirely due to his police service. He had taken up farming, and had received all he was entitled to without pension for his services. The plea was not on the ground that he had not received what he was entitled to on his discharge, but that special consideration should be given to him because the condition he found himself in was due to the trials he had had to undergo in the execution of his duties. We found it difficult to come to a decision. We had various reports before us which indicated that the eye condition was not due to police service. We were not satisfied and asked that the man should be examined by a specialist in order that we could satisfy ourselves about his condition. This was done. He was examined and we had a report signed by this specialist. There is a lot of technical matter in this report which it is useless reading out to the Committee—I don’t follow it myself. I shall read part of it. This is what the specialist said: Here is the history of the case first—

That was the Specialist’s report which we obtained after my hon. friend had given his evidence and I put it to him—on that report could we do otherwise? We must be guided by specialists and medical opinion and when you get an entirely independent specialist who gives us that report I think the hon. member must agree that we could not do anything else. The man has been treated in every respect according to the Act, so we could not give any further assistance.

I should like to get certain information from the Minister, namely, what the yield is of the 3s. tax on mining companies. As the Minister will notice, it has been fixed at that sum for a considerable time, and the Minister will agree with me that in the case of individuals there was an increase up to 1s. 6d. Well, this whole clause deals with mining taxation, and I do understand that it may be difficult for the Minister to tell the House at the moment what amount was yielded by this 3s. tax. I should like to know what the amount is, however, because that will enable me, if we deem fit, to move that the amount be increased. The Minister will agree that the special contribution can be increased. I do not agree with the Minister that it has been sufficiently increased in comparison with the burden which has been placed on the general taxpayer. And I think that it should be increased in the present circumstances. The Minister will agree with me that the point has already been raised in this House that it is unfair to fix the tax on the mines in this manner, and to increase the tax on individuals. For that reason I should like to know what the 3s. tax yielded, so that I can move an increase. For that purpose, however, I should like to know what amount was yielded by the 3s. tax, and I think it is only fair towards the House that we should ascertain this.

I regret that I cannot give the information at this stage. The tax on mining companies is twofold. On the one hand there is a special contribution which does not come into the picture here. Then there is the normal tax, and that too is twofold; there is the 3s. per £, and this tax, according to the formula in paragraph 5. Every company is separately taxed on the twofold basis, and in order to reply to my hon. friend it will be necessary to analyse the figures in respect of each separate company, and I regret that I cannot do so at this stage. I may, however, just point out that we have already discussed and considered this motion in the Committee of Ways and Means, and when it comes to an increase in the tax, we should have done it there. Well, at this moment, at any rate, I cannot go further than we have already decided in the Committee of Ways and Means. All that I can do is to give effect to the resolutions which were passed there. In the circumstances I trust therefore that the hon. member will not insist on that.

When this formula basis was originally fixed in 1933, it was done with a certain object. It was then felt that with the increase in the price of gold the mines would be tempted to take out the gold as quickly as possible and to sell it, and that the gold would therefore be exhausted so much sooner, and then the formula basis was introduced in order to prevent them from doing this. In other words, the taxes would be higher if they did not work the low-grade ore. It was the object first to get them to work the lowgrade ore. Then the production of gold was approximately 10,000 fine ounces.

10,000?

No, it was 10,000,000. Now it has risen to almost 15,000,000, I think. The question is this, since that time there has been an enormous increase in the gold premium. At that time gold was 126s. per fine ounce; today it is 168s. per fine ounce. And as a result of the increase in the price of gold, the other taxes were also higher, but that was not an amendment of the formula; it was a direct tax; in other words the tax had to be imposed direct. It does not take into account the fact that if the miners decide to work mines of a highgrade ore, they would have to pay higher taxes. Now I want to ask the Minister this. I notice that the production has practically doubled, and as the result of the taxes which are now imposed, is there not a temptation to leave the low-grade ore, and only to work the mines of high-grade ore, with the result that the life of the mines is diminished? This is an involved system of taxation and only the Minister and his experts know what the position is, and I should like to have the assurance that the extra tax which has been imposed takes into account the fact to force the mines to work low-grade ore, and the Minister can give me a reply on that point by giving me the figures of the low-grade ore, which is taken out at present.

I can give my hon. friend that assurance immediately. In any event, the grade of ore is considerably lower than it was in 1933, but my hon. friend really wants to know whether it is lower than in September, 1939. I think he knows that it fell between 1933 and 1939, but it has also fallen further since 1939. During the last year it fell again.

