I want to ask if this case could not be referred back for consideration next year? It was recommended by the department with the sanction of the Minister and I could have led evidence, but I took it as a foregone conclusion that it would go through.

The hon. member can bring it up next year.

It has been rejected. I could not bring it forward next year in its present form. It would be much easier to refer it back.

The matter can be dealt with in the same way as a petition brought up afresh next year.

I move—

This is the first part of the only amendment which can be proposed by this side of the House because the time is too short to enable the discussion of other amendments, but this contains a very important principle. This amendment asks that the members of the Rent Boards shall know both languages, and I want to explain at once that it is not our desire, or our request, that the members of Rent Boards must necessarily be Afrikaans speaking. It depends on the Minister who he appoints. He has the right to appoint English speaking people or Afrikaans speaking people; it makes no difference, the Minister can appoint who he likes. That is a right which he has, and which we cannot change; but what we do ask is that the members of the Boards who are appointed shall know both languages, so that everybody will be able to follow the proceedings, whether they are held in Afrikaans or English. I do not know whether the hon. member for Port Elizabeth, Central (Col. Wares) will move again that it shall be an essential for members to know three languages, so that they will also know the native languages. I don’t know whether he is going to ask for that again, as he did at a previous stage, but I think the House has the right to take the request of the hon. member for what it is worth. The Minister said, when the request was put to him, that the members of the Rent Board should be bilingual, that it would detrimentally affect the Afrikaans speaking members whom he would perhaps appoint in the platteland dorps. He gave us to understand that there were many Afrikaans speaking people whom he would perhaps want to appoint who were unilingual Afrikaans speaking. He told us that if we asked for all the members to be bilingual we were going to place our own Afrikaans speaking people in a difficult position. If it is true that that is the position, then we have no objection to it. We do not want the Minister to appoint unilingual Afrikaans speaking members; we are only asking for the same rights as the other section of the population is going to get, namely, that if a man or a woman appears before the Rent Board it will be possible for him or her to be attended to in his or her home language. The duties of the Rent Board are of a very far-reaching and important character. For the information of hon. members, I just want to refer to Clause 5 which deals with the duties of members of Rent Boards. It is laid down there that a Rent Board is to investigate any written complaint made by a tenant, by an inspector, or by other persons, if it is contended that a particular rent is unreasonable. It is an important duty which the Rent Board has to perform there. It may happen, and it will happen, that written complaints in Afrikaans will come in, and they will be submitted to the Rent Board. What will happen if some of the members of the Rent Board are unilingual English speaking? Then any complaint which is made will first have to be translated into English before the members of the Rent Board will be able to deal with it. But, what is more important, is this: These Rent Boards are of such a character that to all intents and purposes they are courts. In a sense they perform the same functions as a court. When complaints are lodged with a Rent Board, the people who are concerned are summoned to appear before the Rent Board, and when they appear they are obliged to give evidence. They are questioned, and if the members of the Rent Board are not bilingual it means that an interpreter has to be in continuous attendance. If the members of the Rent Board are unilingual English speaking and the witness speaks Afrikaans, there will have to be an interpreter to interpret the evidence of the person in the witness box. The same thing will apply if members of the Rent Boards are unilingual Afrikaans speaking, and they have to take the evidence of a man who speaks English. Again, an interpreter will be needed. It will lead to unsatisfactory work, apart from the expense it will cause, if everything has to be translated. There will be hundreds of Rent Boards, and if every Rent Board has to have an interpreter it will mean considerable expense. In addition to that, the work of such a Board will not be anywhere near as effective as if these people were bilingual. If one has to depend upon an interpreter the work cannot be done as efficiently as otherwise. Surely it is essential in our law courts that judges and magistrates must be familiar with both languages, because a wrong judgment may easily be arrived at if one has witnesses before one whose language one does not understand. It reminds me of an incident of an interpreter who for years had interpreted in the Cape courts. It was in the old days and all the members of the Jury were unilingual Afrikaans speaking. There was a case before the judge and the accused was an Afrikaans speaking Afrikaner; the witnesses were a Jew and a coloured man. After evidence had been given the judge said to the Jury: “You will now have to judge on the evidence before you.” The interpreter thereupon interpreted these remarks as follows: “The Judge says you have to judge whether you are going to accept the evidence of the Jew and the coloured man, or the evidence of a decent Afrikaner.” Naturally, although the Afrikaans speaking man was guilty the Jury accepted the evidence of the decent Afrikaans speaking person. I am only mentioning this as an illustration of what can happen if a Rent Board is unilingual. It may lead to judgments which are entirely wrong. The Rent Board is not an ordinary Board; we are dealing here with a Board which will have to take evidence and which will sit more or less like a court. They have to listen to the evidence from both sides and then they have to give their judgment, and it is absolutely essential for the members of the Court to be familiar with both languages. We feel that it is really a scandal that at this stage in our history we have to plead for equal rights which hon. members opposite continually talk such a lot about. We want equal rights for Afrikaans speaking and English speaking; that is what we plead for, and we are asking the Government, when these important Boards have to be appointed —boards composed of people who will act in their capacity as judges —we ask, and we make the demand, that those persons shall know both languages, and I therefore trust that the Minister of Social Welfare will accept this amendment. If he does not accept it he and his party must never go to the country again with their battle cry that they stand for the principle of fifty-fifty. That is the story which they tell us all day long, that they want to maintain the principle of fifty-fifty. They may perhaps maintain it in theory but when it comes to practice they renounce this important principle. We are not asking for any preferences, but we insist on the principle of equal justice for Afrikaans and English speaking. That is all we ask for, and that is what we expect the Minister to accept.

I second, but I am not going out from the supposition, as the last speaker has apparently done, that we are to beg that all members of bodies appointed by this Government, or by any Government in this country, are to be bilingual, and not unilingual. They should all be bilingual, and if they are not bilingual then we do not look upon them as competent to occupy their positions. The hon. member spoke of the principle of fifty-fifty which hon. members opposite say they stand for. It remainds me of the individual who went into a cafe and asked for a rabbit pie. When he got it he complained that it did not taste like rabbit pie, but that it tasted like horse pie. The waiter assured him that it was fifty-fifty, and when he replied that none the less it tasted like a horse pie the waiter told him “No, it is fifty-fifty, horse and rabbit; we use one horse and one rabbit.” That is the idea of fifty-fifty which hon. members opposite uphold. This Rent Board which has to be appointed by the Government is not the only body whose members we consider should be bilingual; the attitude we adopt is that all bodies of this kind which are appointed by the Government should be bilingual. I can quite appreciate the fact that it does not worry the Minister very much; he has been a member of this House for thirty-two years and he does not even yet know what we say, and he has to get people to interpret for him. I have had a bit of experience of interpreting, and I can assure the Minister that he does not get the spirit of the speeches made here, and that is why he finds it so difficult to understand our point of view. I believe it is Gen. Hertzog who said that one never gets to know people unless one knows their language, because one does not get to know what the people say and what the people feel. If everything has to be interpreted the spirit is not interpreted. As a matter of fact we feel that at a time like this, it should be unnecessary to have interpreters attached to bodies of that kind; it should be unnecessary because the position in this country is that a unilingual member of a body of that kind is only half a member, because he only knows the language of one section of the population. I say again that what we are asking for—our proposal that members of these bodies should be bilingual —is not a request, it is a demand, it is a right which we have. It is necessary on all bodies, but it is particularly necessary so far as these bodies are concerned. It is essential that all the members should be bilingual. They sit there as a court to determine certain things. They have to determine among other things what will be a reasonable rent, and if they cannot understand all the statements made before them, then these statements have to be translated. It is no use saying that everything will be translated and that they will afterwards be able to decide about things. The position is simply this, that no translation is the same as the original. It does not reflect the same spirit. Take the Bills that come before us in this House. Every day we have to complain about the translations we get. The Bills are drafted in English and then they are translated and in the translation we never get exactly the same thing as in the original. We should remember that these Rent Boards often have to decide on the very existence of the lessor. The lessor has a few houses out of which he makes his living. This Board, or this court, now steps in and determines what is a reasonable rent. Well, the decision of the Rent Board may mean the difference between want and a reasonable existence, so far as the lessor is concerned. And it is because these bodies which the Minister is appointing on behalf of the State are so important that we say that the members should be bilingual. They get money from the State and the laws which concern our public service require all officials to be bilingual. That is why we feel that we are entitled to demand that these people shall be bilingual. To a man like the Minister of Social Welfare it apparently makes no difference, and I can quite understand that he considers it makes no difference. He thinks that an individual can sit there and be quite competent although he knows only one language. Well, so far as I am concerned, I say that a man who has been in this House for thirty years and who is not yet bilingual is not fit and is not competent to serve on such a Board. If he has not got the intelligence to be able to learn the other language he cannot have the intelligence to enable him to judge on the facts which will be placed before these Rent Boards, he will not be able to judge on these facts in the way he should. The position is this, that there are other important things which the Board has to attend to. They have to maintain the balance between the lessee and the lessor. I know that the tenants in most cases are poor people, and quite possibly there are unilingual people among them; if they have to appear before the Rent Board I can quite imagine how they will be treated. Assuming such a person has to appear before a Rent Board of unilingual English speaking people. I know only too well what those people think of a unilingual Afrikaner who does not speak English. What help will those people get? It is an unheard of condition of affairs for us to want to allow unilingual people to serve on such a court —and they will be unilingual English speaking people. I am prepared to bet anything that the Minister is not going to appoint a unilingual Afrikaans speaking person on the Rent Board. He won’t do it, and his object therefore is to put unilingual English speaking people on the Rent Board. And what protection can the Afrikaans speaking people expect then, particularly if they are unilingual Afrikaans speaking? The English speaking people in South Africa who do not understand the Afrikaner’s language are out of sympathy with the Afrikaans speaking population because they do not know that section of the population. That is why it is a question of principle so far as we are concerned to have bilingual people put on the Boards, just as we accept it as a principle that the judges and magistrates in our courts must be bilingual. Now the Minister does not want to accept this amendment. He simply refuses it, and we therefore feel that we are compelled again to put it before him. This is the second opportunity the Minister has of rectifying this position, and I want to tell him that he will not get a third chance. If he gets his third chance, even the English speaking Afrikaners will go against him on this point. They won’t want a man taking up the attitude which the Minister takes up. They won’t want a Minister who takes no notice of the Afrikaans speaking section. That kind of person should not sit in this Parliament because he is not an Afrikaaner. An individual like that does not know what the people of South Africa think about matters, and how they feel. I therefore feel myself compelled to second this motion. I feel that the attitude adopted by the Minister is wrong; if he does not want to accept this amendment the party opposite, not only the Labour Party, but the whole of the Government party, will be made to suffer, because they stand behind him, and they cannot blame us if we tell the people from the platforms that they are out of sympathy with the Afrikaners, and that they begrudge the Afrikaner his rights.

We are dealing here with one of the most important matters. I was absent from the House unfortunately for a few days on account of unavoidable circumstances, and I do not know whether the Minister has given any reasons for his inability to accept this amendment. Anyhow, I always had the opinion in the past that the Minister of Social Welfare was a fairly reasonable individual, but if he refuses to accept this amendment he will be known as one of the most unreasonable Ministers who has ever sat on the Ministerial Benches. That is a fact. We do not want to look at this matter from the point of view of political gain. We are deeply in earnest on this matter. For years and years we have fought in this country for the principle of language equality; we have fought for the principle that all officials must be bilingual. The Minister knows it. I have always felt in my heart of hearts that this fight we have fought in the past was now over and done with, and that it would no longer be necessary to fight for that principle. Imagine the precious hours, days weeks and years which we have devoted to this battle for our language rights. Let hon. members think of the time we have devoted to our fight to get the principle accepted in practice that officials must be bilingual; and having fought that fight in the past we imagined that henceforth we would be able to use the brain and the time of the people in the solution of those weighty problems besetting this country. And now, in the year 1942, we find that we have to fight this fight all over again in this House, this self same fight which we have been conducting in this country for so many years. I therefore want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister—he, of course, has heard all the arguments from both sides—I want to ask him to give in on this point. Surely no harm can come out of this amendment. If the Minister’s only reason, as I heard from the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) was that he was afraid that unilingual Afrikaans speaking people would suffer through not being able to be appointed to the Rent Boards, if the amendment is accepted, then I want to give him the assurance that we assume all responsibility so far as that point is concerned, so that reason falls away.

He will not get them among those who can be appointed.

If the Minister gets up here and says that he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg he will do no more than is right to the people, he will only do the right thing by the people. We are dealing here with a question of principle and if the Minister refuses to give in, if the Minister wants to be obstinate and refuses to give in, if he refuses to accept this amendment, then this question will crop up over and over again in days to come and we shall have a continual battle over it. Without wishing to bring politics into this matter I want to say that there has been a remarkable tendency to appoint as many officials as possible from among unilingual sections— there has been a tendency to appoint only English speaking people. We have the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) over there. He himself told me that he admits that to be the position. When I asked him why it was being done he replied that it was our own fault because the Government could no longer trust the Afrikaans speaking people. Imagine, in days like these the Afrikaans speaking section of the community have to be the sufferers because the Government no longer trusts the Afrikaner in his own country.

Do you believe what you are saying?

Yes. I believe it because I know it is the truth. It is so, and if we scrutinise the lists we shall find that it is a fact. Let hon. members study the lists of promotions and appointments, and even my friend opposite will have to admit that in the very large majority of cases it is the names of English speaking people which are shown as having been promoted and appointed. That is why we are afraid of the Minister getting the right in this Bill to appoint people, unless it is laid down that those people must be bilingual. He can appoint people with English names, we do not object to that, but when he appoints them he must at least see to it that they are bilingual. That is the demand we make and that is the demand we are compelled to make—that the Minister shall be obliged to appoint bilingual people. Just before I left I had to see somebody in the Defence Force very urgently. Unfortunately I did not know his telephone number, so I rang Wynberg, where I was attended to in Afrikaans. The man I wanted to speak to was not there and they referred me to Wingfield. There I could not be attended to in Afrikaans, they then referred me to Coastal Defence. I asked to be attended to in Afrikaans. The man answering me said that he would call somebody else. That person could not attend to me in Afrikaans either, and I was told to speak English, failing which they could not attend to me. What I am saying here is absolutely correct and I ask how we, as the Afrikaner people, can be satisfied when that sort of thing is allowed to continue in this country? We had a struggle in the Provincial Council of the Cape which continued for years, and the Afrikaans speaking section of the population demanded that officials appointed by bodies such as Town Councils and Hospital Boards should be bilingual. Time and again the Afrikaans speaking section lost the battle in the Provincial Council, but last year they achieved a victory. They convinced the Government supporters that those officials should be bilingual and the principle was adopted that henceforth Town Council officials, Hospital Board officials and so on, who were appointed in future, were to be bilingual. If those who were in the majority —that is, the Government Party and the Provincial Council—eventually admitted that that principle must be applied, how does it become anyone to come to this House and allow a provision to be passed that unilingual people may be appointed to a body such as the Rent Board? In the past we used to consider the Minister of Social Welfare as a reasonable person, but I am afraid that the reason adduced by the Minister why these few words should not be inserted in the clause, and why we should not lay it down that these members must be bilingual, cannot be accepted by us. It is not a reason at all, and the result of his attitude is going to be, if we do not get those words inserted in the clause, that he is going to be prominent among those who are causing a sense of bitterness among the Afrikaner people.

Do you want to sacrifice ability?

I am coming to that. You cannot get a body such as we are now considering to give a proper judgment on all matters brought before it if the members of that body are not bilingual. The most competent people for that class of work have to be bilingual. When we are dealing with mechanical work, when we are dealing with a man who has to work with an engine and who does not get into touch with the public, then perhaps a unilingual individual may be the most competent, and in those cases perhaps we need not concern ourselves about the language the individual speaks. For that class of work a unilingual person may be perhaps the most competent, but we are not dealing with that class of work now. We are dealing with a body which will have all the troubles and all the difficulties of a particular class of people submitted to it, and I cannot imagine our sacrificing ability and competence if we insist on the members of these bodies being bilingual. If we accept the principle that those bodies can have unilingual members, then the result is going to be racialism and bitterness among the public, and we can do no more than make an appeal to the Minister for the good of the country to accept our amendment and also try and remove those feelings of racialism and bitterness, because by this clause, which gives the Minister the power to nominate unilingual persons, he is assisting to foster bitterness among the public. If we go to the platteland and tell the people what has been going on here, it will cause bitterness and strife. The Minister cannot get up here and adduce as his only reason that he does not want to do an injustice to unilingual Afrikaans speaking people by preventing them from being appointed to the Rent Board. One of the main points that we stand for is this— we say definitely that one can only judge about matters and other people’s troubles, one can only be sympathetically disposed towards other people’s troubles if one is bilingual, so that one can listen to everybody appearing before the Board in his own language. If a member of the Board does not understand the other man’s language he will not be able to listen to his difficulties as explained by the man himself—he has to listen to him through the mouth of an interpreter and so much is lost in the interpretation that the individual who is to give judgment does not get the correct appreciation of the position and cannot do justice to the other person. Now I want to come back to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) said here, namely that we were prepared to sacrifice efficiency. The Minister himself is an outstanding example in that regard. He is unilingual and he has to avail himself of the services of an interpreter. He is sitting on the Treasury Benches today as a Minister, and when he introduces legislation it is just because he is unilingual that he has so many difficulties in getting his legislation passed by the House. The only way he can get his Bills passed is by the application of the guillotine. Why should that be? It is because he cannot realise what our difficulties are, and I am quite convinced that if that Minister had been able today to understand us in our own langauge, if we could have followed what we said, and if he could have listened to us and heard what we felt about this matter he would have given in to us. But I contend that the interpretation of our speeches has perhaps given the Minister a wrong impression of what we feel and it has given him a wrong idea of our arguments. The Minister does not really sense our motives; he does not feel what actuates us in wanting bilingual people. All we can say is that the Minister is less competent because he is not bilingual. In conclusion I again want to appeal to him. Surely no evil can come out of this amendment. It can only contribute to the well-being of the people if it is agreed to, and it can only bring about good feeling towards the public, and among all sections of the population. We are so afraid that if the Minister takes away this right from us, and if he introduces this principle it will also be applied to so many other bodies which will be appointed from now onwards, and it may cause a very unpleasant condition of affairs in this country. As a reasonable individual who in the past has shown himself sympathetic to the other sections of the population we do not want the Minister to do anything unreasonable today as though he did not care what was going to become of the rights of the Afrikaans speaking people. If the Minister is prepared to give in, then this discussion is at an end. Let him say that he accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg and if he does so there is no need for us to keep on fighting on this subject, a subject which has been occupying our minds quite sufficiently in the past.

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). My reason is that I had the opportunity a short while ago of getting into touch with one of the Boards appointed by the Minister. When we got there we were asked whether we wanted to speak Afrikaans or English. The deputation consisted of a Predikant, an Elder of the Church and myself. We said that we would prefer to speak Afrikaans. The Predikant spoke and he explained the matter. He spoke for a full quarter of an hour and then one of the members asked “What is it all about?”

The Board in Pretoria has nothing but bilingual members.

That is the Board which has to advise the Minister in regard to the erection of buildings. The Chairman then had to take the trouble of telling those people what the Predikant had been saying in Afrikaans. I was compelled thereupon to speak English to make those people understand what we felt about the matter. There is no question about it, these are facts I am stating, and that is how things go; if deputations wait on these boards then we are asked which language we want to speak, but if we speak Afrikaans you can at once notice from these people’s faces that they are dissatisfied and prejudiced and you are compelled to speak English. I therefore say that the Minister should show us that he is well disposed towards Afrikaans and that when he appoints these Rent Boards he should at least appoint bilingual people. There are the boards where even the Chairman is not bilingual. If it happened in this particular instance what would have been the position if we had been unable to speak English, and if nobody on the board had understood Afrikaans? We would have left and they would not have known what we had come to tell them. I therefore ask the Minister again to show his good feelings towards us and to accept this amendment. If he does so nothing will go wrong with the Bill. We are entitled to it because we have the right to claim recognition for our language. The Minister should prove his good feeling to the Afrikaans speaking section of the population by accepting this amendment.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) gives the Minister the opportunity of showing his respect for the sentiments of the Afrikaans section of the population. We are asking for no more than what we want the English speaking people to have. The request we are making here is not an unreasonable one—all we are asking is that the members of these Rent Boards shall know both English and Afrikaans. We know from experience that if the Bill is passed as it now stands the members of the Rent Boards will practically, without exception, be English speaking people. I want to remind the Minister that he cannot expect to obtain co-operation in this way between the two races. The only way to secure that co-operation is for the two races to respect each other’s language and traditions. If he wants co-operation from the Afrikaans speaking section, then he must respect the sentiments of the Afrikaans speaking-people, because any people with self-respect have to insist on their language rights being respected. Clause 137 of the Act of Union provides for equal rights for both languages. We are not asking for any concession from the Minister, but we ask for what is our right; we ask for what is due to our people. The Minister adopts the attitude, and some hon. members opposite also adopt the attitude, that bilingualism is a dead letter and nothing else. As Senator Nicholls said once in this House, they regard Clause 137 as nothing but a concession to the sentiments of the Afrikaans speaking section, but they think that the language of the country should none the less be English. That is the attitude adopted by the Minister, and of many hon. members opposite. They think that, although equal language rights are provided for on paper Afrikaans can be turned down in practice. A Rent Board of this kind which has to deal with a section of the population, the great majority of whom is Afrikaans speaking, is of such a character that it is absolutely essential to have people on it who know both languages, so that when representations are made to it every member of the Board will understand the full effect of those representations, and will be able to judge what they mean. The Minister will not succeed in getting this side of the House to respect the traditions of his side of the House, unless he is prepared to show his respect for the traditions and for the language of this side. If the clause as it now appears in the Bill is passed the Minister will only get the assistance and the co-operation of the weakkneed members of the community, and of those who have no backbone among the Afrikaners, but he will not get the support of those who respect their traditions and their language. Assuming unilingual Afrikaans speaking people were appointed to these Rent Boards—the English speaking would be the first to protest most emphatically against such appointments, and it is perfectly right that they should do so if they have any self-respect. It is perfectly right for them to get up and protest against an injustice being done to their language. Why, then, should we continually have to get up here when legislation of this kind is introduced to protest against the language of the Afrikaans speaking section being fobbed off in this way? Why cannot the Minister accept this amendment? The amendment is not asking for preference to be given to the Afrikaans language, the only thing it asks for is what the English speaking section also wants—bilingualism. The Minister is still smiling at it. Apparently he does not care, and he is quite willing to carry on and not to take any notice of the Afrikaans speaking section. We know the record of the Government opposite. It is the same as that of the old S.A.P. Government, and the end of that Government was that in 1924 we found that in two Government departments out of 198 officials drawing over £500, only 26 could speak Afrikaans. The other 172 could not speak Afrikaans, and could not understand it. And that was the position in departments where it was essential for people to be able to speak Afrikaans, because they were continually in contact with members of the public who were both Afrikaans and English speaking. The Government did not consider it necessary to respect the Afrikaans language. All we are doing now is to plead with the Minister to show Afrikaans, to show our language, that respect to which it is entitled. If he refuses to give us our rights we shall continue to fight for them until such time as we get what we are entitled to. It has been said here that we shall not be able to get competent people if only bilingual men are to be appointed. I fail to see how such an argument can be adduced. It may be the case in certain special circumstances, that where a technical official has to be appointed one cannot always get a bilingual man, but here we are dealing with Boards which have to be selected in the towns and in the dorps, and there are always ample people available who are bilingual and competent to serve on these Boards. A former Minister of Railways and Harbours, the late Mr. Charlie Malan, sent out a circular letter in regard to bilingualism, in which it was laid down that an individual who was bilingual was more competent than a unilingual person. That policy has been upheld on the Railways. The Minister cannot come now and say that he cannot get competent people; we don’t believe it. You can get competent people who are bilingual, and we want to ask the Minister to be fair and accept this amendment. The Minister pretends he is anxious to have co-operation in this country, but he will never get co-operation while he is showing the contempt for Afrikaans he has shown here again.

The hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. D. T. du P. Viljoen) put up a “trrible” plea and told the House that they were going to tell the country that we were neglecting bilingualism. Of course, hon. members over there have to find something which they can go to the country with, and now they want to go forward with this false cry.

False!

I say “false.” Bilingualism is respected by this side as well as by the other side. Now they come here and they say that Rent Boards must be bilingual. I would agree to it if it were practical, but why was it not considered practical when the Farmers’ Relief Boards were appointed. Let us be honest. It shows the hollowness of that cry. When the Farmers’ Relief Boards were appointed, and they were also local Boards, there was no demand that everybody must be bilingual; those Boards also are bodies who are there to advise the Minister.

Show me one which is bilingual.

In those days there never was any question that they had to be bilingual. I believe that the Minister, in making his appointments, will select bilingual people wherever he can, but there is the danger that if you insist on bilingualism, a first-class man may be excluded here and there. Hon. members now want to use this for political purposes. They know, and the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. Bekker) knows, that on the Farmers’ Relief Boards there are numerous members who are not bilingual.

Mention one.

I am not going to take any trouble for a member who is as cheap as all that.

The hon. member must moderate his language.

Don’t start getting personal again, and calling people names.

That’s not calling people names. There are any number of unilingual people on the Farmers’ Relief Boards, and I could mention names, but I am not going to. They are honourable men, and they are doing good work, but they are not bilingual. I myself have recommended such people, and they have been appointedë and hon. members know who I am referring to, so the whole of their argument falls to pieces.

Does a Farmer’s Relief Board act like a court?

I believe that the Minister will, wherever possible, appoint bilingual people, but if there happens to be a useful man who only knows Afrikaans or only knows English and he can render useful services, we should not prevent the Minister from appointing such a man. The hon. member for Victoria West referred to certain things which I am supposed to have said to him. The hon. member dreams sometimes, and then he comes here and makes such statements. I never said anything of the kind. They now want to go to the country with this cry. Now, it is no longer the native cry, but now it is the bilingualism cry. It won’t do them any good.

I consider it a tragedy that in the year 1942 we still have to fight for the rights of the Afrikaans speaking people, but the greatest tragedy of all is that a man like the hon. member for Kimberley. District (Mr. Steytler) sides with hon. members over there and that we have to fight him in regard to the recognition of our language rights. I cannot understand how this amendment can be turned down. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of Labour of this saving of Confucius, “Do unto others as you wish to be done by.” If a case should crop up of the appointment to a Board of a man who only knew Afrikaans, what would the English speaking people have to say about it? What would the Minister think of it? The Minister is a very pleasant person to associate with outside, and to talk to, but I cannot understand why he should be so unreasonable. Let us assume for a moment that we come into power, and I hope that time is not far off. Assuming we were to give the English speaking people in the service twenty-four hours’ notice to leave the service. They have had ample time to learn Afrikaans, they have refused to learn it. It is tragic to think that the English speaking members of the Cabinet do not know Afrikaans, and that is the situation in the year 1942. I well remember the Minister of Finance, when the Leader of the Opposition defended the appointment of Mr. Pring as a member of the Public Service Commission, asking: “Could you not have found a bilingual English speaking person?” It is tragic that in a time like the present we still have to make a fuss, we still have to struggle for the recognition of our language rights. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) interrupted and asked, “Don’t you want efficiency?” Does he say that it is only the English speaking people who are efficient, that they have a monopoly on efficiency?

Who said so?

The hon. member asked whether we did not want efficiency. I agree with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that a man is not efficient if he is not bilingual. The Minister of Labour is not efficient and he should not occupy that position. The members of the Cabinet who are unilingual should have enough respect for Afrikanerdom to resign their portfolios. There are two sections in this country. The Afrikaans speaking section constitutes 60 per cent. of the copulation. As a member of the United Party in the past I regarded the principle of bilingualism as a corner stone, and if I had sat on the other side today I would not have supported the Minister in his effort to trample on the rights of the Afrikaners. Hon. members opposite always contend that they want to bring Afrikaans and English speaking together, but I can give them the assurance that these small pinpricks, such as those contained in this Bill, will not lead to the two sections of the population coming closer together. On the contrary the Minister is driving the two sections apart. How can the Afrikaans speaking people extend their hand of friendship to you if you always trample on their rights? I hope the Minister will still realise that he is wrong and I hope he will still show his respect for the sentiments of the other section of the population.

I am sorry the hon. member for Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler) is not here now. It is regrettable to see an Afrikaner renouncing his own identity in the way the hon. member has done—it is regrettable to hear him speak against the maintenance of the established rights of the Afrikaner nation. I leave it at that. I want to appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. I only want to point out one thing to him, and that is the difficulty he is in as a unilingual man when his Bill is being discussed—the difficulty he has because of the fact that he understands so little of what is said here in regard to these matters—and he must realise what it will mean if members of the Rent Boards are unilingual, either English unilingual or Afrikaans unilingual. We don’t come here to plead or to beg. We are making our demand on behalf of 60 per cent. of the population who are Afrikaans speaking. We are putting forward our demand because Clause 137 of the Act of Union lays down the principle of equality of language rights.

Is not that enough for you?

What is the use of having these rights on paper and then having them treated like a dead letter and not applying them in daily life? It is not enough to have such a clause in the Act of Union if it is not carried out. We do not want to approach hon. members opposite hat in hand to plead with them kindly to give us what we are entitled to. Surely the hon. the Minister has been long enough in this country to realise that it is essential for these members to be bilingual. The Minister refuses to accept the amendment and he has been accused of wanting to appoint only English speaking people. I don’t want to make that charge, but I do want to say that he should not give an opening for that charge to be made, and the best way to disprove that charge is for him to get up and say that he realises the necessity of members of the Rent Boards being bilingual and that he is prepared to accept the amendment. If he does not do that he will be accused of wanting to appoint English speaking people to the detriment of the rest of the community.

What about those who only speak Afrikaans?

We don’t want people who speak Afrikaans only either; we have never put forward that claim. Most of the Afrikaans speaking people are bilingual; we are not poverty stricken as hon. members opposite, and besides that the Minister will never appoint any illiterates to that Board, and practically all Afrikanerss who are not illiterate are bilingual. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I want to say a very few words only because the time is nearly up and I want the Minister to have an opportunity to reply. I want to support this amendment not because I am in every instance in favour of bilingualism. I think it is not always necessary where officials do not come into touch with the public, but I think in a Board of this nature which has to deal directly with the public bilingualism is a necessity.

Before I proceed to reply to the arguments that have been advanced I want to remind the Committee that I am also moving an amendment in Section 6 …

The Minister will be able to move that later on.

Well, now, I have not a great deal to add to the observations I made in the Committee stage, but I will say one or two things on this matter. First of all it does seem to me… I hope I shall be forgiven for this suspicion … that there has been a good deal of electioneering in the advancement of this amendment. There has been a tremendous amount of sound and fury about it, and I think the hon. member for Kimberley District (Mr. Steytler) was perfectly correct in what he said about the position of hon. members opposite. I said in the Committee stage that hon. members opposite were more concerned—and I say it again—about making propaganda than about bringing the Afrikaner …

Yes, say it.

They were more concerned about making propaganda than about protecting the Afrikaner.

That is untrue.

One has the right to have one’s own opinion as the result of the evidence before one.

You are imputing motives.

What do they say? The hon. member himself said that my object was to appoint all English speaking members on these Boards.

Of course you are.

There you have it again, and yet those hon. members know that whenever I can I appoint bilingual people. I notice the hon. member has shifted his ground to a Board in Pretoria … The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Venter) spoke about that. Does he know that all the members on that Board are Afrikaans speaking?

Not one of them.

Everyone of them, including the Chairman. No, my practice is to appoint bilingual persons wherever I can.

As bilingual as you are, I suppose.

Wherever I possibily can. But if it were obligatory on me to appoint bilingual persons what about the countryside?

Don’t talk nonsense.

It would shut out many hundreds of Afrikans speaking people.

You are talking nonsense.

What hon. members over there want me to do is to confine representation on these Rent Boards to the solicitors and other people of a similar character. That is really underlying this.

You know, of course, that that is not true.

And I want to claim this, that among the working classes of the people of this country there are infinitely better brains, or certainly equally good brains, as there are in the solicitor class represented by the hon. member over there.

I regret to interrupt the hon. the Minister, but the period of one hour allotted for the Report Stage, in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on 10th April, has expired.

I thought I could go on.

The position is that the amendment proposed by Mr. B. J. Schoeman now drops, and only the Minister is allowed to move amendments.

Then I move …

Why did you not give us an opportunity to vote?

Are you, Mr. Speaker, putting the amendments proposed by hon. members opposite?

No, those amendments have dropped. The only amendments I can put are those moved by the Minister. The amendments put in by the Committee of the Whole House are deemed to be passed.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I second.

I move—

I object.

I move—

At the commencement of this session I announced the Government’s intention to introduce legislation during the session to deal with the question of war pensions. A fortnight later, in response to representations which had been made to me, and after consideration of the extent of the amendments which appeared to be necessary and desirable to the existing law, I made a further statement that it had been decided to introduce an entirely new Bill, and that it was the Government’s hope that the new Bill would pass into law during this present session. In pursuance of that statement this Bill, which is a Bill to amend and consolidate the law relating to war pensions, is now before the House. The fact that we decided to introduce a Bill to consolidate the existing law has, of course, tremendously increased the magnitude of our legislative task, and it has only been by dint of the hardest work and the most unremitting efforts of the Pensions Department and the law advisers that it has been possible to bring up this Bill at all in time for it to be dealt with this session. I would like to express my appreciation of the assistance I have received from the officials in this regard. I also indicated on an earlier occasion that in considering this matter we had the benefit of assistance from the ex-Servicemen’s organisations, the South African Legion of the British Empire Service League, and related bodies, and I should like to express my appreciation to those bodies for the very valuable help they have given us in regard to this matter. Now, this question of war pensions has attracted considerable attention and comment throughout the country. I think that what we are proposing in this Bill will be accepted as, in general, a fair and reasonable solution of a very difficult and thorny problem. When I spoke last on this question, that is, on the 27th January, I adduced a volume of evidence to show that our pensions system under the existing law, the system under which we are at present working, does not, if account is taken of all the circumstances, including our provisions for the making of alternative awards, compare unfavourably with the systems of other countries. I gave information in regard to the systems applicable in countries like Australia and Southern Rhodesia, and I think that on that occasion I satisfied the House that in general our system under the existing law did not compare unfavourably with those systems. But, at the same time, in adducing that evidence, in submitting those contentions, I also indicated that there were certain points for consideration in regard to the improvement of our present war pensions system. I said too, that we were proposing to consider those points. Apart from specific points, there is also the further consideration that there has been a considerable change in the outlook of the public since the 1919 Act was passed in relation to our obligations to those who fight and have fought our battles, and that change in outlook in itself justifies a revision of the basis of compensation laid down in 1919. It is true that our system which compared not unfavourably with the systems of other countries, when I spoke to the House a few months ago, will, if this law is enacted, compare very favourably with the systems of those countries but I think we have reason to expect that other countries will also take account of that change in public outlook, and will make their systems more generous than they have hitherto been. I therefore do not want to build any argument on a comparison between our own system and that of other countries. Now, sir, the proposals in this Bill represent a considerable advance on existing legislation. In view of the adoption of this more generous basis as far as the existing war is concerned, the question at once arose in drafting this Bill whether that more generous basis should apply only in respect of the present war, or whether we should also level up the pre-war cases, that is, cases of compensation arising out of earlier wars as well. Well, we had no difficulty in answering that question. One of the fundamental bases of war pensions legislation in our country has always been that of not discriminating’ between service in one war and another. The provisions in the 1919 Act which were conceived in the first place with reference to the 1914-T8 war were applied immediately to those who had fought on whatever side in the Anglo-Boer War or in any other South African campaigns. In the same way now we propose to apply forthwith the more generous proposals of this Bill as compared with those under the existing law to those who had fought in previous wars; and one of the most important clauses in this Bill— certainly one of the clauses which involves a great deal of expenditure—is Clause 63, which will have the effect of a levelling up of pre-1939 pensions. Hon. members, therefore, in the consideration of this Bill, will appreciate the point that we are not merely legislating for the veterans of the present war; we are also legislating for the veterans of previous wars. And I think they will appreciate the fact that an immediate benefit will, as a result of the enactments in this Bill, accrue to a large number of military pensioners of previous wars. We are, of course, in this Bill dealing only with the compensation payable for disablement or death in terms of the Act of 1919 as amended from time to time. In other words, we are dealing with what we have hitherto called war pensions. I say that because last year we instituted a new type of military pension, the so-called War Veterans Pension — the Oudstryders Pension as we call it in Afrikaans—which is pavable irrespective of a disablement, qualifying under the Act of 1919. In other words, in that provision which we made last year, those who had no disablement at all as a result of service in previous wars, or who had a disablement which did not qualify them for consideration of a war pension under the Act of 1919, became eligible for consideration under this provision. The principles which underlay our enactments of last year in regard to War Veterans Pensions were that the person who had endured the rigours of war tended generally, apart from specific disability to become prematurely aged, and that he should therefore receive special consideration. That contention has been advanced for a long time in South Africa. The cause of these people had been pleaded for twenty years or more, but this Government was the first Government that gave practical effect to that contention. This Government was the first Government that did anything practical to help those people, and some of the criticisms which have come in regard to the scheme which we then introduced, have come not entirely appropriately from those who in the past pleaded the cause of these people but did nothing to help them. Now it will be clear from what I have said that the War Veterans Pension stands apart from the general system of military pensions. It does not, therefore, fall to be dealt with as part of this Bill. On the recommendation of the Inter-Departmental Committee which investigated the question of war veterans, oudstryders, we linked up that pension which we introduced last year, with our system of old age pensions, because it was accepted that these people, as a result of their military service, should be regarded as prematurely aged. That was, I think, all that could be done at that time, and it was generally accepted in that spirit. We had to feel our way in the matter of the institution of this new pension system. That system, sir, of war veterans pensions has only been in operation for nine months. Applications are still being dealt with. We are not yet in a position properly to take stock of the working of that new system, but we have never regarded what we did last year for the war veterans in this matter as final, and it is our intention to review the whole question of these war veterans in the light of the information which has become available and is now almost complete, and to consider what improvements and amendments of it should be proposed to the House. Generally, then, this Bill does not go into the question …

When are you going to do that?

We have however introduced a clause which does deal with certain points; in the first place, as is the case with our old age pensions, bringing those who have been repatriated from the Argentine within the scope of this scheme; and in the second place, whereas the present scheme disqualifies those who are able to do regular work from the pension, if they are under the age of 60, and whereas in consequence it has been necessary to disqualify from war veterans pensions anybody who earns anything, however small that amount may be, we are proposing in Section 58 to grant the Minister in his discretion the power to decide whether the applicant shall be regarded as performing regular work; in other words, it will now be possible to accept for these pensions some of those people who earn small amounts of money, very often on a basis of charity, and which disqualifies them from consideration. I then come to the Bill as it is before the House. The best way of dealing with the Bill is by indicating the main respects in which the system of war pensions now proposed will bring about an improvement in the existing system. The cardinal points in regard to any system of war pensions are twofold; in the first place, the pension payable to a disabled soldier, and secondly, the pension payable to a widow of a deceased soldier. In respect of both of these points we have under the present law a twofold system. There is the flat rate system, where pensions are payable in terms of the schedule, being based on the rank of the volunteer and the degree of his disablement. There is secondly the alternative award system, where a pension is calculated on the difference between his prewar earnings and his post-war earning capacity. Up to last year the amount of the alternative award depended in part on the rank of the claimant. Last year we wiped out differences of rank in regard to the alternative award and introduced the one maximum of £450 in all such cases as far as the men themselves were concerned, and of twothirds of that amount in the case of their widows. Our system then is a two-fold system, the flat rate system or the alternative award system, and the pensioner will be treated in terms of whichever of these systems is the more to his advantage. If the alternative award system suits him better than the flat rate system he gets the alternative award. I am inclined to think that this is the only country which still retains that system. We propose to continue to have that system in South Africa, a system which is definitely to the advantage of the man concerned. We propose also to apply that system of the alternative award to all claimants irrespective of sex or race. There is one point in regard to the alternative award as dealt with in this Bill to which I would specially refer. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the calculation of pre-war earnings and makes certain special provisions in certain special cases; for example, in Paragraph 2 provision is made for the case of the farmer’s son. It is provided that his pre-war earnings shall be taken at the value of the remuneration of overseers on farms in the same district as that in which he was assisting at the time of his enlistment. Having regard to the further provisions of the section, I have decided that that does not go far enough and I am therefore proposing to introduce an amendment to that subsection the terms of which I will consider at the Committee stage. Then we have the case of the apprentice. The apprentice’s pre-war earnings are taken on the basis of the standard rate of wages of his trade in this district in which he was serving at the time of his enlistment. But under the present law apprentices must have served one year’s apprenticeship before that can apply. We propose in this clause as drafted to omit the qualification of one year’s service as an apprentice. Then in sub-section (4) we have the case of the volunteer, who, for the purpose of qualifying for any profession or employment, had, after the age of 15, attended regularly any institution or had been articled or employed in accordance with recognised practice. Under the present law, in calculating the the pre-war earnings of a man of that kind, we take the maximum amount of disablement pension, plus 12s. a week, that is, about £30 a year for each complete year of training. There is then a maximum of 100s. a week; that is, £260 a year. We propose to improve the conditions in that regard quite considerably. We still maintain as a basis the maximum disablement pension, but that, of course, as will appear from my subsequent remarks, is in itself being increased and that increase also improves the position here. We now propose to allow amounts per annum in respect of each year of training, making the amounts more generous for the older years; the amounts are as stated in the clause and the total result of this will be that the maximum pre-war earnings can be fixed not at £260, but as high as £450. That will constitute a very considerable improvement in the position of the young volunteer. Questions have been raised in regard to the position of those who enter the Youth Training Brigade. I have looked into that, and, as at present advised, I think that they will fall within the scope of this clause; if not, I will make provision for them to fall within the scope of the clause. I would also like in regard to this question of the calculation of pre-war earnings to draw the attention of the House to Section 42, which will now definitely give the Minister the power to give a decision in regard to the determination of the amount of a volunteer’s pre-war earnings in cases where definite evidence of such earnings is not available. That also is an improvement of the present law. That, then, is one side of our pensions system, the alternative award system. I now come to the flat rate system, where payments are based on the schedules included in the law. I will deal, fist of all, with the disabled European soldier. On the present basis he is entitled, for 100 per cent. disablement, if in the lowest ranks, that is, a private ‘or an N.C.O., up to Class 2, to receive 40s. a week; in other words, £104 a year for himself, plus £26 2s. for his wife; plus £26 2s. for the first child, £21 15s. for the second child, and £19 12s. for the third and other children. In addition to that, there is a provision in the existing law that the man who is permanently bedridden or permanently incapable of earning anything, may get a supplement of 50 per cent. of that amount payable in respect of himself. That is a further £52. He may also, if he is 80 per cent. disabled, get an attendant’s allowance up to £100 where he requires constant attendance. Under the present law, then, the maximum amount which can be paid for the man himself is £256. Now, we propose—I should, first of all, say that those who are not 100 per cent. disabled get proportionate amounts in terms of Schedules 1 and 2 taken together. We propose now to replace the existing Schedule 2 by a new schedule, and the effect of that schedule is virtually to double the rates of compensation payable to the man himself in the lowest ranks of the Army. Hon. members will have seen that that schedule has the effect that the pension payable to the man himself for 100 per cent. disablement will be not £104, but £200, and that the position is equalised for all up to and including the rank of major. I think that proposal will be acceptable to the House. At the same time, we propose to increase the rates for wives and children, making the rate £30 in respect of the wife, and £30 in respect of each child. We also propose to retain the provisions in regard to those who are heavily disabled; in other words, it will still be possible to pay a supplement, if the man is permanently bedridden and entirely deprived of earning capacity, of 50 per cent. which will, of course, now be 50 per cent. of £200 and not 50 per cent. of £104. We will retain the provision of a grant for attendance up to £100 in the case of those who require the services of such an attendant, but we are substituting for the words “constant attendance” the words “regular attendance,” which will broaden the scope of that provision. That really means that the maximum payable to the 100 per cent. disabled man will be £400 per annum for the man himself. Then I come to the position of the widow. At present the flat rate payable made to the widow of the private and the N.C.O. up to Class 2 is £66 plus £26 for the first child, and £24 for children after the first. Officers receive pensions from £100 a year upwards, but in addition to their pension they also get a gratuity. Hitherto other ranks have not been getting gratuities. We propose, in the first place, to double the minimum pension, to substitute £132 for £66. We propose to increase the grant to the child to £30, and we propose also to apply the gratuity system to other ranks. The other ranks will then get a gratuity of one year’s pension for the widow, plus a third of that amount for each child. These are then the improvements we propose to make in respect of the European volunteer who is disabled. Then comes next for consideration the position of women serving in the army. The 1919 law dealt only with nurses, and there we had in the schedule in that law the basic figure of £100 per annum pension for 100 per cent. disabled nurses. We propose now to bring women volunteers in the women’s army, along with nurses, under the law, and we propose to make the basic figure not £100 but £150, again involving a substantial increase. Then in regard to non-European other than natives. In the present law we have no special schedule dealing with natives, but as a transition measure we put them on a basis of three-fifths of the amount payable to Europeans. We now propose to introduce schedules dealing with the position of nonEuropeans other than natives, those schedules being Nos. 5 and 6. The effect will be that the basic rate for 100 per cent. disablement will be increased in the case of the nonEuropean to £75 for himself, with allowances of £12 for the wife and £10 for each child. In the case of the widow of the non-European we propose that the pension will be £50 plus £10 for each child. The position of natives at the present moment is that they are treated on the same basis as employees of the Government. Their position in regard to war services has not been specifically dealt with. Under the existing law as applied to them, the maximum amount payable for 100 per cent. disablement to a native without dependants is £29 8s., and to a native with dependants £38 1s. In terms of the seventh schedule, we propose that the basic amount for 100 per cent. disablement for natives should be £50, with £9 for a wife and £6 for each child. We propose further that the native’s widow, who at present receives an annuity not exceeding one-half of his army pay, or such annuity as may be deemed appropriate, should be placed on a pension basis and receive £25 a year, plus £6 for each child. Now these are the rates which we propose in this Bill, and I hope that the House will agree that these are fair and reasonable rates. At the same time we have taken the opportunity of making various other improvements in the existing law. In the first place we propose for the purposes of determining the rates of pension, to abolish the present distinction between service inside the Union and service outside the Union. We propose that the same rate should apply in all cases. We do not propose to remove the provision in the present law which requires that in respect of service inside the Union, all disablement must have arisen out of and in the course of the discharge of military service. I explained the reason for that provision on a previous occasion, but I shall do so again. The circumstances of this war are very different from the circumstances in previous wars. People are being roped in for service over a far wider range of health categories. A large number have been employed in military positions who are not subject to military danger. That is why the discrimination was made. Exactly the same discrimination was made in Canada and other countries. There it was laid down that liability for death only arises where it is the direct result of the performance of military duties. I think that principle of discrimination is sound, but it does open the door to hard cases, and we want to meet those hard cases. On that account we have made provision for the setting up of a special grants Board which will deal with such cases, and we are voting £50,000 in the first instance, for that purpose. I may, while I am dealing with this matter, refer to the fact that we are also contemplating an amendment in regard to the position of the volunteer who incurs disablement outside the Union. I have not yet reached finality in regard to these points, but what I am proposing is that in the case of men who have been passed as A.1, and who have served outside the Union, any disease from which they may suffer on their return shall automatically be accepted as attributable to military service. Now, there are one or two other points where we are proposing to improve the position under the existing law. Under the existing law the disabled soldier, with a degree of disablement under 20 per cent., receives a gratuity, which, while it is limited to £500 in the case of an officer, is limited to £200 in the case of other ranks. We propose to wipe out that discrimination. Then there is a new provision in Section 9, where, in addition to the ordinary allowances for children, we propose to provide a special allowance of £30 a year in order to meet fees payable while children are attending school, college, a technical institute, or university. Then in Section 12 we deal with the allowances paid for loss of salary or wages during periods of treatment or training. In the present law we are limited to a maximum of £1 a week, which is ridiculously low in many cases. We propose to change that to £1 a day. Then, in Chapter 5, we deal with the position of the service volunteer, that is, the volunteer who is a public servant. The position in that regard today is extremely complicated. We propose to simplify it to the advantage of the volunteer. We shall lay it down that such a volunteer shall be entitled to receive in addition to any benefit in terms of this Act, such benefits as would be payable under the civil Act had his retirement from the service been due to infirmity of mind or body not arising out of and in the course of the discharge of official duty. He will therefore get that double compensation. Then Section 33 removes what has been a grievance for some time. The dependants of deceased volunteers today are only allowed to appeal to the Military Pensions Appeal Board by the grace of the Minister. They will now be given such an appeal as of right. Section 54 again removes an old-standing grievance. Today widows and other dependants of volunteers who die as the result of war service, within seven years after discharge have no right to compensation. In practice all such cases have come before the House through the machinery of the Pensions Committee, and in practice the House has been prepared to grant compensation. We now propose to give that as of right, so that it will not be necessary for the case to go before the Pensions Committee. There is one other point I want to deal with, although it is not in the Bill. There is the question of the position in regard to aggravation where a volunteer has had his disablement aggravated, and where he is entitled to compensation only to the extent of the aggravation. Now that gives rise to hard cases, because the extent of the aggravation may be such as very seriously to impair his earning capacity, to a greater extent than would be reflected by the increased degree of disablement. Many such cases, of course, do get appropriate treatment under the alternative award system, but there are those who are not qualified under any system, and I will move an amendment which will enable us to deal with such cases through the special Grants Board. These are the main points in respect of which the Bill, if adopted, will mark an improvement on the present law. As I have said, it will bring immediate benefits to existing pensioners, whether as a result of this war or as a result of previous wars. It will immediately improve the position of a large number of military pensioners from this war and previous wars. But it will also give to those serving in this war a very much enhanced sense of security in regard to the question of the treatment which they themselves would receive in the case of disablement or their dependants would receive in the case of need. I believe that the House as a whole will be prepared to agree that it is desirable to make these improvements. What additional burdens will be laid on the Treasury as a result, it is impossible for me to say. No one can state with assurance how long the war will last or how many casualties there will be. We have, however, sought to approach this question from the point of view of what is fair and reasonable provision to make, having regard to all the circumstances of those who have suffered and will suffer as a result of their readiness to take up arms in their country’s cause. I believe the House as a whole and the public as a whole are prepared to make that provision, and it is in that spirit that I commend this Bill to the House.