What is it at the moment?

Approximately .18, but in any event the figure has not increased, and the effect of the new tax was not therefore to encourage the mines to discontinue the production of lowgrade ore. Even after 1939 the average grade ore which was worked, declined.

I accept the Minister’s explanation in connection with the question I put. I should like to ascertain from the Minister whether he will not give that information to the House.

Yes, certainly.

In connection with Clause 2, I am not sure what the Minister intends to achieve by this clause. Does he mean to make dividends received from reserve funds liable to super tax?

The amendments referred to in Section 2, my hon. friend will see if he refers to Section 23, are to be deemed to take effect in respect of assessments after June 30th, 1941.

I ask the Minister, in connection with Clause 16, to accept an amendment to insert the word “wilfully” after the word “who”. Then it will read “any taxpayer who wilfully failed to disclose”. The reason for that is that it is very difficult to construe this Act, and to make a person liable for treble tax simply because he inadvertently may have omitted certain things, seems to me to be going very far, indeed. I move—

I will accept that.

I wish to make an amendment to omit the word “seven” in line 3. The reason for that is that it seems to me very unfair to make the amendment which the Minister now desires, retrospective; I mean the amendment to Clause 7.

I think you mean Clause 2.

Yes, Clause 2. As a matter of fact, there was an omission in the old Act. Cases arose of this nature. Private companies accumulated reserves, and under the provisions of the Act they were entitled to distribute those reserves free of normal and super tax. So the case may arise where perhaps a considerable amount of money may have been accumulated in that way, and distributed free of tax. Now, if the Minister makes the amendment to Clause 2 retrospective in its effect, it may mean that in respect of those companies he can come down on the persons who have received those dividends. That seems to me a very unfair retrospective bit of legislation to be brought in at this stage. I ask the Minister to consider whether under all circumstances it is not fair to make Section 2 effective from June, 1942, and bring it under the provisions of the next paragraph. The companies themselves have paid their share of taxation for the year 1941, and therefore the State has received what it is entitled to under the existing Act, and it is not as if these amounts have been free of tax. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is not fair to eliminate Section 2 from the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23, and put it into sub-section (2) of Section 23.

What we are doing here is merely to give effect to what has always been the practice, we are simply confirming the practice that has always been followed. We are dealing here with a definition of gross income in the principal Act, and I cannot see how that affects the apportionment as far as private companies are concerned.

In 10 (m).

Yes, but that does not affect the apportionment of income of private companies. In any case, this is merely continuing an existing practice, and I cannot see any hardship in doing that.

I would like to get this point clear. As I understand it, the dividends distributed by private companies are exempt from tax, and I cannot understand the point the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) is making. I do not see how the new Section 2 in this Bill, new Clause 2, affects the position at all in respect of any dividends distributed either last year or during the coming year by private companies. The amount distributed by private companies is not subject to tax, but the amount apportioned only. If a further amount has been distributed out of reserves, I do not think these amounts, if they have been distributed by way of dividends, are taxable. I would like the Minister to make that point clear.

I move—

This is a consequential amendment of the Act which was introduced last year. The position however has been that a practice which had been followed for twenty years was found to be not quite legal, in that cessionaries were not protected. Last year Parliament rectified that position, but excluded the Griffin Engineering Company, who had been sued by the Springs Municipality, from the operations of that Act. Now this Act is intended to give the Griffin Engineering Company he same protection that is given to any other company and excluding certain specific cases.

I don’t want to oppose this Bill, which the Minister says is a consequential Bill dependent on the Bill passed last year. I want to point out to the Minister that when he comes into the House with legislation of this nature, which is rather intricate, it is no more than right that he should deal with it on a proper basis, and not deal with it piecemeal. Hon. members in this House are at a disadvantage af far as Bills of this nature are concerned. However, I do not want to oppose the Bill.