I move as an amendment—

This Bill is the first instalment, or at least one of the instalments, which the people of South Africa have to pay as a result of the disastrous and calamitous resolution of the 4th September, 1939 The white population of South Africa, numbering hardly 2,000,000, are already suffering from the results of this resolution, and the burden is being rendered more and more severe. This Bill imposes an additional burden on the people. How severe that burden is going to be we do not know, but we can assume that on the scale proposed in the Bill it means that an additional liability of millions and millions of pounds is beingimposed on the public. The benefits of the 1919 Pensions Act nowhere approach the benefits of this Bill, and yet under the 1919 Act we have already paid out an amount of close on £14,000,000. It started with nearly £1,000,000 per year and it steadily decreased until it has now got to about £400,000 per year. As the Minister has told us, this Bill goes much further. The pension benefits under the 1919 Act did not compare unfavourably with the military pensions provided for in other countries, but now the Minister comes to this House and makes the position even better. I have tried to draw a comparison with other countries, and I find that the conditions are very much more favourable than those of New Zealand. The provision made in New Zealand is considerably less than what this Bill lays down. It is a striking fact that in New Zealand military pensions are on a lower scale, but that the old age pensions are much higher. In New Zealand the dependants of old people get pensions and the dependants of soldiers get pensions. What is the position in this country? Take old age pensions. For years we have struggled to get proper and adequate pensions for the old people to enable them to live under decent conditions. The Minister and the Government, however, take up the attitude that those people are not entitled to more than £3 10s. per month, and if they get that they are not allowed to earn anything else. As soon as they earn anything, the amount of their earnings is deducted from their pension. In other words, the standard of living of the man drawing an old age pension has to be £3 10s. per month. The old man who served in the “War of Independence” is entitled to £3 10s., and as soon as he has any additional earnings his pension is reduced to keep him on the standard of living of £3 10s. per month. Now the Minister comes along and makes provision so that even coloured men can get up to £200 per year under the scheme now before us. We on this side of the House are not opposed to military pensions as such. We realise that adequate pensions must be paid because thousands of Afrikaners are fighting up North today, not because they are enthusiastic in their wishes to be there, but because they are the subjects of economic conscription. Pressure was brought to bear on them by their employers, and they are compelled to go North. I have had people coming to me and telling me that they were faced with the choice of having food for their wives and children or of being unemployed. They were compelled to go. Systematically the Government, both in the public service and even in the railways, brought pressure to bear to compel people to go up North. It is our duty to see to it that these people and their dependants are properly looked after, because they are fighting against their own convictions. That is why we are not opposed to the payment of pensions, but we say that no distinctions must be drawn between the men who fought in the Boer War and who cannot make a living either. Why should those people be treated on a lower scale?

Under this Bill they are placed on the same basis.

I want to remind the Minister of the fact that his own Pensions Committee has laid it down that the older a man grows, if he has been in the war, the more his incapacity increases. The Minister also said that the older a person grew, the less fit he was, the less competent he was, to earn his daily bread, especially if he had been wounded. As a rule, in computing a man’s life, a ten-year period is added. If a man is sixty years of age and he has taken part in a war, it is computed that his health is that of a person of seventy who has not taken part in the war. That is the basis laid down by the Commission appointed by the Minister. On that basis we must assure that the oudstryders of the 1899 to 1902 war are entitled to a larger average amount than people who fought in the war of 1914 to 1918. That is the nosition on the basis laid down by the Minister’s own Commission, but what is the position in actual fact? Let me take the Pensions Law of 1919. Under that Act there are 1209 invalid oudstryders included who have received a total amount between them of £58,115 per year, or an average amount of £48 per head. As against that there were 3,490 invalided soldiers of the 1914-1918 war who drew £231,000, an average amount of £65 per head. Why are the oudstryders paid less? If the Minister applies the measure that the older a person grows the more he feels the effects of his wounds, the standard, on which the oudstryders get their pensions, should be higher than in the case of those who took part in the 1914 war. Then why do the oudstryders get an average of £48 and the soldiers of the 1914-1918 war an average of £65? Now let me take the widows. One finds that in that same year, 374 widows of oudstryders received an amount of £35,658, averaging £95. In the same year 1,187 widows of soldiers of the 1914 war received £180,868, or an average of £153. The Oudstryders’ widows get an average of £95 but the soldiers’ widows get £153. Why is that? An oudstryder’s widow, generally speaking, has had all the privations of the war, more privations than any woman in any country. They have suffered in the concentration camps where their vital strength has been sapped to exhaustion; they have been maimed, they have got old, and they have come out of those camps weak and suffering from disease. Is not a woman belonging to that class entitled to greater concessions? Today even the coloured woman gets £8 per month from the State, on which she can live decently, so why are the oudstryders ignored like that? The oudstryders and their widows returned from the camps without anything at all; they have had to start afresh, and now the Government gives these widows an average of £95 per year while the widows of the other soldiers get £152. Are we not entitled, if we see that sort of thing going on, to demand better provisions for those oudstryders and their dependants? Some of those people are suffering great hardships today.

They are going to get more under this Bill.

The Minister is not providing for them under this Bill in the same way as he is doing for the soldiers.

They are in an exactly similar position.

I am not only talking of wounded oudstryders.

That is a different thing.

But even so far as the wounded are concerned …

The military pensions are put on the same basis.

But how does the Minister explain the application of the 1919 Act under which there is such great discrimination at the expense of the oudstryders? The thought which arises in one’s mind is that every time you are compelled to provide for people fighting in the interest of the Empire, the Government feels that it cannot make such a conspicuous distinction between the oudstryders and the people who have fought for the Empire, and then the oudstryders are given a few crumbs to satisfy them. But we have had this instance which we have mentioned of the discrimination that takes place in respect of oudstryders and their widows. The Minister cannot justify that sort of thing.

I was showing that the soldiers of the 1914-1918 war got a much better pension than the oudstryder of the last Boer War. I may add this, that apart from the aid given to those soldiers under the 1919 scheme, they also had the Governor-General’s Fund, from which they were getting £3,800 per year as late as 1938. The oudstryders did not get anything out of that fund, but now let me show the distinction that is made between the Boers who fought in the war 1899 to 1902 and the soldiers who came from overseas to fight against the Boers. How do they treat the oudstryders who lived here and who were wounded, and how do they treat the people who were sent here to fight? In 1940 there were still fifty of these old soldiers; they got £1,800, which amounted to £37 10s. per man per year, or £3 2s. 6d. per month. In addition to that, they got £1 2s. 6d. out of another fund every month, making an average altogether of £4 4s. per month. How does that compare with our own oudstryders? Let me take something else. Take the old age pensions. If the Government is going to pay such liberal war pensions and we take the conditions of this country into account, and we know what our old people have gone through, then we must say that we cannot grant these liberal war pensions until such time as our own old people are given a proper pension. In Canada an old man and his wife get £8 6s. 8d.; in Australia they get £7 10s., and in New Zealand £11 14s. In South Africa the maximum sum is £7, but the Minister knows very well that that £7 is hardly ever awarded. It is only in the large towns where an old couple have absolutely nothing, that they get £7 per month. If they have any income at all, that pension is cut down and they get only about £5. Here, again, we have an instance of the way our own people are ignored. Because, as against this, we have the position in terms of this Bill of a coloured man, if he is one hundred per cent. invalided, and if he has a large family, getting from £12 to £15 per month in pension. To enable him to live, if he is a hundred per cent. unfit, he gets from £12 to £15 per month. His income or his possessions are not taken into account at all. Now, how does that compare with our own old people who are also a hundred per cent. unfit? They are not expected to work, because, if they do work, a deduction is made from their pension. The maximum any one of them can get is £3 10s. per month, so that the man and his wife get £7 per month. Do we really expect a white man to be able to live on less than a coloured man? Is that really the Government’s policy, to come here and lay it down by legislation that a white man and his wife are to live on less than the coloured man? In the one instance the individual has been wounded, but in the other instance the man is also unfit, and both have to live on their pensions. Both have to make ends meet on their pension, but we find this discrimination made in the amount they are paid. We want to know very clearly from the Minister why there is this discrimination? The coloured man is not asked whether he has anything or not, but in the case of the oudstryder and in the case of the man who has an old age pension, a most searching enquiry is made whether the individual has anything at all. If, for instance, a man like that has a plot at Bloemfontein, which he lives on, it is taken into account and his pension is reduced. If he does a small job —not because he can do it, but simply because he has to do it, because he cannot come out on his pension—his pension is cut down because he has that income. That is the way the Minister treats this class of Afrikaner, and we say that the Government is not doing the right thing. The Government pretends that it wants to maintain white civilisation and that it wants to perpetuate it in South Africa, and yet we get this sort of legislation introduced, legislation which gives the coloured people a preference over the whites. If we want to perpetuate white civilisation in South Africa, we must take up the attitude that a white person who is a hundred per cent. unfit must not get less than the non-European. I have already said that this Bill is going to place enormous burdens and liabilities on the people. The Minister himself has not the haziest notion of what the effect is going to be. This war is much more serious and will demand much greater sacrifices than the war of 1914-1918, and we can take it for granted that many more people will be wounded and killed than in the last war. The Minister cannot foresee the implications of this Bill. It will cost millions of pounds and those are the burdens which we are imposing upon the country, which today already has spent more than £217,000,000 on the war, and that is not all. In addition to that, millions of pounds are being spent indirectly. Take for instance the amount of money which the Railways are paying out to make up the difference between the military pay and the civilian pay of railway officials who have joined up. That difference already amounts to £1,000,000, not to talk of the lower rates and all those things in the interest of the Government’s war effort which I propose to deal with later. The Public Service also makes up the difference between the military pay and the civilian pay. We even find that the agricultural Control Boards are imposing levies on the farmers’ products to make up the difference in the case of officials from their offices who have joined up. I say that the obligations and the burdens which are being imposed on the public are enormous. On the one hand we are paying for a great burden today, but that is not all. The Minister knows that the major portion of the war effort is being paid for out of Loan Account. That means that our public debt is increasing tremendously. It means that every citizen of this country has to pay more in taxation. In 1940 a man who earned £500 paid £3 0s. 2d. by way of taxation. That same man today pays a tax of £13 7s. 4d. He pays about £10 per year more as a result of the Government’s war effort. I am mentioning these facts to prove the heavy burdens that are being imposed upon the public, and then there is something else which has struck me in this Bill, and that is that the Minister determines to whom the benefits shall go. He is very careful to say that the benefit will go to those who are serving outside the Union. Now, I should like to ask the Minister whether it is the intention to provide that if the Prime Minister takes steps to send people to Australia or to India, or anywhere outside Africa, to take a different oath from them, and whether they will then fall under this Bill. I want to know from him whether he will be prepared in Committee to accept an amendment confining this Bill to Union soldiers in Africa. If he has no ulterior object in view he should accept an amendment to restrict it to Africa. If not, we are entitled to conclude that the war spirit which is animating the Government has induced it also to want to send soldiers away from Africa. Then there is also provision in this Bill for illigitimate children. Where are we heading for now? We know the conditions which prevail and we know what is happening, and here the Minister comes along and actually encourages this sort of thing by making provision for illitigimate children. The soldiers will know now that their illitigimate children will also be entitled to these grants and allowances; they will know that the public are prepared to pay for these things. I want to ask the Minister what the position is of Members of Parliament who are also on military service, and who are in this House? Do they fall under the benefits of this Bill? I shall be glad to have an answer to that. They will never smell powder. We had the case of Gen. Collyer who was never in the fighting line. He only did office work, and his widow is getting a pension of £400 in terms of the scale laid down by this Bill. Is it the Government’s object also to bring members of Parliament who are already getting a double salary, and who are not stirring a finger for the sake of the war effort under the provisions of this Bill? They may easily meet with an accident while they are in a motor car, and if they do will they benefit from the provisions of this Bill? I want an assurance from the Minister that the members of Parliament who sit in this House and who are not on active service will be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. I want further to express the hope that the Minister will accept my amendment.

I want to second the amendment. I do not want to go into any figures, because the hon. member for Bloemfontein, South (Mr. Haywood) has already gone into all the necessary details, but I want to ask hon. members not to reopen all our old grievances again. Certain concessions have already been made to the oudstryders and certain concessions are also contained in this Bill, but it seems to me that the same thing we have had in the past is going to happen here again; it is all going to be so much eyewash. There are only very few of those people left, and I ask the Government to treat the old soldiers alike in every possible respect, and not merely to say on paper that this, that or the other is going to be done for them, while in actual fact they are going to get nothing. Take the oudstryders of the second War of Independence—there are only a small lot of them and most of them are physically unfit. The difficult times they have passed through have had such serious effects on their health that they are quite unfit today. Come, let us help those people now so that they in their old age, like old soldiers, may be properly looked after, may be able to live as they should live. Millions of pounds are going to be spent under the provisions of this Bill. The Government has declared war, it has asked those people to take part in the war, and it is the Government’s duty to look after them now, but do not forget the oudstryders. I am glad the Prime Minister is here. I spoke on a previous occasion of an old burgher who had accompanied him to Namaqualand in the Boer War and who only surrendered when peace was signed. That man’s health has deteriorated to such an extent that he is unable to do anything today and he is in dire straits. The man is illiterate. Ninety per cent. of the oudstryders of the Boer War are people who never had an opportunity of learning anything from books, they have never learned to make their living in that way. They are people who have had to work very hard, and in the war they lost all they had. They will never get on their feet again because they cannot compete with people who have gone to school and who are thoroughly educated. They are in trouble today, and I beg the Government to help those people and come to their aid. Today many of them have to live on gifts and favours. They don’t want gifts and favours; all they ask for is fair treatment in view of what they have gone through. I don’t want to say any more about this matter, but I do hope that the Minister will see his way to come to the aid of these people. There is something in this Bill that worries me, namely, in Clauses 70 and 75 of Chapter 2. I notice that a farmer’s son who joins up is to be treated on a basis of a bywoner.

I have already told the House that I am going to amend that provision.

I am glad to hear it. I fail to understand how any responsible individual could have put such a clause in the Bill. It seems very unfair to me, and I therefore hope that the Minister will carry out his promise to move an amendment. I know that the Minister of Finance is well disposed to the oudstryders, and I ask him to have the courage to come to the aid of these people so that they can be treated on a footing of equality, so that we shall no longer have the type of discrimination which we had the other day between the widow of Gen. Bouwer and the widow of Gen. Collyer, when the one widow got £120 and the other one £400. Let us treat them all alike, and if that is done we shall have no objections.

There has never been a measure before this House which calls for a higher sense of responsibility on the part of members than the one placed before us today, namely, the War Pensions Bill, which aims at providing pensions for the sufferers in the present war under conditions which will give satisfaction to the large number of people in South Africa who will be affected by the decisions to be taken under this Bill. I am sorry, therefore, that it falls to our lot to pass this Bill in the last few days of the present session of Parliament, because although I have had a long association with pension questions, and I have made a wholehearted effort to satisfy myself that the present Bill will meet adequately every case that is likely to occur, I remain diffident as to its completeness, because the people of the Union as a whole have not yet had an opportunity of knowing precisely what is contemplated under this Bill, and their opinion can therefore only be expressed after the Bill has become law. For my own part I should be willing to continue to sit in Cape Town for another week, so as to give the people of the Union opportunities of more careful consideration of this Bill than will be possible in present circumstances, and I feel that there are many other members who hold similar views. The provisions made in the new Bill constitute a great improvement upon the Act which is at present in force, but there is still room for further improvement in the Bill as it stands. The Minister of Finance has explained to this House the advantages to be derived by volunteers and their dependants from the present Bill. I shall be brief in dealing with some of the obvious defects of the measure. First and foremost, let me point out how fatal it would be to try and discriminate in the award of pensions between one class of volunteer and another. Section 4 of the Bill speaks under Subsection (a) of volunteers whose disablement “is either attributable to or aggravated by military service outside the Union” and under Sub-section (b) refers to another class, whose disablement “has arisen out of and in the course of the discharge of military service within the Union.” There are therefore two separate classes whose claims are determined under separate conditions. Under (a) the range of pensionable cases is much wider than that under (b), the first including as pensionable, cases of disablement or death occurring whilst the volunteer outside the Union is on leave; and the second excluding all such cases—and confining pensionable disablement to that arising out of “and in the course of the discharge of the volunteer’s military service in the Union.” See what a variety of cases can be rejected under Sub-section (b). It will be contended, for example, that cases of sickness, and disablement resulting therefrom, have not arisen “out of and in the course of the discharge of military service within the Union,” and pensions will be withheld from volunteers coming under Subsection (b) for the resulting disablement, where they will be awarded to those fallingunder Sub-section (a) for precisely similar disablement occurring outside the Union. Closer investigation will show that discrimination under the Bill goes even further than merebly prescribing that one class of volunteer outside the Union shall be covered for pension purposes at all material times, whilst those serving within the Union shall be covered only for disablement or death “arising out of and in the course of their discharge of military service.” Let us consider the effect of this phase of discrimination if, for example, a raid of the Cape Peninsula were to take place, and a shell dropped by a raiding airman were to destroy the men’s quarters of a coast battery —killing say five coast artillerymen not on duty, and five men, not on duty, belonging to a unit serving within the Union. The widows of the artillerymen would be entitled to their pensions: those of the other unit would receive nothing, though the volunteers affected were all killed by the same shell. I am assuming that in both cases the men would be not on duty. To embody this kind of discrimination in a Pensions Act intended to command universal confidence, would be a mistake. I favour the abolition of any differentiation in this Pension Bill between one class of volunteer and another, and for that reason I suggest that pensionable disablement should be defined in similar terms by Section 4 for volunteers serving within or outside the Union. Now that an enemy attack on the Union may be regarded as imminent, there remains no reasonable ground for differentiation. In the course of the debate on a War Pensions motion introduced by me on 27th January, 1942, I attributed the main ground of dissatisfaction against the pensions administration, to the 1941 amendment of the War Pensions Act, which laid it down that disablement must be wholly attributable to military service. My conclusion on this point was more than borne out by the Minister’s reply to a question which is printed in columns 961-2 of Hansard of the 27th January, 1942. The figures included in his reply showed that out of 1,423 claims for pensions, 348 awards had been made and 615 claims rejected. The Minister added that the main ground for the rejection of ex-volunteers’ claims was that the disability was neither due to nor aggravated by military service. The figures relating to widows’ claims show that out of 735 claims there were 364 awards and 93 rejections. Here again, the Minister stated that the main ground for the rejection of widows’ claims was that the cause of death was neither due to nor aggravated by military service. We must not overlook the fact that 93 widows, whose husbands died on active service, are still without a penny of compensation for the loss of their husbands owing to the possibility of the death of their husbands not being attributable to military service. In the case of parents and other dependants, there were 781 claims, of which 105 were rejected upon the same grounds as in the case of volunteers and widows, and also upon the additional ground that there was no dependancy of pecuniary need. The Minister’s admissions, and the figures quoted, show clearly that we must guard against the danger of claims being rejected upon the grounds that have been responsible for so high a proportion of rejections hitherto. I do not consider that the wording of the present Bill is sufficiently clear to prevent the Military Pensions Board from continuing to reject claims on the grounds disclosed in the Minister’s reply of the 27th January, 1942. Something is needed to assure every volunteer that if he signs on as a fit man and returns from the war broken in health or disabled by wounds, his pension is guaranteed to him by the wording of the Pensions Act, and if he does not return, that his wiodw’s claim to a pension is amply protected. To my mind that measure of confidence which we should seek to inspire in the mind of every volunteer, can only be gained by our including in this Act, at the end of Section 4, the proviso which is embodied in the Southern Rhodesia pensions regulations in the following terms—

We cannot hope to do justice to the volunteers by means of the new War Pensions Bill alone, unless we also give consideration to the cases of the present War that have already been rejected. It would be a traversty of justice if we were now to pass a more generous War Pensions Act for future cases, and yet to provide no redress for those claims arising from the present War that have been rejected. Under the present Bill provision must be made for the consideration anew of all rejected claims, including those of the widows and parents and other dependants whose claims have been unsuccessful. Where a claimant desires a fresh medical examination he should be entitled to be examined by a new Medical Pensions Board, — without any reference whatsoever to the record of his previous examination. Under Section 17 (1) defining cases in which widows are entitled to pensions, the objectionable feature of discrimination between the widows of one class of volunteer and another is again legalised. We must remember that already 93 widows, whose husbands were killed or died whilst on active service, are without pensions or gratuities of any kind. The definition in Sec. 17 (1), if it remains unaltered, will considerably add to this number, and there will be more war widows turned away without pensions or compensation. I do not overlook the provisions of Sec. 20, which appears to allow the Commissioner of Pensions to authorise the payment of a pension to a widow disqualified from receiving one under Section 17, if her husband at the time of his death was suffering from a pensionable degree of disablement of not less than 40 per cent. This provision again strengthens my objection to finely drawn differentiations between one widow and another. I favour the amendment of Section 17 (1) so as to include thereunder all war widows who have lost their husbands whilst on active service whether within the Union or beyond its borders. Sub-section 5 of Section 17 provides for a gratuity of £132 to the widow of a volunteer who is killed or dies in the circumstances described in Sub-section (1), but this condition will disqualify a considerable number of widows from receiving this gratuity or any other form of relief, because their claim is governed by the present definition of Section 17 (1). There is the further objection that the proposed gratuity is not to be granted unless the death of the volunteer occurred on or after the 1st day of April 1942—this is indeed discrimination of a most objectionable character.

Are you referring to gratuities?