I move—

This Bill has now emerged from the Select Committee in the form which is before the House. It is the product of the thought of the Select Committee, and although the principles which were embodied in the original draft which was read a first time and afterwards discharged, are maintained, certain amendments have been introduced which I think the House will agree are very considerable improvements to it. The House is indebted to the Select Committee, and I certainly wish to express my indebtedness to the Select Committee for the very close attention which was given to this measure through the fairly lengthy hearings which took place. Now the background of this Bill should be considered. There are two reports which are before the House and which have been before the country for quite a considerable time, and the Bill has those two reports behind it. The Bill itself must, I think, be considered in the setting which those two reports have made. The first report was that of the Joint Committee, an Interdepartmental Committee, which was appointed by the last Government and which reported in 1939, just before the present Government came into power, and the second report before the House is that of the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission which was constituted just after the present Government came into power, and which reported quite recently. Both these reports deal with base minerals. The report of the Committee was confined to the position of base minerals, and the best way of exploiting them, and the report of the Commission dealt with base minerals incidentally as one of the greatest assets of our country, and the development of which is bound up with the future prosperity of the country. There is a very remarkable coincidence in the reports of both these bodies. They both agree that the existing laws with regard to the exploitation of our base minerals are utterly wrong, radically wrong, and that to their wrongness is due the holding up of a considerable amount of the assets and the wealth of this country. I would like to just cite some passages from these reports, because if these passages are accepted then the principle on which the Bill comes before the House, and on which it is based will be accepted, I think, without any serious contention. On page 11 of the Departmental Committee’s report it says—

And on page T8 it is further reported—

It goes on—

That is a very striking indictment of the existing law, and a statement in most emphatic and categorical terms that a speedy alteration to those laws must be brought into effect if we are to get the best advantage of our base minerals at an early date. The other Commission, the Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, made certain recommendations, and they have come to similar conclusions to that of the other Committee. They recommended as set out in Annexure 1 on page 88 of their Third Interim Report—

And recommendation No. 2 which follows immediately after is as follows:

The Bill which is now before the House is a Bill which is designed to carry out those recommendations in their spirit and as far as possible in the letter. And if those conclusions are accepted by the House, and I think from the comments so far as they have come under my notice, the comment in the Press and the comment made in the country, they have endorsed these findings … then I think that the House should find little difficulty in accepting the principles of this Bill and adopt the second reading. It is true, as is set out in these reports, that the owners have not recognised the amount of potential wealth they are holding up. It is a fact which I have found even during the comparatively short time I have been in office—I have found that owners have resisted the effort to prospect and to develop and to mine the potential wealth which lay under the ground, and have even refused on a voluntary basis to allow the Mines Department to explore on the condition that they should be exploited if minerals were found. I tried my best to get the land owners generally—those at any rate with whom I was in touch for the purpose of testing the value of the minerals under the ground they own—to consent to do this on a voluntary basis, and in many cases those I approached or caused the officers of my department to approach—in fact in not one single case would they agree to the Department examining their mining rights and agreeing that if it was found that they were of value and could be worked, to have them worked, or to have a mining lease granted.

Were those individual owners or companies?

No, they were individuals. I am afraid in this matter the blame which is attached to these reports is not confined to companies. It extends to farmers too, to individual farmers.

What attitude did the companies take up?

As a matter of fact in those particular cases I have not approached any company because the ground I was concerned with was privately owned, but I do know from the reports available in my Department that companies have been approached by private people at different times to get mining rights and in many cases they have been categorically refused. The time has come when land owners have to recognise as I said yesterday in connection with diamonds, and as I say now in connection with base minerals—that land owners have to recognise that the possession of ownership of land imposes a great trust and that that trust has to be exercised in this way. They must themselves develop or permit the development of the latent wealth under the ground for the public benefit, and if they refuse to do that then we must take measures to compel them to do so, because otherwise we are denying to the country that great share of the work which it is necessary for the country to have. During recent debates on the Estimates which have been considered from time to time in this House, particularly am I thinking of debates dealing with such matters as social welfare, the poverty of a great section of the population has been pointed out, and the necessity for increasing the wealth of the country has been insisted on from I think all sides of the House. It is quite idle merely to distribute the wealth which exists; the radical way of dealing with this problem is to see that the wealth of the country is increased and one of the ways to do that is by way of paying attention to that undeveloped and hidden potential wealth which is bound up with the base minerals of our country. In certain respects we know —as I pointed out in the House on another occasion—that we have vast quantities of very valuable minerals which are at the present time only half developed, and we have the right to expect that thorough prospecting will lead to the discovery of very much more. And when the discovery is made, exploitation should take place. The principle of this Bill is just to do that, and I have had to consider in what way this could be done—what is the best way in which this exploitation can be undertaken. It was possible to deal with the matter by way of expropriation. I think the House will agree that anything like wholesale expropriation would have been very undesirable and very expensive and generally unsatisfactory. Another way was by dealing with it by proclamation—proclamation of areas of ground as thrown open to the mining of base minerals, proclamation having the effect of temporarily suspending the rights to deal with the surface which the owner enjoys and allowing the pegging of claims and digging thereafter. It has been found that the results of such proclamation often lead to an actual holding up of agricultural development of large areas of ground—and I think it is undesirable that we should hold up any form of development unless it is inevitable, and therefore I came to the conclusion myself, and the Select Committee has now endorsed the principle, that the best way of dealing with this is to allow your agricultural exploitation and the development of the mineral wealth to go forward without the one upsetting the other, and to go forward at the same time, and if possible under the direction of the same owner, and if that can be done it is almost ideal in its consequences. Now, can it be done? Is it possible? We had a great amount of evidence on this point. One of the habits, if I may call it that, of our country, has been for land owners to dispose of the mineral rights in respect of their land. Very largely the title to the mineral rights and to the land itself have been separated and held by different people under different titles. Large areas of ground in all the Provinces of our country have adopted this method of separating mineral rights from the land rights—from the surface rights, and allowing them to be held by different people, and therefore to be exploited by different people. And I think that is enough to show that without any compulsion, simply on a voluntary basis, the mineral wealth can be developed and the agricultural wealth can be developed on the same ground, by different people if necessary, without the one hindering the other. That is a very happy result to have and to find, and in this Bill that principle has been adopted as the datum point from which we are to start. The idea of this Bill is that there should be no expropriation, still less that there should be confiscation of mineral rights. There should be complete recognition of the rights of the owner of the land, even if he wants to retain the mineral rights in connection with his land, even if he is unwilling or unable to exploit them for legitimate reasons. In the one case, he may be entirely ignorant, or he may be entirely disinclined or financially unequipped and unable to do it. And therefore we say this to the owner, and that is proposed in this Bill—let us examine your land in the first instance. Let us find out what there is there. The geological survey of the country has proceeded apace. A great portion of the country is already surveyed in the rough for that purpose, but before you can say that your minerals exist in payable quantities, in workable quantities, a much closer investigation is necessary, something more that is generally associated with the geological survey—that is what we call in this Bill “An investigation”. And the first proposal is this, that it should be lawful for the proper officers of the Mines Department to investigate any land for the purpose of seeing what its mineral wealth is, and for that purpose to enter on it and make their investigation by trenching, by the sort of methods which are associated with prospecting. Well, it may be that instead of that, we may get offers from different people who are anxious to take up the work of prospecting themselves, and who may come along and want to adopt the profession, the calling of prospector. How are they to be dealt with? The Select Committee has recognised that to throw open land generally to anyone who chooses to take out a prospecting licence is to raise very grave objections, legitimate objections perhaps, in the mind of landowners. It has been found when land is thrown open in that way that there has been destruction of bush. Fires have taken place, there has been loss of stock and so on. All that class of difficulty is done away with an avoided if the investigation is given to someone who is hand-picked for the purpose, someone who is qualified and capable, someone who has the necessary technical knowledge and the necessary financial backing which is a guarantee that he will not go there simply for the purpose of plunder, simply for the purpose of getting an easy way of spending his time. But we are not content in this Bill just to throw open land even to the prospecting of a hand-picked man. The idea is this: we first say to a landowner, “Well, we are either investigating your land ourselves—that is the department itself—or we ask you to do so.” “We have come to the conclusion that there are good prospects of finding minerals in payable quantities, something for which there is a good market and a good demand, and we call upon you yourself to prospect this land and examine it for yourself, and if you cannot do it yourself you may grant the mineral rights to someone else, you may give a prospecting contract to someone else—get anyone else you please, some brother or friend.” And so long as they do that there is no interference whatever. Now in following that line of approach we are following up, I think, the line which has largely been adopted by the people of South Africa quite voluntarily, and as a method which has appealed to them as reasonable and free from objection. That is the method of selling or disposing of their mineral rights to someone else, because they do not want to exploit