Yes why should the widows whose husbands had already laid down their lives before the 1st. of this month, be disqualified from receiving a gratuity intended to alleviate their immediate pecuniary need on the loss of their breadwinner. This discrimination will be condemned very strongly by the public of this country. The definition of pre-war earnings presents a very difficult problem. In the Bill these earnings are defined as the average monthly earnings of a volunteer during the twelve months for such lesser period as the Military Pensions Board may determine preceding the 6th day of September, 1939, or his enlistment, whichever date is the more advantageous to the volunteer, but men on a sliding scale of civil pay will be at a disadvantage. A distributive worker after four years gets £12 10s. per month; after six years, £21. If his earnings are defined as £12 10s., he cannot qualify for the alternative pension, but he could do so if the duration of the war advanced him to the £21 rate of pay. The determination of farmers sons’ pre-war earnings, as provided for in the Bill, will be regarded as humiliating to every farmer’s son who has gone on active service. His earnings are to be taken at the value of remuneration of overseers of farms—not farm managers— in the same district.

I have already said we are going to amend that.

We don’t want to humiliate the farmer’s son. I estimate that under the Bill he will fail to reach pre-war earnings of more than £250 per annum, whilst the lad who goes on active service at the end of his university career, never having earned a penny, is rated at the maximum of £450 per annum. The farmer’s son is surely entitled to the same maximum. The National Council of Women has asked what provision will be made for young men and women who joined up direct from school although they had intended entering universities? They will fail to be included under Section 2, Sub-section (4), and the decrease of their parents’ incomes may prevent them from entering universities at the end of the war. The Minister of Finance has pointed out that the rates of pension are to be substantially increased, but a prominent journal in South Africa has made this comment on that subject—

On the subject of pensions for non-Europeans the National Council of Women point out that the Act 41 of 1920, under which most of the non-Europeans enlisted, fixed a rate equal to three-fifths of the European volunteer’s rate—but the present Bill proposes a rate which is less than half that payable to the European volunteer or his widow. In the opinion of the National Council of Women the pension of £132 for a European widow is inadequate in cities. Investigations made in Cape Town, even before the war, showed that a woman alone could not live decently under £10 per month, and the cost of living has gone up since then. Already cost of living allowances are being paid by the Government and all prominent firms. The National Council of Women suggests that provision for the addition of a cost of living allowance should toe included in the Act until such time as prices of commodities become stabilised again in South Africa. Objection has also been raised by the Council of Women to discrimination against Nurses and other women volunteers in regard to the pensions payable for the various percentages of disablement. They complain that for total disablement a woman is to draw a pension less in amount by £50 than that payable to a man of the same rank: and further, that a totally disabled soldier may receive an extra £100 for an attendant, whilst the woman’s allowance for such an attendant is only £30 p.a.

That is not correct.

It is included in their written statement.

They made a mistake.

The Council moreover asks why a child must be proved to be entirely dependent on the mother before a child’s allowance can be given to a woman volunteer while the same condition is not stipulated in the case of a male volunteer. The National Council of Women is opposed to sex discrimination in connection with the amount and the awarding of pensions,—and in view of the fine response which the women volunteers have made and the character of their service, there seems to me no justification for any such discrimination. There is in addition the question of the marriage of a pensioner who receives an award under this Act. Section 9 limits the period within which the pensioner can marry to two years if the allowances to his wife and children are to be granted. I think the provision in the Bill would be a very difficult provision to comply with. Young men who come back from the war find their affairs in great chaos, and it may be difficult for them to arrange to marry before the two years expire. In other countries I believe a longer period has been allowed, as much as 10 to 15 years. I suggest that this period should be extended to 15 years, and I hope that the Minister will agree to the extension. Under the same section a dependent parent or brother or sister may be substituted for the wife and children, but only if the unmarried volunteer was 80 per cent. disabled. It seems to me that it is going to confine the cases to a very small number if it only applies to the 80 per cent. disabled volunteer. This should surely apply to unmarried volunteers whose disablement does not reach 80 per cent. Section 21 deals with the question of separated wives, and under sub-Section (2) the Military Pensions Board is empowered to decide whether the woman was to blame for the separation and to withhold an award in such a case. The Board is also entitled to withhold an award if the separation took place two years before his enrolment. Both these provisions seem to me to be extarneous to a pension law. If the woman is separated, the Board should accept it as an accomplished fact and not withhold the war pension under any conditions unless she is divorced, and the question of her maintenance has been settled by the court. It seems to me that we should be interfering in a manner that would be resented if the Military Pensions Board were to be asked to take upon itself troublesome cases of this kind. I have no wish to delay the discussion on this Bill. I put these suggestions to the Minister in the most friendly manner, and I hope he will take them into consideration.

On behalf of the oudstryders I want to thank the Minister of Finance most sincerely for the promise he made this morning that he would nextyear review the Pensions Act for oudstryders. The Minister is an honourable man, and I am quite convinced therefore that he will go properly into the case of the oudstryders next year. He would not have made this promise here otherwise, but I want the Minister to remember that the oudstryders did not have an opportunity of putting their case before the Commission which the Minister appointed some time ago. They were not notified that the Commission was travelling through the country. The Secretary or the Chairman never called meetings of oudstryders, he never called a meeting of the Committee, to give them the opportunity of meeting the Commission. It is necessary therefore for the Minister again to meet the new organisation of the oudstryders so that they can put their case before him properly before the law is revised.

I am quite willing to do so.

I want to tell the Minister that we are not going to make political propaganda out of this; we are only too grateful for what he has done for the oudstryders in the past and for what he has promised to do for them again. I want to give the Minister the assurance that we are very grateful for the fact that he is providing for a hundred per cent. increase in the pensions of the oudstryders who were wounded in the Boer War, as shown in this Bill. I notice that a man, who is a hundred per cent. unfit and gets £104, is in future to get £200, and this also applies to the widows of the oudstryders: where a woman today gets £66 she will henceforth get £132 per year. This concession being made at a very late stage in the lives of the oudstryders or of their widows. But I am grateful for the fact that at long last the Minister has taken their case into account. I am convinced that if the newspapers would thoroughly explain the whole position so that the oudstryders would understand it exactly, there would be many grateful hearts in the Union tomorrow for the concessions which the Minister of Finance is giving. Now there is one other matter, too, which I am very grateful for, and that is this, that an oudstryder whose income is only £3 per month will not be held to be getting an adequate income, but will still be entitled to a pension —an old age pension or an oudstryder’s pension—whatever the case may be. You often come across a man whom you can give a job, allowing him to earn perhaps 5s. or 10s. per day for a few days every month. If a man is so employed, he has to report the fact that he has earned that money and it is then deducted from his pension. I feel that that is very unfair, and under this Bill those people are allowed, if their income is only £3 per month, to draw a little bit of a pension in addition. Now I want to know from the Minister whether the £18 per year which is given to invalids who have been wounded will also apply to the oudstryders who are today confined to their beds—no matter whether they were wounded in the last war or not? I only got up to raise these few points, and I want to give the Minister the assurance that I am very grateful for what he is doing, and I am sure the oudstryders will also be very grateful. I have always had a soft spot for them, because they constitute a part of our nation which to a large extent is too poor to make ends meet—they have too little to live on and too much to die on. Those people have sacrificed everything for their country and their people, and I can tell the House that they are perishing today from starvation and misery in the slums of our big towns. That is why I am so grateful for what they are now to be given. Only a very few of them are left. I do not think there are more than a thousand who will be receiving these increased pensions, but I am glad for the sake of those thousand, and I again want to thank the Minister for what he has done for the oudstryders and for their widows.

I am sure the House will have listened with great appreciation to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst). To receive thanks and appreciation from members of the Opposition shows that the Bill itself before the House is a very good Bill indeed, and I think it is fair to say that the measure that has been proposed by the Government will meet with general approval throughout the country. During the last few days a Committee composed of Government Party members of this House have met and have given very careful consideration to this matter, and if many of us do not speak this afternoon, it is because we want to get this Bill through, and we want to get it through quickly, and there will perhaps be an opportunity in the Committee stage to deal with one or two particular points. But what I would like to say is this, that during the examination of this Bill by that Committee many of the points which have been raised by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) and others, were raised in that Committee; representations were made to the Minister, and I think I can say that the Minister has met the point of view that has been expressed by that Committee, and I understand that he will meet the majority of the points we have raised. The reference that the hon. member for Vrededorp made to oudstryders will, I am sure, find particular satisfaction amongst the Afrikaans speaking members on this side of the House, because they appreciate the steps taken by the Government and the promise this Bill contains of widening the scope of the pensions, and they also appreciate the assurance that further investigation will be made in regard to this matter. But there is another matter, too, which probably affects the Afrikaans speaking members more than the English speaking members, and that is the section dealing with farmers’ sons. The farming representatives gave very careful attention to that section, and the Minister has stated that he appreciates the point of view raised by the Committee, and that he will endeavour to give effect to it. I think it is fair to say that the committee felt that the farmers’ sons should be placed in no worse position than any other section of the community. Then with regard to certain sections here which more particularly affect the women. It is quite impossible to go into all the clauses this afternoon, but there is one particular point for which the hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) was particularly responsible. Owing to the representations made by that committee, I understand the Minister is prepared to accept certain amendments with regard to this clause. There are other matters on which the women members of the House feel particularly strongly, and I know that they would be most anxious to meet the Minister with regard to some of these points, matters on which they are particularly qualified to speak, and I am sure that if they have the opportunity to speak—to the Minister—it will be possible to remove what they consider to be serious injustices. I know they feel very strongly on the question of the minimum of £150 in comparison with the £200 for men. They feel that there is no reason for this differentiation. No doubt they will make their representations to the Minister on that point. I think it is unnecessary this afternoon to go into the various clauses because, as I say, we have made representations, and I understand most of proposed amendments will be carried out. I am sorry that there has been criticism from certain sections outside the House with regard to this Bill, obviously from quarters that could never have seen the Bill. I submit that to say that the provisions of this Bill are beggarly is not very fair and does the Government less than justice in its effort to meet the situation. Where pensions have been doubled, where no doubt the Government would very much like to go further, one must realise that there are certain financial difficulties. The Government had gone very far indeed in the measures it has taken, and the opportunities we have had to consult those organisations that are so closely associated with the soldiers and their dependants, clearly indicate that this Bill has given general satisfaction, and that it is very fair indeed, and I would like, on behalf of all those members who have been associated during the last day or two in making representations to the Government, to express thanks, and if I may, the thanks of the community as a whole, for introducing a measure which is generous in its intentions, which is generous in its implications, and which will, I think, very materially help to relieve the burden which will fall perhaps on many homes. I am certain this Bill will give general satisfaction to those soldiers who have been fighting the battle for us in this country.

I listened attentively to the last speaker who said that the Government was very generous in its war pensions for wounded people and for those left behind. I always stand up for a soldier, but I feel that the Government is today proposing to give these war pensions not so much because it wants to be generous to these people who are wounded, but because it wants to give a fillup to its recruiting campaign.

That’s a very mean remark.

When was the first war pension awarded in South Africa? The first time a war pension was granted was at the time of the Jameson Raid. Two of our Burghers were wounded and the old Republic awarded those two people a pension of £4 per month, but it was taken by that Government over there. Those two people were Herklaas Cronje who has since died, and Jan Van der Berg, who was wounded in the War of Independence. His pension was taken away. Now these pensions are put up as a bait to our people to get them to join up and go to the Front. But we should first of all put right what has been neglected in the past and if we do not rectify those things, we have not the right to hold out a bait to our people to get them to sacrifice their lives. After the Second War of Independence in which our people shed their blood, in which many of our men were maimed, they were shewn no mercy. When were the first war pensions revived again? After the world war when the British section itself had men who were wounded. It was then that war pensions were established and they then told our people that they should also get pensions. I must say that I felt very hurt that those people who had fought against us were given pensions after the War of Independence while our own Burghers did not get any pensions from the Republic. What compensation are our Burghers of those days getting today? Is there anything in this Bill for them? Let them make it retrospective so as to compensate those of our people who were wounded in the War of Independence. If that is done I shall be able to vote for this Bill, I always stand up for a soldier who has been wounded, and I want to give him what is due to him because he is willing to sacrifice everything. First of all, compensate those people who have suffered in the past. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) told the Minister that she was so deeply grateful for the aid given to the oudstryders. But it is only charity that is being given to them. I ask the hon. member whether if there were no war today, she would ever have seen any gesture of generosity shown to the oudstryders? No, never. But now there is a British Imperialistic war on, and now charity is beingdispensed, and I must be grateful for that! But an injustice has been done, and that injustice is not being remedied. I want to ask the Minister why he discriminates between a person who has been sixty per cent. invalided in the last war and the man who is invalided to the extent of sixty per cent. in this war? Why are they not all placed on the same basis?

They are on the same basis.

Are you not discriminating?

No.

Are you going to have a thorough enquiry made into the position of anyone who was wounded in the second War of Independence?

He will get the increased scale.

I have had experience of people who have been wounded and we know how difficult it is to get pensions for them. A lot depends on the sympathy of the Medical Board which has to deal with the cases of these individuals. We feel that there is discrimination as between race and race, and a great deal depends on the attitude of the Board towards the one race as compared with the other race. I object to the Medical Boards; we know what has happened there in the past. We have a feeling of sympathy for the people who have suffered, and the Medical Board also has sympathy with wounded people, but I know from experience how the Medical Board distinguishes between race and race, and that will happen again. I have had many men with me through the War of Independence, and many of them are today unfit and in dire distress. They are old, they have reached the end of their days; they are in bad health, they are cripples, and there is no future for them. They can turn nowhere for help. Let us be just to those people. Our people fought in the War of Independence without getting a penny compensation for what they did, and I cannot support this Bill until such time as those people have been compensated. I don’t want the 5s. per day which was promised by the Kruger Government, but still the promise was made. We had debts after the rinderpest. The Government gave people £150, and the British Government, the Colonial Government, wiped out my neighbour and other people and took that £150, but they refused to carry out the promise of the old Republican Government and pay the burghers what they were entitled to. I agree with the amendment, and if the amendment is not accepted I shall be unable to support the Bill, however much I may be in favour of it in many other respects.

There is no need for any individual member to be aware of the tremendous amount of work which has been put into this Bill between the passing of the motion for the acceptance of a new Pensions Act, and the Minister of Finance’s intimation that he proposed to introduce the Bill, to appreciate that a tremendous amount of difficulty has been overcome; and I would be the last to attempt to place any difficulty in the way of the hon. Minister to bring this Bill on to the Statute Book this session. But I feel I would be lacking in my responsibility were I not to express even at this stage, very shortly, some of the aspects which I hope the hon. Minister will take into consideration before he comes to the Committee stage. And my only intention in speaking at this stage is in order to ensure that when the Committee stage comes along it will not be said to members that the principle of the Bill has already been accepted, and “I am sorry the House cannot possibly now accept the amendment or the suggestion put forward by the hon. member.” Let me say at the outset that I commend the hon. Minister for the method in which he has co-operated with the organisations which have been set up for the sole purpose of looking after ex-servicemen. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has been in very close collaboration with eminent representatives who have given many, many years of serious care to the redressing of grievances suffered by ex-servicemen under the old Pensions Act, in drafting the measures that are now before the House. One thing I notice that the Minister did say to us, was that he had consistently and throughout the whole time of the preparation of this measure, been in collaboration with the British Empire Service League and other kindred organisations. I listened in vain for the Minister to say that he had accepted wholly the recommendations which have been put forth by that body. I do not suppose he could have done so. But he never even said that the majority of their recommendations had been accepted. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock) has said that there has been a Committee of individuals in this House who have interested themselves in this measure, and who have made certain suggestions to him as Chairman of that Committee, which he has passed on to the Minister of Finance, and that the Minister of Finance has given him the assurance that most of the representations put forward by that Committee would be considered at the Committee stage. The Minister of Finance has given me the assurance that most of the representations put forward by that Committee would be conceded at the Committee stage. I don’t know what those representations were, or what the proposed amendments will be, but I think they fall short of what is required. The hon. Minister told us that an amendment which he proposes to introduce in the Committee stage is intended to deal with disabilities suffered by men serving overseas and returned to this country. That is a concession which will undoubtedly prove very beneficial, but it does not go far enough. Soldiers serving in the last war had a grievance, which was this. Men serving in East Africa were subjected to disease and pestilence which were not the lot of those serving on the Western front. Many of the men returned to this country suffering from malaria, and where they were given a 20 per cent. pension for a period of three months, and although there were recurrences of the disease, the pension was not renewed. I venture to say out of my own experience, scores and scores of men whose health was seriously undermined by malaria, were denied relief by virtue of the fact that subsequent recurrences of the disease were assumed to be anything or nothing. The men got nothing more, although they suffered considerable deterioration in their condition, a deterioration which sometimes even caused their death. I know of one instance where a man was given a 20 per cent. pension and subsequently he went to hospital. While he was in hospital his pension was raised to 100 per cent., which was only natural, but subsequently he lost the pension. He subsequently died from a condition which the post mortem examination showed to be cerebral malaria. The Military Pensions Board refused to grant his wife a pension. She was a woman with seven children and because her husband had died during the period when he was not in receipt of a pension, she got no redress. Might I say here that with all the sympathy in the world, it was not possible to grant that woman a pension. After about 18 months she came to this House and was granted a pension as a matter of charity. I want these loopholes shut up in this new Act. One further case I should like to put: a man who was discharged suffering from defective vision, and his condition was diagnosed as being due to a cerebral tumour. He steadily went blind, and after twelve months he was totally blind. For more than 22 years that man claimed that his disability of blindness was due to his military service. But it was held that as no fresh evidence could be adduced, no pension was granted, nor was it possible for the Board to review his case. Repeated representations were made to the Pensions Board and it was only after 21 or 22 years consistent knocking at the door of the Military Pensions Board that a petition was subsequently introduced into this House and was only withdrawn on the assurance that the Military Pensions Board would reconsider the case. It was only after the passing of the 1919 Act that the Military Pensions Board conceded that man the pension which he had been denied for a period of 21 or 22 years. It is true that they paid him a matter of £3,000 odd and gave him a more or less substantial pension, but it is these cases which have engendered a certain amount of suspicion, if one may call it suspicion, in regard to the administration of the Pensions Act. There is no man in the Union of South Africa, outside the representative organisations, who has fought the Military Pensions Board more than I have myself, and I should like at this stage to say that every time I have been before the Pensions Board, or the appeal tribunal, I have been received with the utmost consideration and sympathy, and although I have disagreed with them in every case where I have failed to get a concession, I am bound to say that in many instances it has been the Act itself and not any unsympathetic administration which has caused the grievance. One other aspect of this Bill that has been touched upon by the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick), is the treatment of non-Europeans. The hon. member for Illovo drew an analogy between the generous provisions of the Act as applied to Europeans with those applicable to nonEuropeans. May I say, sir, as the only 100 per cent. disabled member of this House, that no amount of pension or compensation can be considered adequate or generous for the loss of physical or mental powers. There is no man who has received either in the last war, or in the present war, a total disablement injury who is not prepared to exchange twice the generosity expressed in the Pensions Bill in order to be placed back in the physical or mental condition that he enjoyed before he was injured. But, sir, that is the fortune of war, these are considerations which one appreciates when one assumes the responsibility of fighting for one’s country. And the war-disabled hundred per cent. sufferer is the last in the world to cavil at the fact that he has been the victim of total disablement. I consider that the Minister has been generous in his grant of £200 as a minimum for a war-disabled European soldier with an additional £100 in the event of the person being unable to earn any living, and another £100 for a dependant. I prefer the word “regular attendant” rather than “constant attendant’” because in some physical disabilities one has to have at least two attendants, and you cannot get attendants, sir, for £100 per annum. Attendants usually cost one a matter of about £300, and when one has to carry more than one attendant, one considers the provision in this Bill is not over-generous. However, a 100 per cent. disabled European can now get £400 per annum as the minimum laid down in the schedule. When one considers this in relation to the former Bill, it is very much more generous. Now, sir, our Non-Europeans can also suffer 100 per cent. disablement and may I say that my experience is that a non-European who suffers a disability involving the complete loss of his physical or mental powers, is very much more of a derelict in society than his European counterpart, who has a higher and more stable cultural background. I am satisfied that a coloured man with a total disablement finds it more difficult to bear than would a European.

No.

An hon. member says “No” and he is possibly speaking from a wider experience than mine, but I venture to say that down as a fundamental fact. Under the provisions of the 1919 Act a non-European receives three-fifths of the European ratio, and in the amending Bill of last year that is increased to two-thirds, but in this Bill it has fallen to three-eighths. In other words, sir, under the 1919 Bill on a £100 basis, threefifths entitled a coloured soldier to receive by way of compensation. Under the Bill introduced last year, or rather amended last year, the rate was increased so that he received £67 13s. 4d.

No, there was no such increase.

I understood the Minister had increased it to two-thirds, but he has reduced it now to three-eights. In other words, three-eights is exactly £75 as a maximum which a coloured 100 per cent. disabled soldier can receive. In other words, he has increased it from £60 to £75, but the ratio in regard to the European has fallen from three-fifths to three-eights. I venture to suggest that that is not in keeping with the representations which have been made by organisations speaking on behalf of coloured ex-servicemen. May I say that I think the Prime Minister has indicated to the country that non-European people are getting a larger share in the combatant forces than they anticipated at the time of their original enlistment. The coloured man in South Africa holds himself as second to none in his desire to serve the country, and if there is any falling-off of recruiting it is because they feel that the appeal is being made to them to serve in the non-combatant rather than in the combatant forces. I have a list of coloured men who are waiting to serve in the navy. I know of 250 coloured men in Cape Town who are waiting and anxious to join a combatant service. Now what is the compensation offered if their wives should become widows. It is not of a very generous nature considering that the woman loses her breadwinner and her lifelong companion, and considering also this provision in relation to that made in the case of the European soldier. The provision of £10 a year offered to the woman to look after the child is not generous when it is remembered that when coloured orphan children are placed in institutions the Minister is prepared to pay £13 10s. for each child, and where children are placed with foster parents the Minister is prepared to give the foster parents £15 for each child. I feel it is very difficult to see why this differentiation should be made between the child whose father was killed in battle for his country, and the child whose parent was a peace casualty of one kind or another. I would like the Minister, before the Committee stage, to review the recommendations which have been placed before him by the ex-service men’s organisations. I feel he will be doing himself an injustice if be does not review these awards. It is not sufficient to say that this grant of £75 a year for a 100 per cent. disabled coloured soldier is better than the old age pension to Europeans. It is not logical or right to compare the old age of invalidity pension to what is offered to a war disabled soldier in this Bill. It has been the practice of every country which has ever introduced a War Disabilities Pensions Bill to grant compensation to the wreckage of war on a higher basis than that which is generally conceded to peace casualties. In commending this Bill and thanking the Minister for what he has given, I do ask him to open his hands a little wider in order to ensure that the coloured soldier will not fall in his status in relation to the European, as from threefifths to three-eighths.