them themselves, and it has been found that the exploitation of mineral rights has not been a serious interference, has not interfered with the carrying on of their agricultural propositions largely because the land which is most suited for the production of crops is least likely to be valuable and rich in base minerals, and you find as a matter of fact that the barren ground, the least valuable ground, the mountainous ground, the comparative desert, is often the richest in mineral wealth. And as a matter of experiment we find that the exploitation of base mineral wealth has not as a matter of fact been a serious or noticeable inconvenience in the development of agricultural wealth. The principle is simply this. You say to the landowner, “We have reason to believe, the Government Mining Engineer, with his special knowledge, has reason to believe that the prospecting of your ground will lead to the discovery of a valuable deposit. Get on with it yourself. If you cannot, or won’t, then we take the right to call for tenders for a prospecting contract, for a prospecting lease to be entered into by someone, and the Mining Leases Board has the power to grant a prospecting lease in respect of this land. Now, why the Mining Leases Board? The Mining Leases Board is representative of several departments and has been concerned for a considerable time, in fact for many many years, with the considering of the proper terms of mining leases and the granting of leases, principally in connection with the mining for gold, but other propositions as well. That Board has a distinguished history behind it, and on no single occasion that I have heard of has there been any serious objection to the decisions which they have given, or has any accusation of either want of knowledge, want of skill, or want of impartiality ever been made against them, and therefore I think the House will agree that this body is the right body—and we are very fortunate in having such a body with the skill, knowledge and experience behind it—to whom we may entrust the power of granting these mining leases. In that way hon. members will see that there is an opportunity for the Board to see that all the conditions necessary for success are found in the applicant for a prospecting lease. There is ample provision here that the applicant shall answer the relevant questions which are necessary and that there will be an opportunity to test his capacity, his knowledge and his financial resources. You want to put in provision in regard to financial resources for two reasons. One, of course, in order to see that the prospecting shall be thorough and on a proper scale which involves the expenditure of money, and secondly, to see that only responsible people shall be allowed to do this work, people who can be answerable for any damage that may be caused, and whose liability to pay compensation for damage or injury caused will in every case be followed up by payment in cash should it be necessary. That is the provision made. Now, what is the next step? If the prospecting is a failure, well, the lease comes to an end and there is no more to be said, and any improvements made on the land go to the owner of the land without compensation, and that is a possible benefit which is sticking out for the owners. But in the case where the prospecting is successful— and we hope that will be the generality seeing that the opinion of the Government mining engineers as to probabilities is a condition precedent—if the prospecting is successful, then as reward for his prospecting and for the expenditure, a mining lease follows, and in giving such a lease the Board has the power of settling the terms, and of seeing to the proper conditions for exploitation and payment of the necessary sums. Now, when you come to mining, there has to be something more than the mere payment of damage which is caused. Where does the owner come in if the mining lease is granted? The principle of the Bill is this: That the State does not want to take to itself in the mining of private land any share beyond the ordinary taxation share of profits which the Minister of Finance exacts from the whole of the population, but a royalty will be paid by the man who takes the mining lease, a royalty will be paid to the owner—a royalty or a share of profits, according to what the Mining Leases Board thinks is fair, after the result of the prospecting has been made known. Of course, the royalty would go, not necessarily to the owner of the land, but to the owner of the mineral rights. If the owner of the land is also the owner of the mineral rights, it goes to him, but if there is a separation of these owners, then the royalty or the share of profits would go to the owner of the mineral rights. But, of course, a certain amount of the surface has to be used, and for the use of that surface a rent has to be paid which will go to the owner of the land or to the person who is not the owner of the land, but the lessee, the person who is injuriously affected by the using of this portion of the surface. It would be difficult to find principles which are more fair to the owner of the land, the owner of the mineral rights, or the person who is called upon to accept the mining lease and to do the exploitation. Now, we come to the question of what they are to take besides the use of the surface. The question of water comes in, and, as hon. members will have observed, provisions have been inserted here where a mining lease is granted that a reasonable use of water should be provided. This, I may say, has been the subject matter of a number of representations which have been made to me in very urgent terms by those who are particularly concerned with seeing that the owners of land are protected in their rights, and not hindered in the using of land for agricultural purposes. The Select Committee, and certainly I, have always had the basic idea in our mind’s eye that it was possible to develop the agricultural possibilities and the mining possibilities side by side, without the one infringing on the other. And the clauses as they stand at present provide that water shall be considered under two headings, (1) what I may call “private water”, that is, water which comes from boreholes or dams made by the owner, and the other “water from a public stream”, water which comes from public streams which flow through the land concerned. And as the Bill is drafted the proposal is this, that the Mining Commissioner shall, before giving any rights to the water, get into touch with the owner and shall set aside all the water he requires for domestic purposes, for watering his cattle and for the land he has under irrigation, and it is only after all these needs have been satisfied that a right to any of the surplus private water should go to the man who has the mining lease, and, of course, if he did take water which is private water and used it for his purposes of mining, that would be taken into consideration by the Mining Leases Board in fixing the rental which would be payable. In view of the representations which’ have been made to me, I am prepared to accept an amendment dropping the use of private water altogether. I am content to leave that to private negotiation because I think that in most cases there will be no difficulty about fixing that up, especially as the rental will be dependent upon the amount of water which is taken and the use which is made of it. Now, let us come to water from a public system. As the House will remember, under the Irrigation Act there is a provision that water from a public stream is taken for primary purposes and secondary purposes first, and that only tertiary purposes come in when the primary and secondary have been satisfied. And under Section 137 there is excluded from the operation of the Irrigation Act all use of water under the different laws for mining precious minerals, base minerals and precious stones.

It was a mistake to have made that provision.

I am only citing it. The hon. member may hereafter introduce a Bill to alter that. I am only citing what is the law at present.

As far as I can see, this Bill makes no mention of a public stream in terms of the Irrigation Act.

Oh, yes.

In Section 12 you talk of stream, river, or water course, that is a public stream. What would a fountain be?

A fountain arising on the ground itself is private water.

The law definitely mentions a public stream which has a definite meaning. In this particular section you merely talk of a “stream”, and not of a “public stream”.

No, I refer to a public stream there. The clause, if my memory serves me right, deals with private water and public water, both. The private water I am prepared to drop—I am prepared to drop it from the Bill altogether for the purpose of clearing away any doubts. The water from a public stream—I am prepared also to agree to this provision, that there shall be no water taken from a public stream under any award of the Mining Commissioner until the needs of the owner of the land for irrigating his land, whether it is land actually under irrigation, or land which is prepared for irrigation, have been satisfied. If that provision is accepted, and I am prepared to move an amendment to that effect, then I don’t think there can possibly be any complaint at all as to any harsh povision for dealing with water. It is idle to radically alter your laws for the exploitation of base minerals as we are setting about to do, at least we assume that we are about to do that …

Even if rights are excluded by the Irrigation Act.

The hon. member will see that what we are proposing here to do is to make the owner exploit his own minerals. If he won’t do that, we give the right of exploiting those minerals to somebody else, and see that the owner gets his share of the profit. Now if you are going to do that, it is certain that you must give some access to water. You cannot mine even base minerals without using some water. To set out in a Bill to give mineral rights to a person and to insist on those mineral rights being exercised without making some provision for water, would be absurd. If you did that, there would be no reason at all why you should compensate the owner, and indeed it would be a great hardship on the owner, for it would mean that there would be no exploitation of those rights and he would be deprived of his share of the profits.

[Inaudible.]