I am very sorry that such an important Bill as this has been introduced at such a late stage in the session. The majority of us have not had sufficient time to go through this important Bill. For that reason I hope that when we get to the Committee stage the Minister of Finance will accept reasonable amendments, when we move those amendments. We are dealing here with a Pensions Bill which makes provision for people who offered their all and who were prepared to step into the breach—I do not want to say at all times for South Africa, because I maintain that the present war is not a South African war —but insofar as the principle is concerned, people who were prepared to do their duty because they were of opinion that it was their duty, and who did not flinch, but who came forward and offered their services to the State. Provision must be made for those people. I believe that I am speaking for everyone in this House when I tell the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen), that when we look at him we always realise that we are more privileged than he is, and he correctly said that no money in the world could compensate a person who suffered 100 per cent. as he did. I fully agree with him, and I say that it is the duty of the State, when such a man is maimed in that way, at least to take care of him for the rest of his life. But when we talk about this Bill, then there is one aspect of it which strikes me, and it is that section of the Bill which makes provision for our oudstryders. I said last year, and I want to repeat it here, that the present Minister of Finance is the only Minister of Finance who came forward with a real plan to make some slight provision for those oudstryders. When we think of the men who were maimed in the World War, and who will probably become maimed in this war, then we think of people who went to fight for remuneration. But when we think what the lot of the oudstryder was—he offered everything without payment, and for two years and ten months they were on the battlefield in the interests of South Africa—then I say it is one of the greatest injustices which any nation could have permitted in not making proper provision for those people when the time arrived to do so. Last year the Minister of Finance, in introducing this Bill, heard this from me —he will remember that I immediately went to see him and that I told him that the provision which was being made was too meagre. It is too much to die and too little to live on. I expected that the Minister would make provision in this Bill, because at that time he told me that we should give his proposals a chance, and if it appeared that the provision was insufficient, an alteration could be made. I expected that in this Bill the Minister would make provision, because I am convinced that he must have received hundreds of objections and protests during the past ten months against the meagre pensions which we paid to the oudstryders. It is true that in submitting this Bill the Minister said that he was considering the matter, and that the following year he would introduce a revised Pensions Bill for oudstryders; and if it were not for the fact that the Minister made that promise, I would certainly not have voted for this Bill. I feel that that Bill has only been in operation for eight or ten months, and since I know that the Minister is negotiating with the oudstryders, I am prepared to give the Minister another year; and let him then introduce a liberal Bill which will at least alleviate the lot of those old people. Then I should like to know this from the Minister. The pension which is being paid to the oudstryders at the moment is £1 10s. and £2 per month. I know of cases where many of these people who receive this pension received notice that the pension had been reduced. Now I should like the Minister to tell me whether the provision in this Bill which provides for wounded oudstryders means that the original pension will be doubled, or will it mean that the reduced pension is doubled? I should also like to know from the Minister whether this Bill will make provision for the widows of the oudstryders when they die? There are many cases in the platteland of honourable and respectable oudstryders in regard to whom I can give the House the assurance that they are really suffering great hardship, and that they are eating the bread of sorrow. I know that the Prime Minister, who lived through those times with these people, is sympathetic towards them, and I hope that when the Minister of Finance introduces legislation next year in order to remove that injustice, he will make provision for more liberal scales of pensions for those people. I am grateful that the Minister is proposing in this Bill that the pension laid down by law will practically be doubled in the case of oudstryders who were wounded. I am grateful for that, and because I say that the Minister is making provision for wounded oudstryders and has definitely promised us that he will introduce an amended Bill next year in order to make liberal provision for the oudstryders, my Party and I will vote for this Bill.

I appreciate that the time for discussion of this Bill is short, and I will be as brief as possible. When the matter of war pensions was discussed at an earlier stage of the session, we on these Benches took up the attitude that the African soldier and his dependants should be treated on the same basis as the coloured soldiers and their dependants. Now this Bill does not meet that request, but I want to say this at once, that this Bill is certainly a considerable improvement, as far as the African soldiers and their dependants are concerned, and we on these Benches do not propose to criticise, at any rate, the rates laid down. We recognise that an increase in a 100 per cent. disability pension from £38 to £50 per year plus wives’ and children’s allowances is a substantial increase, and also the provision of separate rates for the wives and children instead of simply lumping them together with other dependants, as used to be done—that provision also is a gain, and we are also very glad to see that the provision of the alternative pension scheme has also been applied to the African soldiers. We could not see what case there could ever be for not applying that. And that is an obvious improvement in the Bill. Although we have not got all we wanted, I do not propose to criticise the rates, because, the situation being what it is, I recognise that it is inevitable that a lower rate will be laid down for African soldiers and their dependants, however much we on these Benches dislike that principle, as we have told the House time and again, we do dislike the principle of racial discrimination. But there are certain matters to which I want to draw attention. I do not know whether they were included in error, but certain cases of discrimination do exist. I am not referring now to discrimination in regard to rates, but substantive discriminations, discriminations in the manner of the administration of the law and also the discriminations which leave out of account altogether for the native soldiers and their dependants certain benefits which are accorded to soldiers and dependants of other races. The first thing I want to draw attention to briefly is this, that as I read this Bill—I hope I am wrong—but as I read it, whereas in cases of soldiers of other races their rates are guaranteed, in the case of native soldiers and their widows the rates are discretionary only, they are maximum rates, which may be fixed at a lower level by administrative action. I want to draw attention to the wording of Section 31. I am only taking this as an example. Section 31, Sub-section (1), reads as follows—

1. (a) to the widow or widows, a pension not exceeding £25 per annum for each widow, together with allowances not exceeding £6 per annum for each child of the volunteer;
2. (b) to parents or other dependants a gratuity not exceeding £50.

Now I must say I would regard it as a reasonable provision if it were limited to one widow only. But the corresponding rate in what we may call the European chapter of the Bill lays down a definite rate. And also in Section 30, with regard to the disablement pension of a volunteer, the words are used “not exceeding the rates indicated in the second schedule.” I think it will be found that the words “not exceeding” do not appear in the rates applying to other races. If these words have no significance, then I think it would be better to amend that section and to bring it into line with the sections applicable to other races, but if it has the significance which I think it has, from a legal point of view, then it seems to me that that case of discrimination is not justified. The Minister says in the cases of European and coloured beneficiaries “these are the rates.” Well, let us have that right throughout. We hope the Minister will give that matter his serious consideration before the Committee stage. Now, the other aspect of this Bill to which I referred was the provision made in the case of many classes of European and coloured persons where there is no corresponding provision for the natives. I only want to take a few examples. If I went through all the cases I would not be able to keep my promise to be brief. For instance, in Section 20 of the Bill, where a pensioner dies not of a war disability but from natural causes, his widow and children get half the compensation which they were getting subject to a maximum of the rate embodied in the third schedule. Now, in the case of a native pensioner who was suffering from disability, so far as I read the Bill, if he dies his widow and children get nothing. Whatever the widow and children got stops. With regard to parents, the European pension is £100 per annum, and the Coloured provision is a little less. With regard to the Native parent, there a gratuity is given. I submit that a pension is a much safer way of compensating people. If the Minister had taken the same proportion with regard to parents’ pensions as he has taken in the case of children’s allowances, namely of 5 to 1—a European child gets five times the allowance that a native child gets—that would have meant a pension for a native parent of £20 per annum. That would be £1 13s. 4d. per month and that would have been something. Another example is that of a European soldier and a Coloured soldier who can get a 50 per cent. increase to his pension if he is permanently beridden or disabled from earning. There is no such provision for the native soldier. The dependants of an unmarried soldier, of a European or Coloured unmarried soldier, can allow his benefits to go to his parents or his brothers or sisters. The man is unmarried and is often unmarried because he has people dependant on him for support. Again there is no provision for the dependants of natives. Those are cases which I want to draw attention to, not because we are quarrelling with the rates laid down for natives but in cases like these no rates are laid down at all. There must be some oversight, because if it is equitable that, for instance the widow of a pensioner should get a pension there does not seem to be any person for any racial distinction. I am not criticising the rates but why a widow and the children of a native pensioner should have all these benefits stopped when the man dies is very difficult to see. I think this must be a point which has been overlooked, and I think it is reasonable that there should be a clause in the Native chapter of the Bill similar to what there is in the Coloured chapter. In the Coloured chapter there is a drag net clause where it is laid down that wherever there is no special benefit laid down the benefit shall be a proportion of the European benefit. We urged originally for a similar proportion for natives as for coloureds. We realise at this stage that that demand is not going to be granted, and therefore I want to put this to the Minister in all earnestness—is it not reasonable for us to ask for a similar drag net clause to be included in the Native chapter—laying down a similiar proportion of 5 to 1 for the native? That is the proportion as between European and native children allowances. We ask that in the case of all these other types of dependants for which no provision exists or only a gratuity provision, that the same proportion of 5 to 1 should exist. These are the main questions I want to put — the abolition of the discretionary provision for natives in the Seventh Schedule of the Bill, and also the question of filling up these gaps providing some corresponding rates for the varying types of beneficiaries. Before I sit down there is just one point which I want to emphasise. I cannot see any defence for the discrimination between Europeans and Native children. Assuming the present provision in regard to a coloured child if that child is infirm and unable to make a living to be fair and reasonable, and assuming as the Bill provides that that allowance can be continued beyond the age laid down in such a case, then there can be no reason why there should not be a similar provision for the native child. That, again, is a case which appears to have been overlooked. There does not seem to be any reason why the infirm child of a native soldier should be in a worse position than the infirm child of a deceased coloured soldier. These are the points which we desire to put to the Minister to which we hope he will give his serious attention.

I rise to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District Mr. Haywood). I understand that this amendment is tantamount to this, that it seeks an equal basis of pensions for those who were wounded during the World War, those who were wounded and who will be wounded in this war, and the oudstryders. So that the oudstryders of the War of Independence, too, will enjoy the same State privileges as other citizens. If one of the hon. members on the other side can advance any evidence as to why this should not be done, we shall be glad to hear it. Why this discrimination? Surely it is clear that the oudstryders equally intended to defend their country and to give their blood and to sacrifice themselves as any one of the other soldiers. Why should there be discrimination? Is this a reasonable demand on our part or is it not? I say that it is a reasonable demand when we ask for an equal basis.

There is an equal basis.

I accept that, but what confronts us then. Why should the oudstryders be satisfied with £3 whilst another citizen receives a minimum of £8? What becomes of the so-called equal basis? What harm did the oudstryders do, what sins did they commit that they should receive less consideration than the ordinary soldier who was wounded in the war?

There is no difference.

There may be no difference insofar as wounded people are concerned, but the pensions of the oudstryders, as compared with those of soldiers who fought in the World War, vary.

There is no discrimination.

I ask the hon. members for Potchefstroom (Mr. H. van der Merwe), Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) and Kimberley, District (Mr. Steytler), whether they will honestly be able to explain to their electors why this distinction is being made?

Where is the discrimination?

Not with regard to wounded people, but with regard to pensions.

Where is the discrimination in the Act?

The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) expressed her thanks. We have nothing against the hon. member expressing thanks to the Minister for what he is still going to do, but I want to ask the other hon. members who say that there is no discrimination, why the Minister is leaving this important question of the oudstryders in abeyance until the next session? He promised to go into the matter, and to try to bring the oudstryders on a basis of equality. If there is no difference, surely that is not necessary. I am also grateful for the partial improvement which is being made, but the fact remains that the oudstryders are still in an unequal position. I want to try to remind the Minister of the fact that during the second War of Independence the oudstryders lost everything they possessed, and that they could never again recover. They received no payment, they were impoverished and ruined, and could not be rehabilitated again. They are only few in number now. Why does the Minister not take them into consideration immediately? We are grateful for the improvement made by the Minister with reference to wounded people and their widows, but the oudstryders also sacrificed their all and today they are in a sad plight. Take this case. An oudstryder receives £3 per month. Can that be called a pension? It is no pension if we compare it with what others get. It is an insult against the oudstryders, the citizens of Paul Kruger, that they should be discriminated against in this manner, and that those people who fought for the glory and splendour of Great Britain should be taken care of in a much better way. I believe in the honesty and the uprightness of the Minister of Finance, and in his high intellect, and we know what he accomplished in the past. We looked up to him with great expectations, and it would be a great pity if the Minister were now not to endear himself to a section of the community, if he were to disappoint those people. I cannot believe that he is deliberately discriminating in this manner. I believe that he is being forced to do it by others. If we really have to go so far as to believe that the Minister is deliberately discriminating, then we must believe what a scientist recently said, namely, that there is only a fine dividing line between genius and insanity. The Minister’s excuses for this discrimination are very vague, but the indisputable proofs stare us in the face. The one person gets £3 and the other a minimum of £8. We also know that when soldiers fought in the World War and returned, and received a pension of £12, they could earn more without their pension being affected. If, for example, a person was wounded in his left hand and received a pension of £12, and he was engaged in the civil service at a salary of £18 per month, the pension was not reduced as a result of that. But what do we find? We find that an oudstryder receives a pension of £3 today, and if his financial position improves slightly, the oudstryder’s pension is withdrawn. The moment there is a slight improvement in his financial position, the £3 is taken away. Is it fair when we compare the two cases? The other soldier may become a millionaire and the Minister will still pay this pension of £12, but if the oudstryder gets a pension of £3 and his financial position improves somewhat, he is deprived of his pension. I should like to read out a letter which was written to a certain A. E. Genis, of Vredendaal—

This Genis is an oudstryder. He cannot support himself. He is aged and he married a younger woman who, however, was not in the best of health; but she has a small cafe, and in the little place she made a nett profit of £50 during the first year they were together. For that reason he can no longer get his pension? Is that fair? By economy and industry she made a nett profit of £50. What can they do with that? They have to have clothes. They have to have the necessities of life. Now this person cannot get that pension, because the woman to whom he is married and who is semi-fit, succeeded in making £50 out of her business. I say, is that to the credit of a country like South Africa? Do you do that to the ordinary soldier, the ordinary soldier who draws a pension? I ask whether you do that in the case of the ordinary soldier? Decidedly not. But here you are doing it to the citizens of Paul Kruger, who sacrificed their blood, their possessions and their lives. Why this discrimination? Then without blushing the Minister says “We are not discriminating.” Then just a few other matters. How did the oudstryders sin? What are their sins, that they should be treated on this unequal basis? How did they sin? We come to this conclusion. Their only sin is that they did not fight for England. They fought against England; they were Boer combatants for their beloved Boer republics, and for that reason we find this discrimination. I feel that if they had fought for the Empire, their pensions would have been the same as any other pension of the soldier who fought for the Empire, but unfortunately their great crime, their great sin, was that they fought for South Africa. Well, if they sinned in doing that, who is more responsible for that great sin than the right hon. the Prime Minister himself, who took part in declaring war against Great Britain? Should he not step into the breach in order to assist his own citizens who assisted him in the dark hours of the war? Should he then not step into the breach to plead with the Minister of Finance to help him? That is their crime. I say I dispute that. Those citizens did heroic deeds by fighting for this country and freedom. They gave their blood and their lives just as any other soldier has ever done, with the very same initiative and daring. That was no crime. They need not be ashamed; they fought for a noble cause. I just want to point out to the Minister that after this war many coloured people will receive pensions. I believe that. Now you are giving the coloured person a pension of £6 of £8, whilst the oudstryder only receives £3. Will the Minister be able to face the people now that he is giving the coloured people a pension which is much higher than the pension he is giving the oudstryders? I want to point out to the Minister that there are not only oudstryders who support this side of the House, but there are oudstryders who receive that pension and who, even today, will offer their lives for the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. If you have no sympathy or feelings for the oudstryders, generally speaking, then be sympathetic towards that section which still stands by and believes in the hon. the Prime Minister. There is a home front, and when soldiers of the home front are injured in some manner or other, as a result of which they lose their health, they are considered for a pension. We have nothing against that, but just compare that with the position of the oudstryder who sacrificed everything for his country. Here a home-fronter receives a pension of £8 or £10, and that oudstryder is left out in the cold. Are there a million of them? No, the number still alive is so few that the loss which the Treasury will suffer will be very small, and becomes smaller every day. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. In talking here we are not motivated by feelings of hatred, but by a feeling of deep sympathy. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to take into consideration the case of Genis. He and his wife will be lost if that pension is taken away from him, and now for the sake of that meagre income of £50, this £3 per month has to be taken from him. I hope the Minister will give attention to this matter.

I think that the country has learned with disappointment of the statement of the Minister of Finance in regard to this matter. I say that because I am convinced that the oudstryders of this country looked forward with keenness and expectation to hearing what the Minister would say here today. Last year when we passed that Pensions Act which gave certain privileges to certain classes of oudstryders, the Minister told us that it could only be passed provided we did not oppose it. That little Act was so poor that it did not even make provision for the widow of an oudstryder. But then the hon. Minister clearly gave us to understand that this year he would introduce more comprehensive legislation. Now the Minister tells us that he did not have the time and the opportunity to bring before the House a more comprehensive measure this year, which will make provision for all the oudstryders. In the meantime, however, he has evolved a new system of pensions for soldiers down to the smallest detail. That is precisely why we feel dissatisfied. The Minister had time to work out a brand new system for all the soldiers, but he did not have time to work out a pension scheme for these oudstryders. In fact, he did not even take the trouble to appoint a Commission to assist him in this connection. I think the oudstryders will learn with keen disappointment of this statement on the part of the Minister. But if the Minister sincerely means what he told the House this afternoon, in saying that it was due to lack of time that he did not make provision for the oudstryders, I want to ask him, when he does so next year, whether he will introduce it with retrospective effect from the 1st April, 1942? If owing to pressure of circumstances and lack of time we cannot pass a measure this year which we know it is our moral duty to do, I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared, when he brings this measure before the House next year, to make it retrospective with effect from the 1st April, 1942, and in that way the oudstryder who now has to wait a year—or if he dies— his wife will have the right to institute a claim? The Minister gave the oudstryders to understand that they could expect a pension from him when he gets an opportunity to submit a detailed scheme to the House.

When am I supposed to have made that promise?

I am speaking from memory, but I am under the impression that the Minister said it by implication last year when we passed this little Bill.

Look at Hansard; you will not find it there.

I accept that the hon. Minister did not say it in so many words, but that was the effect of the Minister’s words. Those words on the part of the Minister to the effect that he did not have an opportunity, with regard to the oudstryders, to submit a detailed scheme to the House, gave us the impression that this year he would make proper provision for those people. For that very reason I am now asking the Minister, in submitting this legislation next year, to make it retrospective with effect from the 1st April, 1942. I also want to ask the Minister of Finance not to apply the means test to those people. As soon as you do that you get this state of affairs, that the one person who has an income of £50 gets a pension while the other person whose income is £60 does not get a pension. The application of the individual whose income is £60 is turned down, and the application of the other person whose income is £50 is agreed to. When it comes to farming, one does not know which person earns £50 and which person earns £60, because everything depends on how economically the person concerned controls his expenditure. I want to give the Minister an example. Under the Act which he passed last year, an old sickly oudstryder made application. He has an income of £40 per annum. He made application, and the reply which that oudstryder received from the department read as follows: “This application must be declined because of the income which the applicant had during the past year.” His income is £40 per annum, and the application is refused. If the Minister proposes to lay down a means test in the neighbourhood of £40, when making provision for pensions for oudstryders, I want to ask him this afternoon rather not to do anything, because in that case he will only be insulting these people. I want to plead with the Minister that in framing the measure which he contemplates this afternoon, he should leave out of account the means test. Let him say that he will treat all the oudstryders on an equal basis. Then I should also like to know this from the Minister. He says that he is now making provision for the widows of oudstryders. I understood that the Minister spoke of 120 oudstryders.

No, when am I supposed to have said that?

In that case, I suppose I got the figure from the return which the department has of the widows of oudstryders. I would like to know from the Minister what, in his opinion, is the widow of an oudstryder? What will be the position of a woman who was also in the war when her husband dies? What will that woman’s position be? Would she be entitled to an oudstryder’s pension if she is in straitened circumstances?

This applies to the widows of men who were killed during the second War of Independence.

The hon. member says this applies to widows of men who were killed in the second War of Independence, but I am not satisfied with that.

Do you want to go further?

Yes, I want to go further. I say that if she was an oudstryder in the sense that she also went through the war then she should immediately be entitled to that provision which the Minister contemplates. If that is not the case, you will have this state of affairs. The oudstryder may get a grant of £4 or £5 per month, and then he dies; immediately, the widow is left without a penny and she has nothing to subsist on. Very often the wife of that oudstryder suffered and sacrificed more than the oudstryder himself, and for that reason I appeal to the Minister not to leave out of account this widow in drafting the provisions which he contemplates. Then I also want to ask the Minister this. What will be the position of the oudstryder who has already received a gratuity of £30 or £60 in respect of wounds he received in final payment of his claims? You know that there were numerous cases where a person had a claim, where he was examined, and then said: We are giving you £50 and that is in final settlement. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether that £50 will be doubled, or what is he going to do in respect of those people? We would like him to tell us what he proposes to do, how these people will be treated under this new pension scheme which he explained here today. I want to plead that the ownership qualification should be fixed far from the present basis, if the Minister finds it necessary to apply a means test at all. In the second place I should like to have the assurance that the widow of an oudstryder will not be left penniless upon the death of such an oudstryder, but that she will immediately draw the pension of her husband. And in the third place I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that those people who received wounds and who received compensation in respect of such wounds, by way of cash payment, will receive the full compensation which the other pensioners will get under the Minister’s scheme.

In contrast with the hon. member for Delarey (Mr. Labuschagne) who has just sat down, and perhaps other members, I must say that this debate in so far as it relates to the position and the assistance, or rather the lack of assistance to oudstryders, made a very unpleasant impression on me, especially in connection with the amendment which has been introduced here. The hon. Minister wanted to pride himself on the fact that this Government was the only government which had done anything for the oudstryders. I am very glad that the Minister has eventually been converted. Many of the oudstryders have already died, and now this assistance comes in instalments. We received the first instalment last year, in other words, the old age pension which will now be granted to the oudstryders at an earlier age. On this occasion the Minister comes forward with a further instalment, namely, that the pension to wounded oudstryders will be increased by 100 per cent., and in the third place he gives us to understand that we may expect an improvement next year. On the other hand we get an amendment here, an amendment which threatens the Minister. The amendment says: “We want everything immediately in so far as the oudstryder is concerned, and if we cannot get everything now we are going to vote against this Bill.” Surely certain concessions are made to the oudstryders here, and the hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) correctly referred to it with gratitude. We are thankful for small mercies. If we cannot get everything, should we on that score vote against the Bill as a whole? That is what the amendment wants. All the citizens of this country who are on the battlefield today and who, in their view, are doing their duty towards this country—those citizens of the country and their wives and children are now to be punished because the Minister is not giving the oudstryders what the official Opposition wants him to give them. Is that fair, is it just? Must those wives and children and men suffer because the Minister is not doing for the oudstryders what he ought to do, and must we reject what the Bill wants to give the oudstryders? It seems so unreasonable to me that the amendment immediately stands doomed. I now want to come to the Bill itself. I want to say frankly that I am fairly disappointed in the Minister’s exposition. I do not want to say that the Bill does not contain many good points, points which have my full support. But I am particularly disappointed in the Minister’s exposition. He told us on what basis those pensions would be granted, but the most valuable pension which ought to be granted to those people has not even been mentioned. What is the most valuable pension? The most valuable pension is this, that the maimed citizen who comes back from the battlefield should be put on his feet. If he is not put on his feet he will regard himself as worthless to the community. The most valuable pension is that that citizen should be given an opportunity, by means of all the power and knowledge at the disposal of science, to become a useful member of the community, so that he can again feel at home. That is an object which in my opinion is of greater importance than the grant of money. In the first place we are drawing money today—£300 or £400 per person, as the case may be—but who knows that that money will still have its purchasing power at the time the pension is awarded? It is quite clear to me that the purchasing power of our money is depreciating day by day, and the longer the war lasts the less the purchasing power of money will become, and eventually it might be reduced by 100 per cent. Therefore, the grant of money is comparative, but what is not comparative is the valuable grant which is to be made to the poor maimed person, so that, when he returns, he will not have to remain a worthless entity in the community for the rest of his life possibly. The Bill refers to something of that nature, but nothing further is done. It is stated in Clause 12—

It is therefore assumed that there will be some institution or other at which such a poor maimed person can be helped to learn something. We have heard from the hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen) who speaks from sad experience, how money can never in all eternity make up for that mutilation which one has to suffer. That is so. Let the Minister, for a moment, imagine the psychological position of such a person who returns from the battlefield in a maimed condition. He went as a strong powerful young man; he went as a man who, we take it, knew a trade and who was a useful member of the community in that trade. He went leaving behind his wife and children or his father and mother, who were awaiting his return; and he returns as a maimed and insignificant individual who has to live on an income which the State mercifully gives him. The first duty of the State towards such a man, if, for example, he loses his right arm as a result of which he cannot work, is to teach him to use his left arm to do that work. These are institutions which require careful preparations, because they have to have experts who are not only qualified technically, but who specially understand the psychology of that unfortunate maimed person. Well, there is a Commission or Board under the chairmanship of Major Piet van der Byl. As far as I am aware, Parliament has not yet heard anything of it. The little which we do know we had to glean either from private conversations or from the newspapers.

I did refer to it in a speech in Parliament; you will find it in Hansard.

Well, then the Minister made a speech in which he discussed it. Those things are going to cost money. It will cost money to establish such an institute and to get the necessary people and machinery. I looked through the whole Budget and I did not find a penny for it.

There is provision for it on the Defence Vote.

I did not see any reference to it on the Defence Vote.

We cannot discuss the Budget now.

I only referred to it in reply to what the Minister of Finance said. We know nothing about it, and I rightly regard this as the most important aspect of the pension question. Why is Parliament kept in the dark and why are we not told anything about what will be done with a view to making these poor maimed persons useful members of the community again? Why is it not done, and why is Parliament not taken into its confidence by the Government? It was the duty of the Minister of Finance to explain this important matter carefully, and why did he not refer to it at all? It is unfair towards us and especially towards those people who will return as maimed individuals. I can imagine how the father and the mother, the wife and the child who remained behind, are awaiting that return, with fear gnawing at their hearts, especially when they have heard that that relation of theirs was maimed on the battlefield. Why not enlighten these people and tell them: “Just wait, when your husband, brother or child returns, even though he is maimed, we shall try to restore his health again or to teach him a new trade so that he can again work for you.” In so far as I am concerned, that was the main reason for my disappointment in the speech of the Minister of Finance. Against this Bill itself I cannot vote. I have not got the nerve to punish thousands and tens of thousands, because the Minister did not do his duty towards us; I have not the heart to do that. Finally, what I especially regret is this. According to the discussions which we have had here, it seems to me that with few exceptions, both sides of the House only tried to make political capital out of the misery of these people. It seems to me that both the Minister, in his statements, and the proposer of the motion, as well as other speakers on the Opposition side, always kept an eye on the dozen impending by-elections. Those people are not doing the cause of the oudstryders any good.

What about the Minister of Finance?

I have already spoken of the Minister of Finance, and I said that both sides were glancing backwards to see whether people could not be misled by the sympathy which they manifested here. I repeat that I shall vote for this Bill, because I have the fullest sympathy with people who are on the battlefield, and that I am also grateful— there I agree with the hon. member for Vrededorp—for what the Minister of Finance did for the oudstryders, and because in addition thereto, he expressed the hope that he will be in a position to do something more next year. I hope that when he introduces that measure he will give those people what they are morally entitled to. I hope that this will be granted to them, so that the remaining few hundred people, who will be considered for this, will be in a position to enjoy it during their lifetime.

I have nothing to be grateful for in regard to what has been done for the oudstryders, but I do not want to blame only this Government for that. I want to hold other Governments in the past equally responsible. There is no doubt about it, it is a blot on Parliament that those heroes who fought for their mother country are only now, after forty years, being considered, and that only now is something being done to look after them; we see these people in our constituencies; if we go to their homes and see the conditions under which they live we fail to understand the reason for the Government having waited so long before doing something for them. And what is being done for these people now? Last year there was an improvement, but what does that improvement amount to? It was a trivial amount, and those who are already in receipt of war pensions could not get any more, or perhaps only a very small amount more. I am not here to speak only on behalf of the oudstryder of Afrikanredom alone; I am here also to speak for the oudstryders of the Boer War. There are such people in my constituency, people who are in the deepest misery, and it was our duty to have done something for them many years ago. It is no use our waiting until they are in their graves; it is our duty to help them now. And now the Minister wants to spend only a few thousand pounds to come to the aid of a few of them. I say he is wrong. Surely it is not going to cost so very much money to do something for all the people who are entitled to assistance? These men who will get those pensions are sixty, seventy, and eighty years of age. For all those years they have lived in misery and want. Surely it is high time now to do something for them, and to give them decent pensions. Is it not worth while making it possible for that handful of people on both sides to get the pension to which they are entitled, so that they may spend their old age free of care, free of want? No, I have nothing to be grateful for. This Bill talks of those who were wounded. How many of those people left today are able to look after themselves? How many of them need somebody else to look after them, even though they were not wounded? If the Minister had provided for all sections of the oudstryders there would have been something to be said for this Bill; but no, I am sorry having to say that the Minister again puts up a smoke-screen with the sole purpose of giving the presentday soldiers a good pension. He takes the oudstryders and gives the few that are left a big pension, and then he uses it as a smoke-screen to say he wants to give those people something. What is behind it? It is war propaganda to get more people to send to the war so that they can tell those people how they are going to be looked after. There are some hon. members opposite who talk of propaganda. If propaganda was ever made it was made by members opposite. They want to get more people to send to their ruin and death, and they are using this Bill to show those people how they are going to be looked after. If you want to do that, first of all help the people of the past, the people who should long ago have been given this aid and assistance. To me there is nothing in this Bill to be grateful for. It is a propaganda move, such as I have never seen before. Its main object is to get people to join up by telling them that they are going to get these big pensions which this Bill provides for.

When I had the privilege at the beginning of this session to second the amendment asking for this legislation I did not expect, I must honestly admit, that the Minister would go as far as he has done, and I think we must express our thankfulness for what we are getting. If there is one matter which I do regret it is, of course, the necessity for us to undertake this expenditure and this tremendous burden which has to be placed on the inhabitants of this country in future, but at the same time we must not let that influence our opinion and try to run away from our indebtedness to those men who are prepared to fight and offer their lives for their country.

Hear, hear!

If there is one thing I am a bit disappointed in it is that the Minister has not been able to make more provision in this Bill for the “burnt-out” veterans, and I am pleased to hear that he has in mind to improve the position of these people next session and to provide for them next year. And I think that when the Minister draws up the necessary legislation we will all appreciate it if he would take into consideration the widows of the oudstryders of the Boer War. And I think he should not only take into consideration the actual widows and those who have been drawing pensions, but he should also take into consideration the proposal to pay pensions to the widows of those oudstryders who may have died some years ago. We find that many of these old women who were able to play such a prominent part in that war are today left penniless and unprovided for. I think some provision should be made for them. I think I need only add at this stage that the points I intended making have already been made by other hon. members of my Party, and I see no object in prolonging this debate by repeating them, but I think we can be grateful that the wrongs which have been committed have to a certain extent been remedied, and I cannot see the object of the Opposition in proposing the amendment they have done. If they would only think and see what it would lead to if that amendment were adopted—the futility of it must be apparent. If they should get a majority to support that amendment they would only be depriving all the oudstryders of what the Minister is now trying to do for them.

When I listen to the kind of speech made by the hon. member who has just sat down, it makes me tired to think that members can get up here and be full of gratitude for something that has never happened. The oudstryders have been waiting for forty years already for justice to be done to them, and in spite of that the Minister comes here and tells us that we must leave the matter over until next year. In the meantime we are going to find that a great many of this handful who for forty years have been looking forward for justice to be done to them, will die; how many of them will have passed into eternity by next year, when the Minister says he will deal with this matter? If I cast my mind back and think of those people, if I think of the camp fires where I used to sit with them, if I think of those old veterans, friends of mine, who put up with the greatest hardships, who braved wind and elements, then I cannot understand how forty years have been allowed to pass without justice being done to those people. In the years that have gone by there has been a constant outcry, a constant demand that something should be done for them. These men never complained while they were fighting; they never asked for any reward, but in all those years there has been an outcry for help from them, and now we find the Minister of Finance telling us that the matter has to be put off for another year. I am very unhappy at the thought that the Minister treats those people of whom the whole world is proud as he is now doing. They are given a pension of not more than £3 10s. per month; that is the most they can get. When we talk to those oudstryders we find that when they apply for a pension they can only manage, with the greatest difficulty, to get what they are entitled to. All sorts of enquiries are made first to see whether they have no children who can contribute to their support; enquiries are made, and it is only after the greatest trouble that they eventually succeed in getting a pension. No, I am glad that provision is being made for the soldiers. I am one of those who like to see compensation paid, who likes to see justice done to the man who has been prepared to sacrifice his life for his country, but so far as the oudstryders are concerned, justice has never been done to them, and the Minister could easily have managed to rectify the position for the oudstryders during the present session. The oudstryders have been looking forward to some relief quite long enough.

I am glad to be able to say that generally speaking this Bill has been very favourably received by the House. I feel that hon. members are of opinion that what we are proposing here in respect of persons who are taking part in the war, and also in respect of those who are wounded, or those who are the dependants of men who have been killed in previous wars, is fair and reasonable. The points raised in the course of the debate are either of comparatively minor importance in regard to this Bill or they are related to a matter which is not dealt with in this Bill. The hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood), has proposed an amendment that the House refuse to pass this Bill unless special provision is made for the oudstryders who were members of the Boer forces. As soon as one looks at the amendment one must notice at once that there is a certain amount of misunderstanding about the meaning of the expression “oudstryder.” The amendment to all intents and purposes intimates that in this Bill we are doing nothing for people who were members of the Boer forces. In other words, that there is discrimination—a word which was also used very often in this debate. There is no discrimination. In terms of this Bill a large number of people who were members of the Boer forces, or the dependants of persons who were members of those forces, will benefit from the provisions of the law. The dependants of people who were killed in the Anglo-Boer War, the people who were wounded in that war—all their pensions will be taken into review in consequence of the passage of this Bill. I therefore want to make it quite clear that those who vote against the passage of this Bill before the House today will also be voting against the benefits which, as a result of this Bill, will be granted to those people. If they vote for the amendment they vote against the benefits which, as a result of this Bill, will go to those people to whom I have referred. I want to repeat again that there is no discrimination in this Bill. There is no discriminaton in regard to military pensions, no matter in which war, or on which side, the people concerned may have fought. Nor is there any discrimination in regard to oudstryder pensions which we have introduced this year. Hon. members sometimes spoke during this debate as though those pensions only applied to people who had taken part in the threeyears’ war. That, of course, is not the case. They apply to everybody, no matter which war they fought in, provided they fall within the scope of that legislation, and exactly the same pensions are paid to those persons who fought in the Boer War as to the so-called “burnt out war veterans” of the World War.

But there were no doctors available to examine the oudstryders, and the result was that they were unable to produce certificates to show that they were wounded in the Boer War.

The people falling within the scope of the War Pensions Act are treated in terms of the provisions of that Act, and the examination is made in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Those people who do not come within the scope of the Bill are considered as war veterans. I therefore want to say again that there is no discrimination in this Pensions Bill, and by voting for the amendment my hon. friend opposite will vote against the benefits which this Bill will confer on those oudstryders. In regard to the oudstryders in the narrower sense of the word, I have already said about them that we are engaged on investigating the matter, and for the reasons I have mentioned it has been impossible to do anything in the matter at this stage. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (South) also drew a comparison between war pensions and ordinary old age pensions. I cannot agree that exactly the same scale of pensions should be applied in the case of old age pensions, in the case of people who did not serve their country on the field of battle as in the case of war pensions, where persons are affected who have served their country in war and have been wounded in the course of their duty. I definitely consider that it is right in the latter case to make better provision than in the former. A few other matters have been raised. The hon. member for Vrededorp (Mrs. Badenhorst) asked a question about a nursing grant for oudstryders. That is provided for in Clause 60 of the Bill. The hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost), raised the question of the training of people who had been wounded. That question is dealt with indirectly in the Bill, and I have already referred to it. There is provision in Clause 12, and Clause 32 also provides for the appointment of a Vocational Board.

It is dealt with casually.

My hon. friend perhaps did not see it. In any case the matter does not require further provision in the Bill. My colleague has already explained to the House what the Government’s proposals are, and we have already made the necessary financial provision from war expenditure funds in regard to our retraining proposals. My hon. friend can therefore be assured that the matters he has referred to are very definitely taken into account.

†Various hon. members have raised a number of points in regard to this legislation. The hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) has raised several points to some of which I should perhaps refer. He has quoted a newspaper article which compares the rates which we pay with the rates in Southern Rhodesia. May I repeat what I have said on previous occasions, that the comparison is unsound because we have alternative awards in this country which Southern Rhedsia has not got, and undoubtedly if you take our system as a whole, it will, when this Bill is passed, be more generous than those of Southern Rhodesia. The main point the hon. member made was the discrimination between the classes dealt with in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4. I dealt with that point in my opening remarks, and I want to repeat again that we are making that discrimination no longer as far as rates are concerned, but as far as origin of disability is concerned, and in making that discrimination we are doing exactly what is done in other countries. I would repeat what I said on a previous occasion about Canada. In Canada as far back as May, 1940, an Order in Council was passed, the chief principle of which was a clear definition of the responsibility of the State in relation to those whose disablement occurred in Canada. It was provided that where a man served in Canada the liability for war pension should only exist for disability or death arising as a direct result of the performance of military duties. In Australia the position is the same. Where a person’s service is confined to Australia, pension will be paid where death is directly attributable to his service, as a member of the forces. We are going further than that; we are wiping cut the differentiation in regard to rates of pensions between the two classes, but in the second place we are recognising difficulties in regard to the second class of persons who are confined to service in the Union, and whose death does not arise out of the discharge of their duties. We are doing that by setting up a Special Grants Board. I think we are dealing with this matter in a fair and reasonable way. The hon. member raised the question of the extension of the period for marriage allowed by this Bill. I have given a great deal of thought to that, but I find a great deal of administrative and other difficulties in making a change in that regard. One must not forget that we are levelling up these cases under this Bill, and it will be most difficult to apply retrospectively a different period for marriage in the light of that particular fact. One must also not forget in considering that part of our proposals that the scale of pensions for the man himself is now to be a generous one. There are one or two other points which the hon. member raised to which I propose giving further consideration before the Committee stage. The hon. member for Pretoria, Central (Mr. Pocock), also raised one or two points of a kind to which I propose giving further consideration. He mentioned the fourth schedule. The hon. member for Yeoville (Dr. Gluckman) has also raised with me that matter of the provision in the fourth schedule, more especially as far as nurses are concerned, and I am proposing to come forward as a result of those representations with certain amendments at the Committee stage. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) dealt with the question of the provision for natives under this Bill. I do not intend to traverse the points he raised at this stage because I understand that he and his colleagues wish to discuss the point with me, and I think he would prefer me not to deal with them now. The hon. member for Cape Town, Central (Mr. Bowen), dealt with the question of non-Europeans. It is perfectly true that we did provide for nonEuorpeans on a three-fifths basis—never on a two-thirds basis. That was purely a transition method pending the drawing up of a specific schedule for non-Europeans. That we have now done, and I think, having regard to all the circumstances, this schedule where we are providing £75 as a basic figure plus £12 for the wife, and £10 for each child, is not unreasonable. I think it is a fair proposal. We must regard all the circumstances in dealing with this matter. I do not think it is quite reasonable in comparing grants for children with the grants for children in institutions or for children placed with foster parents. Here we are making a grant not only for a particular child, but for the husband, wife and children, and therefore it should be regarded as a family grant. And, of course, the hon. member will appreciate that the alternative award system will also apply as far as non-Europeans are concerned. I think I have dealt to the best of my ability with the points raised in the debate. I again repeat that I appreciate the spirit in which hon. members have approached this Bill. It has been a spirit of helpfulness. I think generally they realise that we have sought to deal with this difficult matter in a fair and reasonable way, and I am sure they will be prepared to give such further assistance as is necessary in order that this Bill may become law as soon as possible.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—67:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen. F. B.

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, J. 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.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B H.

Long, B. K.

Marwick, J. S.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Oost, H.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

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.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

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

Noes—30:

Bekker, G.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Toit, C. W. M.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Schoeman, B. J.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, J. H.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

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

When this matter was discussed on Friday last the adjournment was moved by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp), but unfortunately the hon. member is indisposed today and the duty now devolves upon me to continue the debate. When the matter was brought before this House on a previous occasion, we on this side of the House approved of the general principle contained in the Bill. When I speak of the general principle, I mean the general principle that there should be more extensive and more effective exploitation of our base minerals in South Africa. We pointed out that South Africa was a country which was particularly rich in base minerals such as chrome, manganese, asbestos, fluorspar, mica and others, and we also pointed out, as we want to do again today, that especially in recent years, particularly since the tremendous development that has taken place in the industrial sphere, the use which can be made of our minerals has increased very considerably. Let us think, for instance, of a mineral rich as chrome. Ten or fifteen years ago chrome was not used to the same extent as it is today, but in the meantime many uses have been found for it. For instance, it is being used now for the purpose of protecting steel from rust and so on, and today there is a very great and increasing demand for chrome. That also applies to manganese and other minerals, and there has been an enormous increase in its uses. Consequently, as there is a greater and more extensive use of minerals as a result of the new developments in the industrial sphere, it is of special importance to us in South Africa because of the great sources of wealth which these minerals represent in this country. It is said, and I think it is rightly said, that South Africa is the most mineralised part of the globe, not merely so far as precious metals such as gold and other metals are concerned, but particularly in regard to the large quantities of base minerals to be found in South Africa. In view of the fact, therefore, that we have to bear in mind that the day is coming when the gold mines will be exhausted, it is particularly important that we as a country should proceed with the proper development of the great wealth of base minerals which we have in this country. Looked at from the general point of view of the encouragement and the better and more effective exploitation of minerals, therefore, we are in favour of the general principle contained in this Bill. We are in favour of the general principle not merely for the reasons I have already mentioned, but for other reasons as well. The development so far has to a great extent been sporadic in its nature. There has been nothing systematic about it, there has been no proper distribution of the market requirements. Questions of grading and sorting and other matters have not had sufficient attention, and I can speak of this from personal experience. I referred to it in my last speech. Wherever there has been development in the past, the creation of monopolies has already started to show itself in this country even so far as the development of minerals has been concerned. I have in mind, for instance, the development of asbestos, which to all intents and purposes has become the monopoly of the Cape Asbestos Company, and similarly there are other instances which one could mention. For all these reasons the matter is one which should be tackled, but we take up the attitude that where it is a question of the development of our minerals, it should not only be taken up but it should be tackled along the right lines. It was for those reasons that when this matter was before the House last time we asked that it should be referred to a Select Committee before the Bill was read a second time. On that occasion we made the request that the Select Committee should give its particular attention to two aspects—and first of all the question of State mining and development by the State. That is referred to in the Bill and we made the request that if possible it should be extended. In the second place we pointed out that the provisions of this Bill, however necessary they might be, to bring about the proper development of our base minerals, interfered with the rights of land owners, and we felt that the Bill did not provide sufficient protection for the rights of land owners. For these reasons we urged the Minister to allow the Bill to go to the Select Committee before the second reading, and we urged that attention should particularly be given to the question of State development, State exploitation, and secondly, to the question of better protection for property rights and the compensation of land owners. The matter was thereupon referred to a Select Committee and today we have the new Bill before us as drafted by the Select Committee. If we study the Bill we find that so far as the first aspect to which we referred when the matter was originally before the House is concerned, namely, the aspect of State mining, nothing has been done in regard to that aspect. The whole Bill containing twenty clauses with the exception of two clauses lays down the mining leases system as the principle to be worked on. It is only in Clause 7—and one gets the impression that it was almost an afterthought—that in a small sub-clause of five lines there is a reference to State mining development. It is said there—

And then in another part of that clause, namely, in sub-clause (7) there is some reference to the compensation that is to be paid to the owners of the land. It is clear, therefore, that so far as State mining development is concerned the Select Committee has done nothing, and we get the impression that it was by way of an afterthought, as if it was not really seriously meant, that the idea of State mining was mentioned in the first instance. State mining will only take place, therefore, in cases where it has been found hopeless to bring about the necessary development by means of mining leases. The attitude which we adopt is that we are opposed to the system of mining leases. As this Bill will give the State the power to interfere in regard to base minerals and metals, in the property right of land, there the State should itself undertake the mining of such land. In other words, there should be a system of State mining. As we are now following a new course in regard to the development of base minerals, we do not want a policy laid down as a result of which we are going to have a continuation of the system which we have had in connection with the gold mining industry. We feel that the time has arrived when we should follow a different course, namely, that of State mining. We already have the system of mining leases in South Africa. Perhaps that system has certain benefits, certain advantages connected with it, but the disadvantages are very much greater. We have seen what has already happened in connection with our gold mines; we have seen monopolies created which make large profits, profits which largely go into the pockets of a group of mining magnates, financial magnates. And not only that, but we also know that a large proportion of the profits in the form of dividends and otherwise do not stay in South Africa, but go overseas to shareholders overseas. We have already in the past had what, in the ordinary course of conversation, is called “Hoggenheimer,” and we do not want to create a new sort of Hoggenheimer in South Africa in connection with our base minerals and metals, and the position is aggravated because under the provisions of this Bill we do not only have it laid down that we are going to adhere to the old pernicious system of mining leases under which the exploitation of our minerals will get into the hands of the financial groups, but we also have the fact here that the rights of private owners will be interfered with. It is true that they are to be paid compensation for rent and so on, but the fact remains that the private owner is being deprived of his wealth. Under this mining leases system we are going to put everything into the hands of financial groups again, and of very influential groups whose shareholders and whose head offices will not be in South Africa but largely overseas. We are opposed to that system, and we are going to move an amendment in that direction, an amendment in favour of a system of State mining. The argument will, of course, be used again that so far as the gold mines were concerned there was a demand to make profits, and that by the introduction of the mining leases system, capital came into South Africa from elsewhere, which greatly contributed to the establishment of the gold mining industry in South Africa. But that argument is no longer a sound argument today. If capital is required, we have sufficient capital in South Africa today to meet these requirements. Hon. members will recollect that when, under the old Nationalist Party Government, we put forward the proposal for the establishment of a South African iron and steel industry, we were met with that self-same argument, “Where is the capital to come from? There is not sufficient capital here in South Africa; the Government cannot undertake anything of the kind.” Well, we have seen what has become of that. A few days ago the Minister of Commerce and Industries, who originally was a strong opponent of the establishment of an iron and steel industry, got up in this House and advocated the extension of the iron and steel industry. Today, we have the same arguments put forward here again, and today we are putting up the same arguments in favour of the State mining of our minerals. As a fresh start is being made in this matter, we are putting forward a request for the State to undertake the exploitation and the mining of our base minerals. Our first objection, therefore, to this Bill is that there is no provision made for State mining, and the amendment which we are going to propose will have that object in view. Now we come to the second objection we have, an objection which we also mentioned when this question was discussed here on a previous occasion, and it is this, that there is not sufficient protection provided for property rights, and that we must have a more satisfactory basis laid down for compensation. As the State is now interfering with private property, and as a certain amount of damage is going to be done— damage which will necessarily be done—there is no satisfactory basis laid down in this Bill for compensation to be paid for any damage which may be done. The provisions made in the Bill do not go far enough. That is our second main point—the question of compensation for damage that is caused to property. In Clause 3 (2) for instance, it is said that certain rentals have to be paid which the Minister, on the recommendation of the Board, is to determine, after having given consideration to representations in writing by the holder of the rights to mine base minerals on private land. Now, what are those rentals to be? The Board mentioned here is the Board appointed in terms of Act No. 30 of 1918, the Mining Leases Board. That Board is the body which will have to decide what the amount of the rent is going to be. We may assume that particularly where base minerals are concerned damage is going to be done to farm lands. In the Transvaal particularly one finds large quantities of base minerals on farms. Now, whom does that Mining Leases Board consist of? In terms of the law it is composed of the Government Mining Engineer, the Secretary for Finance or his representative, and two Government officials. It may be taken for granted that none of them have any special knowledge of agricultural conditions. Now that Board has to decide on the rent that has to be paid, and on the compensation for damage done on a farm, and right throughout the Bill, practically everything is placed in the hands of the Board which is given the right in its discretion to determine what the pay is to be, what the rental is to be for the surface value where the mining is to take place, and what compensation is to be paid for the damage that may be done. We feel that this Board is not constituted in such a manner as to be competent to be able to decide on matters of this kind. For that reason we intend moving in Committee that two other people should be added to the Board who will have a thorough and effective knowledge and experience of agricultural. In regard to Clauses 6 (2) (a) and (c) which speak of the payment of royalties or shares of profits, there is nothing in this Bill to lay down the scale on which such royalties are to be paid. Everything is again left in the hands of the Board. It seems to me that there was a scale laid down in the old law, namely, in the law of 1918, where it is said that in such an event, where royalties have to be paid, they must be paid in accordance with a fixed scale. It is not a case here of certain payments which in one instance may be so much and so much in another instance. Where royalties have to be paid there should be a fixed scale and it should not be left in the hands of the Board to pay one man a certain percentage of royalties or rent, and to pay another man, who perhaps has not got the necessary influence at headquarters, a different royalty. We are therefore going to move in Committee that a definite scale be laid down and that royalties and rentals be paid in accordance with a definite scale. It may possibly have to be a sliding scale, a scale which can be made to fit in with certain circumstances, but we very definitely feel that a basis or a scale of pay of royalties and rentals should be laid down. If there is such a scale there will hardly ever be any need for an appeal, but with the Bill as it stands now, without any appeal, we feel that if there is no fixed scale provision should be made for an appeal in the event of a farmer who has been deprived of his rights not being satisfied with the rent he is getting. An arbitrator may perhaps not meet the case in a matter of this kind, but there should be some form of appeal. There is no provision of that kind in the Bill. Now we come to the damage that is done to people’s property. The one thing which struck me in this Bill is the variety of ways in which damage is defined. There is not the same definition in the one clause as there is in the other. In Clause 2 there is only reference to surface damage.