That is not always possible; you may have very hard ground and the expense of sinking a borehole may be prohibitive, while at the same time there may be a public stream within easy reach where there is an ample supply of water. The hon. member will see that we have got to make provision for all these circumstances. The aim and object of the Select Committee and of myself and my department has been to search and find the most satisfactory way of meeting the needs of both. Both people have got to be satisfied, the agricultural worker and the mineral developer have both got to get the necessary water, if we are to develop in these directions. Well, now, sir, I think that in this Bill we have taken every possible precaution to see that the maximum amount of security is given to both these parties. May I emphasise again that it is the desire of the Select Committee, of the draftsman, of my department and the Government, and it is also my own personal desire to assist to the utmost degree the exploitation of all these rights by the owner of the land himself. I may remind the House that if any landowner is not prepared to do this, the technical assistance of my department is at his disposal, and on the recommendation of the appropriate officers of my department, financial assistance from the State is also forthcoming on very easy terms. As part of the mineral development policy which Parliament has sanctioned, funds are placed at my disposal. These are the principles of this Bill, and I submit to the House that they are not only reasonable but very attractive, and they do offer a reasonable calculated basis on which the potential wealth which is lying under our ground, can be converted into real wealth which may in due course be distributed amongst the population and again developed. It is by the development of mineral wealth and resources that we have to look for any small section of increased prosperity which we think is our due. May I remind the House that every bit of the minerals which comes out of the soil makes in itself the foundation for a number of fresh industries and radiates wealth not only through the section of the population which is engaged in mining, but directly and indirectly through almost every other section of the population. I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I know that he and many other members of the House on both sides have got many of these unfortunate diamond diggers in their constituencies, people who are steeped in poverty, and whose cases Government after Government has attempted to alleviate and cure. No, sir, one of the propositions which seems so elementary, is this, that if we can only put before these people the chance of getting a reasonable living by developing the base metals of our country, we are not only doing them a kindness and relieving them from want, but making them valuable citizens in fresh surroundings. I hope that hon. members who have constituents in that condition will support me in the efforts which we are making to help them in that way. I do not think I need say much more about this Bill and its general effect. Its structure has been explained in a White Paper which has been distributed, and I hope hon. members have found it of material assistance in getting a ready description of the scope and intention and effect of the Bill. The advantages which the distribution of such a paper has are at any rate these. It relieves the Minister from the necessity of explaining the clauses one by one, and I think the White Paper will explain the scope of the Bill better than I can do it myself. I want to stress the advantages which come to all landowners of land in this. He gets the chance of technical advice and financial assistance, he gets the chance of not only finding out the potential wealth which is in the soil, but of developing it in his own time, in his own way, by his own means, by his own hands, or by those of his friends or assignees. And if he cannot or will not, it is done for him and he gets a share of the profits without doing a hand’s turn himself.

It belongs to him.

Well, it may belong to him, but it is nothing to him as long as it remains down in the earth, it is only of value when it is won from the earth and taken to the surface. In a case where it is impossible for the owner to develop that wealth for himself, we are taking measures in this Bill to develop it for him and give him a share, free, gratis and for nothing, without his doing a hand’s turn. Not only that, but if the prospecting and mining is a success, look at the opportunities that he gets in trading rights. I look back, sir, upon many a debate in this House in which the trading rights attached to mines, to those aggregations of humanity which are digging and boring in the earth, are regarded as a very great asset indeed. In the case of base minerals, assuming that the mining is successful and a considerable population is brought on to the land, you are bringing a market and consumers straight to the door of the farmer for the sale of his farm produce and also for trading purposes if he chooses to adopt them. I cannot really understand how any owner with these possibilities before him, can turn down such a proposition. It has been suggested to me by some hon. members, that there is an absence here of any provision for protecting pits and boreholes which may be dug on a farm. I have had comments made to me in private on that subject. No provision is inserted in this Bill, because there is ample provision made for all those purposes in the Mines and Works Act and its regulations. Therefore no question need be brought up concerning that. In this Bill there is the possibility of establishing a State mine, and I will say a word upon that. It may be that we shall require a particular mineral very urgently and at a particular time, and it may be in certain circumstances, that the owner or other people are unwilling or unable to develop this in the way required. There is an opportunity created in this Bill for establishing a State mine under those circumstances, but only with the consent of Parliament. That has to be previously obtained. But I think that the possibility of exploiting a particular mineral by way of a State mine has a very distinct advantage. May I give an instance to bring this home to the hon. members. I want to emphasise how urgent it is that we should take powers such as are contained in this Bill. We are in pretty strenuous times in which the supply of various commodities is restricted, and they are difficult to come by, and I think the possible restriction of fertilisers for the soil is one of those to which most hon. members have given a lot of anxious thought. Supposing that we can find phosphatic rock in sufficient quantities to develop and convert into superphosphates, would it be right to allow a landowner, whether he be an individual or a corporation, to sit on that rock and refuse to develop it? Is it right, is it possible, that in circumstances such as I have indicated, for Parliament to sit quietly by and allow a landowner to behave in that way? I think the proposition has only to be stated in order to get a unanimous and overwhelming answer in the negative. If that be so, what better measure could be devised for dealing with this matter than the one put up by the Select Committee in this Bill? If you can show a better method, than that proposed by the Select Committee even at this date, I have no doubt the House will give it serious consideration. But in the absence of such a scheme, I say that this House with the true interests of South Africa at heart, cannot do otherwise than say that in these circumstances the wealth of the country necessary for fertilising the soil, should be taken and the powers should be given to develop it.

This is surely one of the most important Bills which we have had before the House for a long time. This week we sat from morning until evening, and had a very difficult week, and since it is now a quarter to eleven, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.