When business was suspended at 6 o’clock I had almost concluded my remarks, and I only want to say a little more. I was discussing the question of compensation in those cases where under this Bill lessees are given the right to go on to land where base metals have to be exploited. The position is this, as I have already said: The question of damage is dealt with in different ways in different clauses. In Clause 2, for instance, there is reference to surface damage. Then we come to Clause 6—subclause (2), and there is reference to damage to improvements. Then we come to Clause 7, sub-section (7) (b), and there again the Bill speaks of damage to crops and improvements. We take up the attitude that if damage is caused either by a prospector or by the lessee compensation must be paid for damage of any kind, be it damage to the surface, damage to crops or damage to improvements. We therefore propose when we are in Committee to move certain amendments to cover damages of any kind. Further, as I have already indicated, in the case of rental, as well as in the case of damage, it is left in the hands of the Minister or of the Board as the case may be, to determine what the damage is and to determine what the compensation is to be. There is no provision made for any system of arbitration. Now, I notice that in the original law of 1918 there is provision for arbitration in certain cases, and in the amendment which we are going to propose it is our intention to make provision in that respect. Clauses 11 and 12 deal with certain questions of owners’ rights. These clauses to our mind are not satisfactory either. In Clause 11, for instance, there is a reference to damage to vineyards, nurseries and plantations, and there is a provision that certain acts are not to be committed, certain things are not to be done and yet the clause goes further and provides that certain things can be done with the consent of the Minister; and then we come to a very important question, a question which is of great importance to our farming population in the Western Province, and in other parts of the country, namely, the Question of water rights. This is a matter which I am not going to discuss myself. I am going to leave that to other hon. members on this side of the House who are more familiar with that subject than I am, but there, too, it will be necessary to move certain amendments so as to afford proper protection to the farmers’ water rights. I have now referred to the questions and the amendments which we are going to raise in Committee. In conclusion I want to repeat that our attitude in regard to the Bill is first of all that wherever mining or development takes place it must be done by the State. We have had enough of monopolies and of foreign interests in South Africa; we have had enough of foreign interests handling and taking control of the wealth of this country. Furthermore, we are concerned about the question of the protection of property rights, and compensation, and I therefore wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) Provision is made that in cases where the State steps in, development shall take place only at the instance of the State, excluding the system of mining leases; and
2. (b) owners’ rights are fully protected and compensation for damage and expropriation is fixed on a more satisfactory basis.”

I second. If one considers this Bill, then one’s first feeling is one of disappointment in that the hon. Minister allowed a golden opportunity to pass here. Here was an opportunity to lay down the basic principles of a national policy in respect of our base metals, and to hold out the prospect of a detailed national plan with reference to the mining and production of our base metals. Instead of that we have a fragment here, namely, the power to force development, to eliminate its obstruction. But we did not hear a word from the Minister as to the whys and wherefores. The supposition of the whole Bill is apparently that production per se is a virtue, and that the more you can produce the greater the virtue will be. No, surely it is not the ultimate object of legislation merely to see how much you can take out of the soil. We want to know what you take it out for, what you use it for, how it fits in with our economic system as a whole; and in regard to those points we had a beautiful opportunity in this Bill, and the Minister allowed that opportunity to pass unused. The Minister laid down a so-called investigation here as a primary requisite for the exercise of compulsory development. And let me say immediately that insofar as the investigation portion is concerned, we on this side of the House have not the slightest objection. That is a portion which I think will be generally acclaimed, because that is the foundation of any national programme of action. We must first have data before we can lay down a programme of action in contrast with a general policy, and it is because of that that it is necessary that we should carefully collect the data. A thorough mineralogical survey of the country s resources is necessary, not only a geological survey, but a mineralogical survey. We must cause a survey to be made of our potential riches under the ground, and see that it is done as soon as possible. When one sees what is done in other countries in that connection, one is surprised that the Minister has not made it more comprehensive than is being done here. In the United States of America, where for many years they have investigated their base metals, and where they are qualified, the three important divisions are the strategic base metals, the critical, and the essential, that is to say, strategical, critical, and essential for war as well as ordinary industrial purposes. With regard to the investigational work, we do not want to say anything. It is necessary that data be collected, because on that we have to build our programme of action for the future. But we rightly thought that on this occasion we would get something in the nature of a general policy in respect of our base metals. The Select Committee was told that our most important base metals were our iron and our coal. But there are other very important metals. I do not know whether we are all aware of the fact that insofar as manganese production is concerned, South Africa stands third today in world production. It is only India and Russia which produce a greater quantity of manganese than South Africa. And with regard to chromium, we are second in the world today, and it is only the production of Southern Rhodesia which exceeds ours; and with regard to platinum, we are third today. South Africa’s production is only exceeded by that of Russia and Canada. We are therefore dealing with a very important matter here, and one would have expected the Minister to make use of this opportunity to submit to us the basic principle of a national policy in respect of our base metals, but now we look at the Act and we see that one of the main objects of this Act is to prevent an unjustified refusal to mine these minerals. That is merely negative; it is not positive. Why and for what purpose these mineral resources should be developed, we are not told. If their mining is in the national interests, it is surely an important matter to know what the policy is of the State which acts here as the trustee of the national interests; what will be the role which the State will play in the mining of these metals; surely it cannot be in the national interests simply to take these base metals out of the ground. Production is not the only problem, and any attempt to prevent production is not the only problem with which the Minister is faced; and even the production problem is barely touched here. Many aspects of the productions problem are not held out to us at all. The Minister then takes the analogy of the gold mines, the mining lease system, and says that that is something which we can use, but the mining lease system, as applied to our gold mines, is no analogy for this at all because the owner in the case of the gold mines where the Mining Leases Board functions, is the State itself; and the Mining Leases Board functions there as the servant of the State. It is subservient to the State, and the State is its master, and it protects the interests of the State here. Now the Minister wants to apply that machinery to a private person, but the Mining Leases Board which will function in the case of base metals, will not be there as the representative of the owner’s interests. The owner will no longer be its master, but it will now stand apart from the owner and will issue its edicts from above, edicts which the owner will have to obey. I say that that is all that we get here, an analogy which is not applicable at all, and a reference to only one of the problems of production, and that is the prevention of any refusal to mine the minerals. Perhaps I am not altogether correct; there are also a few afterthoughts in connection with the production problem which the Minister has inserted here under the regulation clause as a sort of afterthought. Under the regulation clause provision has now been made for two things which were not contained in the first Act, and it is almost as though the Minister’s conscience pricked him, and then he inserted these things. Now we notice in Section 19 (1) (c) that the Governor-General may make regulations—

And then in (d)—

These are, as it were, afterthoughts which have now been dragged in here against their wishes in the regulation clauses. But let me just mention to you a few of the problems which we have to meet in connection with this important industry; let us, pause there just for a moment. We have the initial difficulty that the owner of the mineral rights, except in specified cases, is not the State. That is your initial difficulty when you introduce any State measure, but whether it is there or not, there is this important problem of production, the problem of supply. And there the first question is this unjustified refusal to mine the mineral riches in the earth. That is the only matter which the Minister touches upon. Apart from the question of unjustified refusal to mine, there is the question of the control of production. Surely investigation must be made into national requirements, into the requirements of our own industries for those base metals. It must be determined whether it will be in the interests of the country that those base metals be exported. Surely these are problems which the Minister will have to meet; and then equally important, or almost more important, is the problem of the conservation of our base metals. All that we have in this Bill under that head are those few powers to regulate. When you look at the extent which conservation measures have assumed in other countries, you are surprised that we in South Africa are satisfied to leave the whole question of the conservation of our base metals to a few regulations which the Minister makes. In other countries it was the subject of extended legislation. May I just refer to a book which recently appeared, “Elements of a National Mineral Policy,” which was prepared in the United States of America. There the following is said in regard to conservation measures—

Well, I take it that because this matter is of such great importance, there is specific legislation on the point, and in this Bill it is neglected by simply giving it a place in the kitchen, as it were. The whole problem of conservation is left to two small portions of our regulation clause. It was not in the first Act, and when it came before the Select Committee, it was apparently felt that while dealing with the question of production, something should be done in connection with conservation. And then it was inserted there as an afterthought. There is this other very important question, after the one of production, of supply—the problem of demand. Well, the problem of demand is, of course, an international problem, to a certain extent, but surely we can also take steps, and we ought to do so with regard to the local market, with a view to seeing what we can do in connection with that demand, and we know that in respect of base metals the demand is mainly dependent upon the construction of capital works. The majority of our base metals are used in the construction of those works, and we find that there is usually a lack of demand in times of depression. Well, the great problem in other countries is to bring supply and demand in as stable a relationship as possible. We know that the classical theory of competition is not a satisfactory regulator of supply, and today some form of control of demand is necessary. As I have said, it cannot be too great, because we cannot control the international market, but surely an effort can be made, insofar as the local market is concerned, to bring the relationship between demand and supply in a more balanced state. Closely allied to this question is the question of price fluctuations to which our base metals especially are subject. In the majority of cases that is the result of an unbalanced relationship between demand and supply. We know that the speculative nature of industries—I think the Minister referred to that—the speculative nature of industries is largely due to the fact that there are enormous fluctuations in price. If, therefore, you want to lay down principles of a national policy in this matter, then there is this problem which is of the utmost importance, namely, to bring the relationship between supply and demand in a more balanced state. Then there are questions such as various working methods and duplication of posts, which are in competition. If we want to make the best use of our base metals, a certain measure of rationalisation of the industries will be necessary. Well, I have said that the classical theory of competition is not sufficiently sharp to regulate those questions. May I just refer to what is stated in this report concerning the question of competition. It is said—

Then it goes on and says that the whole classical theory that free competition is sufficient to bring demand into relationship with supply has broken down under modern circumstances, that in spite of competition with big industries and in spite of the belief that the weak will go under, the weak can nevertheless be kept afloat; the most unsound industries can be kept going if only they have sufficient capital resources to back them up. Then there are general problems which are allied to those I have mentioned. There is the question of the encouragement of local industries which use our base metals. If we want a regulated demand here, then attention must be given to the secondary industries which use our base metals. Closely allied to that is the prohibition on export, at any rate without processing the base metals to a certain extent. In other countries that has already been done. There is a prohibition on the export of base metal ore, and processing and refinement to a certain extent must take place in the country itself, so that work is thereby provided to the people of that country. May I just give an illustration to show how something like that can be done. I quote from the book “Strategic Mineral Supplies” by G. A. Roush. Inter alia, this is stated—

There are other countries which adopted the same measures in order to see to it that at any rate a portion of the finishing of the metal would take place in the country of origin. There are, of course, means of encouraging this, apart from making it compulsory by means of a prohibition on the export of the metals in the unfinished form. This can be done by means of a reduction in taxation, and by means of Customs tariffs. When one looks at this problem which confronts one in connection with the proper mining of base metals, it is quite clear that the problem cannot be solved on the basis of the old policy and the old system which was followed in the past; it cannot be solved on the basis of laissez faire, and according to the method of trial and error. That policy has failed not only in our experience but also in the experience of other countries. In that connection may I again refer to the Conference resolutions. Inter alia, we find this—

This question, and that is the most important question of the whole industry, we will not be able to solve, and we have not the slightest hope of solving it if it is left to free competition. No other form is essential in order to solve the problem, if we want to solve that problem. And now there are two possibilities open to us. The first is control of the industry by a representative body of the various industrial units. The alternative is control by the State. With regard to the first, namely, control by representatives of the various companies of the industry, it is quite clear that that will not be able to solve all the problems of the industry. Some of the problems are of a national nature, and there is a possibility of solving them by means of State action. There is the question of the control of demand and the encouragement of the secondary industries which have to use our base metals. The second point which is clear is that up to the present it has not been a great success to leave it to any form of control by companies in the industry itself. We have, for example, the position of the coal industry in England, and we know what a chaotic state of affairs occurred there, and that it was necessary to intervene in the whole matter. We have had our own experience, as indicated by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) in connection with the Chamber of Mines, which is a monopoly representing the various mining interests, and which is not really an encouragement to us to get a second one of that nature in respect of our base metals. That brings us to the other possibility, and that is control of the industry by the State; and in talking here about mining by the State, it is clear, I think, and in any case I want to put it as an alternative if the Government is not prepared to have it mined as State mines, that it can still be mined by the State and under State control. May I give as an example what we have in the iron and steel industry. That was a corporation which was initially established with Government capital, but it was left to the individual to invest capital in it too, and today we know that the Government has the controlling interest in it, but that a considerable portion of the capital is in the hands of private people. I imagine that it will be possible, just as we created an iron and steel corporation, also to create a mining corporation for base metals under State control. The arguments in favour of it are so obvious that one cannot help seeing them. A body of that nature is the only body which will be able to see the problem as a whole. It will not only see it from the aspect of production, or from the aspect of consumption, but from both points of view. It will see the problem, not as a problem standing on its own, but in its full relationship to all the other State plans and to our whole State economy. A body constituted in this way will be able to tackle the problem in a co-ordinated manner; it will be the only body which will be able to tackle the big problem in connection with the development and mining of base metals, and it will also be the only body which will be qualified to solve the broader problems of the industry, or if it cannot solve it altogether, will have some chance to do so. Then there is another and a very important matter, that it can all be done without the friction which is caused at the moment by State interference in private industries. If there is such a corporation the control will not come from outside but from inside, and that will obviate any question of friction with private initiative, in regard to which there is so much complaint. But a further reason why we want to promote this thought of State control and mining of our mineral riches by the State, is because there is a growing public feeling that what lies in the bowels of the earth is actually a national possession. Even though it be base metals, it is a State possession and must be mined in the national interests, and not be exploited for private interests. That is a feeling which is not confined to South Africa. That Conference to which I have referred mentions that growing feeling that the metals and minerals in the bowels of the earth do not belong to private individuals, but are a national possession which belong to the people, and which ought to be mined in the national interests. And then a further reason is this, that when the profits are limited, as in the case of Iscor, speculation in shares, as happens in the case of gold mining shares, for example, is eliminated. If the profits are limited in an industry of this nature, we will not have that tremendous speculation which we have in the gold mining shares, where there is unlimited profit. The speculative nature of the industry itself will, to a large extent, be diminished if the State could intervene, and endeavour, as far as it is within its power to do so, to bring about a certain measure of price stabilisation, and will be able to regard the problem as a long term problem, and can study what will eventually be in the interests of the State. There is another reason which was mentioned by the hon. member for Beaufort West, and that is that we are dealing here with a comparatively new industry. There is a certain amount of mining of our base metals and minerals, but it has not yet taken place to a large extent. There is a good deal of room for expansion, and the vested interests are not yet vested as such. This is a period during which it will be very much easier to apply that State control to the industry. It is much better to do it now, before giving free rein to competition and finding ourselves in the chaotic position of the coal industry in England, for example. But I can tell the Minister this: If I understand him correctly, he said that these private people would be encouraged, and that a certain amount of money will be at their disposal. Not only will the department’s wisdom and brain be at their disposal but also State money. It is a very slight financial interest. If the industry wants to use that State money, then there ought also to be State control, and if the Minister does not give them that State money then, of course, there will be no State control. The Minister must remember that this is an opportune time for him to solve a problem peculiar to South Africa. We know that the Minister is faced by the problem that he does not know what to do with the diggers. But if we now make this industry a State-controlled industry, then at the same time it will be an industry which will help the Minister to give employment to those people at the diggings. If the Minister allows the industry to be developed by private initiative, then those people will in all probability not be engaged, at any rate not to the same extent and under the same conditions as those which will operate if he himself were to create the opportunity for employment, because that will assist him in solving the other problem. May I recapitulate. Our criticism of the Bill is that it is not long-sighted enough. It only deals with the immediate problem, and with only one immediate problem which it recognises, and a long view is not taken of the future. It does not endeavour to co-ordinate the problem which confronts us, and which is a new problem, with the long-term interests of the people and the country. It does not regard the position from a positive and constructive angle. In a sense it is negative—there must not be certain things, but what encouragement is there—no mention at all is made of the Bill. The Bill is too limited in its scope, and it deals with only a portion of the problem. It only touches upon a portion of the problem, and all the other problems in connection with it which are as important as the production aspect of the problem, and which are allied to it, are simply pushed aside and overlooked. Our base minerals are a national asset. It is an asset of great value. What we can take out in our own interests and for the development of our own State in South Africa will depend on the policy laid down by the State. We on this side feel that it is an asset which ought to be developed in the interests of this country, that it ought to be placed at the service of the people. In addition to that, we must remember that it is a vanishing asset. It is not there for ever, and for that reason we must develop it with care and apply it with care to the development of the most permanent industries in the country. It is no use our taking out all the supplies in one year, but we should see to it that we take them out in such a way that it will continually serve as food and provisions for our secondary industries, which have a chance of becoming permanent industries, and then in the future we can use those base minerals in the service of the people and as an asset to the country, instead of their being exploited for private gain in a reckless manner. We feel that the nature of the industry is such that we cannot and ought not to entrust it wholly to private initiative, and for that reason we feel that the Minister had an opportunity here to follow a specified new policy, that he should have bought out the already existing companies in this industry in the interests of the country, and that they could have got an interest in the form of shares in a corporation of this nature which we have suggested, and then we would be able to develop it as a big national corporation, conducted not by State officials and not as a department of State, but as a corporation in which the State has the control, and where it can have the best brain power at its service for the development of this industry as a State-controlled industry. If the Minister wants to acquire undying fame, then he must do in this case what his predecessor did on another occasion, when, notwithstanding the opposition on the part of members who are now on the other side, he gave the iron and steel industry its permanent foundation in South Africa. The Minister of Mines has the opportunity now to follow his example, and if he does so a grateful posterity will, after ten or twelve years, be able to sing his praises for what he did in placing our base mineral industry on a firm foundation for the welfare of the State and the people.

Like the Minister, I hope that the Bill will pass without much opposition. The only pity is that the Bill ought to have been passed ten years earlier; had that taken place South Africa would have been in a very much better position than it is today. It is with the greatest satisfaction that I congratulate the Minister and the Government on this all important legislation. The House knows I have always been interested in this question, and with the kind permission of the Minister I may claim to have played a small part in its introduction. I consider the development of our base metals is one of the most important industries in this country. It is most dangerous to depend upon gold only. By this legislation the Government is giving direct encouragement for the first time to people of enterprise and financial backing who use their own efforts to develop this valuable asset. Apart from the need of controlling and opening up deposits, the Bill is of vital importance at the present time in relation to post-war reconstruction. We have been told of the great financial future of this country, and one of the necessary things towards that is the provision of adequate and cheap raw material and the opening up and exploitation of our mineral resources along the lines which have made our gold mines the greatest in the world is of major importance. In 1929 Sir Thomas Holland, in his presidential address to the British Association, said South Africa had the greatest range of mineral deposits of any country in the world. We must see that those deposits are opened up and operated on an economic basis, not only for the development of our secondary industries, but also with an eye for supplying other countries. I don’t think it is the intention of the Government simply to develop our base metals for our own use. It is important, also, that we should export our reserves to other countries as well. It will be an enormous asset to this country if we can export base metals. To bring this about mining operations must be conducted on an economical basis, and I think the Bill laysdown that before a mining lease is granted, the applicant must supply the Minister with a scheme according to which he proposes to mine the mineral concerned. If the base mineral industries are to be developed along economic lines they must be able to market products which are of the quality required by the appropriate market. It would be impossible to conceive a world market which would be content to take low grade and badly refined products. I hope through the powers of this Bill we will be able to bring about not only a widespread development of our base mineral wealth, but also a healthy economic development. I must urge that the matter of export should receive the greatest attention of the Government as to quantity and quality. It would be a grave mistake if at the outset we should overlook quality, which is of so much importance. We must have the right representatives for the marketing of our base metal, representatives who can talk the base metal language. South African industries should be independent of any imported base metals. It would mean so much to this country to know that we are self-supporting as far as base metals are concerned, instead of having to import as we have done for so many years. In building up our industries we have been dependent on imported base metals, and that should not be. This is now our opportunity and we should take every advantage of it. Now is the time to push ahead with the development of our resources if we want to feel the great benefit after the war. Think of the enormous amount of employment it is going to give to men who will be returning from the front if our base metals are developed on a scale that is sufficient if only to supply our own local industries. This move of the Government in introducing this Bill should have the support of all sides of the House. It is a national asset, and its development is of the greatest importance to this country.

I want to put the views of the farmers before the Minister, the views of the people who are going to suffer most as a result of this Bill. I want to tell the Minister that the farmer in the Cape Province has bought his farm, he has paid for it, and he has also paid for the base minerals which are below the surface. I am now speaking of the farmers in the Cape Province. The Transvaal and Free State are in a similar position, but Natal is differently situated. Here in the Cape Province the farmers have bought their farms with the base minerals on them, and we now find that in spite of the fact that those base minerals are the property of the farmers and that the people have paid for those base minerals with their own money, this Bill is not taking that fact into account. The farmer as such is prepared to contribute his share to the progress of the country. In principle he is not opposed to it, but the Minister cannot expect the farmers’ property to be expropriated at a small compensation, and he cannot expect the farmer to be satisfied with that. I want to say this to the Minister, that he has no right to say to the farmer, “Look here, your base minerals are worth so much, but this is all you are going to get.”

Where did he say that?

It would do you good if you were to read the Bill; then you would see it. The Minister fixes the prices and he lays down the conditions without consulting the farmer. A Commission is to be appointed consisting of the Government Mining Engineer and a few other experts who are in the employ of the Government. They, with the Minister, decide, but the Minister always has the last word. They determine how much the base minerals of the farmer are worth. They simply tell him what price they have fixed—it is nothing but pure confiscation. I want to go through clause by clause and show the Minister how the farmer’s property is being confiscated without his being paid proper compensation. I have also had a little experience of prospecting and I also know what it means. I have seen some of those farms where furrows have been dug, and holes have been dug, which the farmer’s sheep fall into and get drowned. I have seen the roads which have been built over the farmer’s land for the transportation of drilling machines. I have seen 50 or 60 natives brought to a farm by a prospector—and those natives steal everything the farmer has. They kill his fowls and his sheep and eat them, and the farmer does not get a penny compensation for all this. If the Government goes to a farm now and it wants to prospect that farm it need not even rent the farm; all it does is to pay compensation for the damage done to the surface. I have said on previous occasions that it would be a very good thing if a number of townspeople were taken away from the towns and put on the farms so that they could see the kind of life people have to lead on farms. The only compensation the farmer gets for the difficulties he has to contend with, and for the poor proposition he has to run, is in the fact that he is independent and is free on his farm. And now the Minister comes here and he wants to take away everything the farmer has without giving him any compensation. I want to know from the Minister why, if the Government comes and prospects on my farm, it need not pay me anything for doing so; but if a private individual in terms of this Bill starts prospecting on a farm, then he has to pay rent. I want to know why there is this differentiation. I want to know why there is a distinction drawn between the Government and the private individual. Now I want to say a word or two on Clause 3. The farmer cannot mine the base minerals himself. Perhaps he can sell them, but he cannot mine them, because he has not got the money to do so. But now we are passing legislation here giving the Minister power simply to confiscate those base minerals at a very slight compensation, and then he can give the right to a company to do the mining. The farmer, of course, will get something. The milch cow has to get a little food because if you don’t feed her you cannot get any milk from her. The Minister can even give out a contract to have a farm prospected. He can lay down the conditions for the prospecting contract. The farmer has no say at all. He has nothing to do with it, and he is not even to be consulted about the matter. The individual is selected and now hon. members can see where it is all leading to. A man wants to prospect, and the only thing the Minister has to satisfy himself about is not the man’s character: he does not have to satisfy himself on the question whether the man is in a position to do proper work. No, he does not worry his head about that, all he has to do is to satisfy himself that the man is able to pay. The prospector can go to a man’s farm and carry on—all the Minister has to satisfy himself about is that the man is able to pay, and the farmer is not given any say in this matter. The Government does not even stand security. If the prospector does not pay the rent the Government is not responsible. The prospector is supposed to pay the Government and then the Government pays the farmer, but the farmer has no say at all. Now I want to know from the Minister why he only looks at the individual’s ability to pay. The prospector afterwards, if there are base minerals, which are worthwhile developing, gets the first chance to mine the property, and if he cannot do it then tenders are to be asked for, and the man who is selected to do the work must be able to pay—that is all the Minister has to be satisfied about. He does not look at the man’s character; he does not have to consider whether the man has a bad record, he does not have to look into the question whether he is perhaps the type Of man who may cause the farmer a lot of damage. The farmer has no say. The Minister is the only man who has the right of selecting the individual. The prospector comes on to the farm with a drilling machine, with picks, shovels, wagons and all sorts of stuff, and he has fifty or sixty native or coloured men and they start digging holes and trenches. Who is going to pay for the fruit and vegetables which those people steal? Who is going to pay for the sheep they steel and kill? Only about three months ago a certain irrigation Board, of which I happen to be secretary, dug a furrow through a vineyard. They did not work there for any length of time, but it was during the season when the grapes were ripening, and after the furrow had been constructed it was calculated by the members of the irrigation Board that those coloured people had eaten between 50 and 60 lbs. of grapes. You cannot stop those people if they are working there. If you have 50 or 60 natives there, you would only have one or two foremen and they will not be able to control their labourers. They will have to be away from time to time and you cannot always be running after those people. They are not prisoners doing compulsory labour there. Why does not the Minister make provision to pay compensation for damage caused by prospecting work? Why must the prospector only pay for damage he does to the surface of the land? In terms of Clause 2 compensation is only paid for damage done to the surface of the land, and why is no rent paid? Holes are dug and damage is done. Why does not the owner get compensation? As a matter of fact a distinction is made between an ordinary individual and the Government. If the Government prospects no compensation whatsoever is paid. Why should that be? What really are the rights of a man who does the prospecting? First of all, in terms of Clause 5, he has the right to take as much soil away for testing purposes as he requires. Before being able to do so he has to make roads over the man’s farm. He has to have his wagons there. Does the Minister realise that once a hard road has been made it takes a long time before any thing will grow there again. Does the Minister realise that sluits will be washed into the land when it rains, and that deep kloofs will be formed? And in terms of Clause 10 a prospector can go on to the land with animals, vehicles, machinery, apparatus or material required for the purposes of his prospecting work, and he is allowed to dig furrows or shafts, and to bore holes and do all such other things as may be necessary for the purposes mentioned above or connected therewith. In other words, he can come on to a farm with all these impediments, and he can dig holes and make furrows and bore with his boring machines—he can drill into the man’s water sources—and I am coming to that later on —and he does not have to pay a penny compensation. The only compensation he pays is in regard to the surface of the land. I fail to understand how the Minister can propose anything of that kind. Having sat here and having read the Bill two or three times I rubbed my eyes when I heard the Minister move the second reading of this Bill. The Minister only gave us the gilded side of the picture, he only gave us the attractive side of the whole proposal. The bitter pill has been sugared all round. The position is that if the Minister is not prepared to make provision for compensation to be paid for the damage a prospector does to a farm—and whether it is the Government who does the damage or private prospector —I can assure him that we on this side of the House are going to fight this Bill as long and as hard as we can. But now let us say the prospecting has been done and a lot of mess has been made all over your farm. We assume that the man who did the prospecting expected to find base minerals there, and we assume that he had convinced the Minister that there were sufficient base minerals on the farm to make it a payable proposition to mine these base minerals. Now the Minister comes along and says, “I want a lease from you.” It is not a mining lease, as is stated here, but a mining lease contract to mine the stuff. Now the Minister again is the only man who is going to judge whether an individual has the money and the means to do the mining, the farmer has no say. It is the farmer’s land but it is the Minister alone who decides. The Minister gives out the contract and lays down the conditions. He does not even have to consult the farmer and, of course, he is not going to do it either. He, the Minister, takes it for granted that he is doing a great favour to the farmer because the base minerals are being developed and the farmers get a certain amount of pay out of it. He thinks he is rendering the farmer a great service, although the farm is being messed up to such an extent that it is impossible for anyone to live there. The Minister decides on all these matters, and what is worst of all, by means of his Mining Leases Board the Minister has the right to decide what share the farmer is going to get. Nothing belongs to the farmer; everything belongs to the Government. Of course, the farmer can write a very polite letter and say: “Please, Mr. Minister, there are base minerals which they are going to mine; I have paid so much for my farm, it belongs to me, but you are giving other people the right to mine; be fair, and please give me a percentage so that I may get a certain amount by way of rental.” It goes so far that if there is a tenant on a certain section of a farm then the Minister decides how much he is going to pay that tenant and how much he is going to pay the owner. The owner has no say whatsoever over the matter. The Minister is the boss. Surely the Minister does not expect the farmer to be satisfied with that. If the State feels that it is necessary for the development of our country that the base minerals must be mined, well, let the State do it. Why must the Minister once again call half-a-dozen Hoggenheimers into being? Let the State do the mining and derive the benefit. Then the Government will naturally see to it that the farmer gets his rightful share. This business does not seem right to me. But now we come to a very serious thing—the water rights. Does the Minister really want to propose that they can take my water? Does the Minister realise what the position is? Does the Minister know what water means in those drought-stricken areas? Many a man has been killed through taking another man’s water. I can hardly credit that the Minister wants to come here and wants to take the farmer’s water away—no matter what he pays for it. And after all, it is the Minister again who is going to determine the price; the farmer has no say. I tell the Minister that he will need a regiment of soldiers, not the Cape Corps, but a proper regiment, if he wants to take the farmer’s water. If a man buys riparian land he has his water rights. It was Common Law in this country long before the Act of 1912, or even before the Act of 1899, or even before the Act of 1877—long before those days it was Common Law that if a man bought a riparian farm he was entitled to the reasonable use of water. I know that the public outside have the right to primary use. I quite understand that, but primary use means just about nothing. The farmer had the use. Naturally, if I am thirsty and I come to a public stream I am entitled to drink from that stream, but the farmer himself with his stock and his family has always had the right to the water, and he has always had the right to use the water to irrigate his land. I don’t know whether I am allowed to discuss that aspect of the matter. I assume that the answer will be that the Minister will determine how much water can be taken after the land which is under irrigation has been provided with water. I understand that the Minister can take his hand off the farmer’s throat very, very slightly, and that he can give him the right if his land is already cultivated, to get a little of his own water. Does the Minister realise what water rights signify to the farmer? They mean the farmer’s livelihood. And if you take his water away the farmer is worth nothing. Without water the land is worth 10s. to £1, but if water is provided the land is worth £300 to £1,000 per morgen. I feel that the Minister does not understand the position, and if you come to a public stream—the definition of public stream is laid down in the 1912 Act—the water of a publip stream is divided. Probably the water has been divided for the last 200 years. For 200 years the people have been using all the water in accordance with registered contracts. The Minister now wants to take that water away. In the drought-stricken districts there is no farm at all which has sufficient water. So it means nothing to say that the water will only be taken when the river is in flood for the mining of base minerals. Has the Minister ever given any thought to what he is doing? There are complicated rights so far as riparian owners are concerned. If one man has too much water he is compelled to let it pass for the next man, and all the rights are allocated—the water belongs to the farmers; they buy it, and it is all laid down in their title deeds. Now the Minister comes here and wants to take away their water I should like to see the Minister do it; he will need a regiment of soldiers. In any case I fail to understand why the farmers are not to be paid compensation for the use of their water. If the Minister is afraid of the farmer being unreasonable, why not submit it to arbitration? Let the farmer appoint an arbitrator, and the Government, or the man who wants to mine—let him also appoint an arbitrator, and then a third person can also be appointed.

The question of domestic water does not enter into it at all.

I am speaking now of water in public streams. Long before this Bill was thought of, long before we had any laws, these farmers having riparian land had rights to the reasonable use of water. And now it is said: “But it was specially reserved under the Irrigation Act.” I should like the Minister to read that clause again. Let us assume that it is so, that the right was really reserved, it still comes under the Common Law, and if it does come under the Common Law, then it is nothing but what was laid down in the law of 1912. The Act of 1912 contains nothing but what the Common Law was as laid down by a long series of cases decided by the best water court authorities in the country. The Act only says what used to be the law, and it says that all existing rights are to be protected under the Act. I can conceive that if gold or diamonds were involved, the gold and diamonds would be worth more than the water, but if a man buys a farm he also buys the water. A farm without water is worth nothing. In terms of that Act the Minister will only be able to take the flood water, because the normal flow is divided, and if this Bill allows the Minister to take the normal flow, the Minister will have to answer to the irrigation districts where water is a matter of life and death. If the water is taken away the farms are useless. Now the Minister says that he is not going to touch domestic water, but let me tell him this—you are going to give the prospectors the right to bore for water within two hundred yards from another borehole. I should like to take the Minister to my part of the country and I should like to show him a borehole which was bored in the vicinity of four or five fountains a mile to two miles away from the borehole and each of those fountains dried up after the borehole was opened. Are you going to compensate the people for their water if you allow boring to take place? Rights are given for the boring for water. Do you know that in the Montagu district a large proportion of the farms have rights to the surface water? People have been given rights to keep such water as they can hold until it runs into the public stream. Do you know that water is sold to the farmers lower down—to the lower riparian owners. If you can give a man the right to dig furrows and holes and to put up pumps on a piece of land containing water rights, are you going to pay compensation? No. Once the Minister starts interfering with water rights he is putting his head into a hornet’s nest, and he will see what is going to be the result of it. I feel that this Bill does not make proper provision for paying compensation to a farmer for the damage he is going to suffer, and unless proper provision is made for compensation I am going to oppose this Bill tooth and nail even if I have to do so for a whole month. I feel that an injustice is being done by depriving farmers of rights which belong to them, without compensating them for those rights. I further want to say that so far as surface rights are concerned, business rights, and rights of that kind, these matters should also be properly laid down in the Bill. If is perfectly true that if a contract is issued for the mining of minerals the Minister decides what the extent of the land is going to be—it is not the farmer who decides it, but I assume that the Minister will determine the extent of land that is required for the mining of minerals. Why cannot he insert Clause 6 of Act 56 of 1925 which makes special provision reserving all the surface rights of the owners of land? There is another question I want to put to the Minister. What is the position of people who have bought certain rights and who have become the owners of the land in order to keep other speculators off the land? I have in mind two of the biggest cement companies in my district, each of which have taken options on farms containing lime stone suitable for the manufacture of cement. They have bought their rights and they have bought their rights to roads for the transport of the material. They have made provision for water and they have bought all they require. After that they have left their rights in abeyance. But their rights are there. This Bill provides that if a man starts mining and he leaves his enterprise alone the Government can issue it to somebody else. What is the Minister going to do in a case of that kind? Land may have been bought to the value of thousands of pounds, and certain rights may have been bought. What is the Minister going to do there? The companies have bought rights and they have left those rights, and they are still paying rent for them today. What is the Minister going to do there? It is necessary for plans to be drawn for the mining of base minerals. I realise that regulations have to be made. One cannot mess about with these things, and one cannot allow them to be exported unrestrictedly from this country as happened for instance with the copper from Namaqualand. If that sort of thing is done one gets this position, that when it no longer pays to carry on with the enterprise the people who have been doing the work simply go away and leave the holes in the ground without concerning themselves any further. We have had that condition of affairs in Namaqualand and we have been compelled to move the coloured people away from there, and to bring them to these parts of the country to employ them here. No provision has been made in this Bill for eventualities of that kind. Then I also want to ask the Minister why native land had been excluded.

It is not excluded. You should read the clause.

I have read it. The hon. member can address the House on the point afterwards.

Native land has not been excluded.

Yes, but you have to get special permission if you want to mine it.

The Minister may …

I have read it very carefully. Why should special facilities be given to the natives in preference to the white owners of land? Other things have to be done before you are given the right to mine on native lands—conditions are laid down which do not exist in regard to European land owners. Has the Government considered this aspect of the matter? Why this differentiation? Can the Minister give me any reason for it? I feel that if the base minerals have to be properly mined it is the duty of the State to do so in the interests of the public. The base minerals should be properly surveyed. It is no use saying that regulations can be issued—here I do not agree with the previous speaker. The principles must be laid down in the Bill. It is said that regulations may be made prohibiting the sale of base minerals. If that is the position why don’t you put it in the Bill? Why not have a chapter in the Bill to say what the State is going to do in regard to surveys and how much is going to be paid for it? The State has to arrange matters in such a manner that if shall derive benefits from this exploitation for all time. If that is done you will be doing something for the State and for the people. If, then, there are a few farmers who are obstinate, just as obstinate as I understand the Minister is in regard to this Bill, then, of course, you can step in and take the necessary action. I have no objection to that so long as the farmers’ rights are properly protected, but if there are any benefits they should go to the States and not to the small syndicates or companies which eventually will run the State because those companies are capitalistically minded. They are not concerned with the State or the interests of the people. They only want to mine, and when they have finished their work they clear off and they leave the holes for us to close up. That is the monument which the exploiter and the robber leave behind.

I realise that the intention of this Bill is undoubtedly a good one, because the intention of this piece of legislation is to promote the development of our base metals and minerals in the way laid down in the Bill now before us. I think it is a very good Bill. At first I was very nervous about it, just as the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is, but if one is too scared of a thing it means that nothing is done and one runs away from everything. I feel that the hon. member for Swellendam is mistaken if he sees what happens in practice. I am speaking particularly of the Transvaal. I don’t know of anything that happens in his part of the country, but in the Transvaal the individual farmer, generally speaking, will be very pleased to be given the opportunity of getting his base metals developed and mined.

He can have that done without this Bill.

Let me tell my hon. friend what the practical experience of many of our farmers is. Our practical experience has shown that sooner or later the farmer is left with the holes in the ground and he goes not get a penny because he has been swindled on account of there being no protection for him. But let me remind the hon. member that there is a very important point in this Bill which none of the speakers have so far drawn attention to, and it is this: About twenty-five years ago in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal a strong movement was started for the taxation of reserved mineral rights. It was a very popular proposal in those days in the Provincial Council of the Transvaal and I must say that I was heart and soul in favour of it. The object was to tax reserved mineral rights because in the Transvaal and probably in the other provinces there were farms where the mineral rights belonged to somebody overseas representing a large company—a man who did not care a rap of what became of our interests. A man like that sits on those rights like a fowl on a lot of rotten eggs. He does nothing, and with a view to forcing the man overseas who does nothing, the proposal was a very popular one. There were certain objections, however, which made that proposal impossible. If it had been carried out it would have had one of two results. It would have meant that those mineral rights which would have been taxed would have been developed by the man overseas, or otherwise he would have given the mineral rights to the surface owner. The farmer owning the farm would then have been the owner of the surface rights as well as of the mining rights. This Bill makes it possible for the Minister to step in, if the owner of the mineral rights refuses to have the minerals mined, and to say, “We are going to force you to develop those minerals.”

Why not deal with him only? Why do you want to tax all the other farmers too?

I have told the House what my practical experience has been, and it is this: that our farmers will be only too pleased to have their mineral rights developed provided always it is done in an honest and straightforward manner. So far as that point is concerned, I am quite satisfied, and I have no doubt that that Bill will do a lot of good in the way of relieving the pressure which is having the effect of tying down hundreds of thousands of morgen in the Transvaal. There is one point, however, which scares me somewhat. I can quite understand if there is a private individual or a private concern approaching me as the owner of the land and saying, “I want to develop your minerals”—I can quite understand the Department of Mines acting in the capacity of the friend of both sides in order to arrange matters in such a manner that neither side is defrauded. But under this Bill the Minister himself can step in and take action, and I want to know who is going to be the arbitrator then? I have complete confidence in the Department of Mines. I don’t want to flatter the Minister unduly, but a comparatively short while ago a member of the public came to me and said that he was only too pleased to do business with the Department of Mines because the department always treated him very courteously and always assisted him in every possible manner. It was a great compliment, and I think that compliment was well merited. The department has tried occasionally to turn me down, but I can quite understand that. The fact of the matter is that the Department of Mines enjoys the publics’ complete confidence at the moment, and that confidence is well deserved and will stand it in good stead when the owner of the land, or when a company starts mining the minerals. But now the Minister himself comes along and he wants to mine the minerals himself—the department wants to do it. Who will be the arbitrator in that event? We have a quarrel, the department and I, and who is going to help me then? I am handed over to the Department of Mines which, however well-disposed it may be, is going to look at the position from a business point of view, and perhaps will not treat me as I would like to be treated. That seems to me to be a very weak point. Perhaps the Minister can solve my difficulty. Now, I want to say this—an amendment has been introduced and I must say that I am forced to look upon that amendment as something socialistic or fascistic.

No, this Bill is communistic.

The amendment, anyhow, is something foreign to Afrikaans politics. It means that the State has to act like a corporation to extract the minerals and to mine them, but it seems to me that the mover of the amendment and his seconder are really armchair socialists, they know very little of things so far as practice is concerned. What will it mean if an amendment like that is passed? It will not only mean that the State will become a miner, but the State will also become a trader and a manufacturer, because many of those minerals have to be processed and all the minerals have to be sold. In other words, we would get a condition of socialism, and that is the sort of thing I do not believe in. I believe in the State giving guidance and support, but I do not believe in this sort of thing. Let me tell hon. members that it is not child’s play to extract base minerals, and to mine them. It’s very hard work and the State should not do it except in cases of dire necessity. I feel that this Bill is a step in the right direction. Here and there, there may be something requiring improvement, but not so far as I can see. I only want to say this to the Minister, that I am pleased he has had the courage to come forward with this Bill, particularly as this Bill is going to free us of the domination of land companies, companies which only have a small office here, and have all their interests and their head offices overseas, and which do not care one jot for South Africa. I speak from practical experience. Some twenty years ago—nearly thirty years ago—I accidentally discovered a base mineral in the neighbourhood of my own district. When an investigation was made it was found that the particular mineral was the property of an overseas company, and up to this day that mineral has not been developed or mined. They refused to give anyone the right to do so, and they themselves will not do it either. Under this Bill the Minister can step in and say, “It is your duty, you are to undertake the development.”’ If it is worth while doing so. I think we can congratulate the Minister on the earnest attempt he has made to bring about the development of our base minerals.

I particularly want to discuss the principle of this Bill to start with—a Bill and a subject which for the first time in the history of this country we now propose to tackle. Secondly, I want to devote my attention more particularly to the way in which we are going to apply the principle, if we accept it. I must say first of all that this Bill, with the consent of the Minister, was referred to a Select Committee. That Committee spent a longtime on the Bill and gave a great deal of attention to the various points of the measure. I am not going to say that we always agree, but I feel that I must express my disappointment this evening in my friends on my right who, although they were aware of the fact that there were very few farmers on the Committee, did not give the Committee the support which I expected of them. I first of all want to say a few words on the principle of the Bill. We are introducing a principle in this Bill which has never yet been accepted in this country. So far as gold and diamonds are concerned, the principle is accepted that they belong to the State. In regard to gold, legislation has been passed in days gone by giving the Minister the power, if people are unwilling to mine for gold, to have it done by the State. But so far as diamonds are concerned, which are assumed to be the property of the State, that principle was not accepted in the past. Here we are dealing with base minerals, in connection with which the Minister in his second reading speech told us that they are the property of the private owner in the Union. Now we have come forward with legislation to give the State the power to apply compulsory development in regard to those minerals. We are therefore now giving the State the power to take action in regard to such property belonging to private individuals. We are giving the State the power to exploit and develop such private property. It is the first time in the history of this House that we are passing such legislation. I must say that this is a very drastic measure and that it probably requires more time and more consideration than just one evening. I also must add that it is legislation of a kind which controverts the views of many of my townsmen friends, who have always put the question: “What are the farmers sacrificing for the general good?” I feel that we as farmers are not unwilling, if it is in the interest of the State and in the interest of the general public welfare, to grant this power in principle to the State. I do not think we are unwilling to do so. On the contrary, where the Minister in the past has come to us and told us that a particular mineral could be expected to be developed on a large scale in this country and that it was being deliberately locked up by different owners who were unwilling to have that particular mineral developed, we have shown our willingness to co-operate. The Minister told us that he had from time to time made propositions to landowners, but that they had been unwilling to have those minerals developed or mined. I do not think it is unreasonable if great wealth can be developed for the good of the State that the State should have the right to do so. Consequently, in principle we are in agreement with the Minister, but there may have been individuals and there may have been companies who have been unwilling to have base minerals developed; the Minister, however, has not yet shown us any evidence to prove that there have been private individuals or owners of land who have deliberately gone out of their way to buy up land where development was impending in order to lock up such land and to prevent the State or public interest from deriving any benefit from the development of such land. But we have shown the Minister that there have been such cases so far as diamonds are concerned, and we particularly want to draw his attention to this fact. The Minister’s principal argument was that here was a source of wealth, the development of which could take place for the benefit of the country, and he said that there were people in the country holding back such development. Now I want to say this, that the Minister is well aware of this fact. He is so well aware of it—he is as well aware of it as I am—that there are people in this country who have deliberately locked up land containing diamonds and prevented that land from being developed, in spite of public interest demanding the development of such land. For that reason I am sorry that in the definitions of the Bill precious stones have been excluded. I assume it would have been difficult in the application of the law to have included precious stones, and for that reason I am not going to press that point very strongly, especially in view of the Minister’s statement the other evening when he specially warned certain big companies that if they continued in their failure not to develop this wealth of the country, the State would step in, as a large section of the population was in a condition of misery and poverty. For that reason I am not going to press this point very strongly, but I am very anxious to show that this Bill is going to hit certain sections of our farming population very severely. There are farms in this country which are very highly developed, so much so that it would be difficult to determine the actual surface value of the land as a whole; it is for that reason that I cannot agree on this point with the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). It would be very difficult to lay down a definite scale and to say what particular productive benefit this or that farmer was deriving from the development of his land. There are farms which are valued higher than £100 per morgen, other farms again are only valued at £1 per morgen. The value is very divergent, but one thing I am sure of, and that is that the rights granted under this Bill are going to affect every landowner in the country at some time or another, while at the same time the townspeople are not going to allow themselves in any way to be affected by those rights. We have often heard it said on the part of the townsmen that if rich minerals are discovered as a result of the State’s action the farmer has no right to receive any benefits from such discoveries. Take the case of a man who buys an erf outside Cape Town; after a while the municipality lays out a street there, and that erf goes up enormously in value. We can also ask what that man has done to increase the value of that erf, which he eventually sells at a tremendous profit. I cannot help thinking of the remark of the Irishman who had become a socialist; when his friend approached him and said to him, “I hear you have become a socialist; what does it mean?” he replied, “If you have two horses you should give me one,” and the other man said, “Yes, I know that”; so the other one retorted, “And if you have two head of cattle it means that you have to give me one,” “and if you have two pigs you must give me one,” to which the final retort was: “Oh, no, nothing doing, you know that I have two pigs.” Our friends during the discussion of Bills of this kind have shown so often that they are typical socialists when they can interfere with the rights of other people. So long as they can dish out other people’s rights without being affected themselves they are quite prepared to be socialists. We as farmers are prepared to make sacrifices if it is in the public interest or in the interest of the State as a whole, but if demands are made on the platteland, if such demands are made from the farming population, then we primarily expect reasonableness on the part of the Administration. The very least we expect is that the rights of the farmers will be respected. I am quite convinced that in this Bill we have gone as far as we should have gone. First of all we come to the question of the fixing of the various rents. I must say that in this respect a concession has already been made if we compare the provisions of this Bill with those contained in the original Bill. Under the original Bill the owner was not considered at all. The Mining Leases Board fixes all the rents. We really have a new Bill before us now, and provision is made here so that the owner can make representations. The argument which is generally used is this: What does the simple farmer know of the technique of mining? As against that I want to put this: What does the technical officer know, or what does the Minister know of the actual losses which a farmer is going to suffer as a result of this legislation? That is the other side of the picture, because the farmer may suffer losses. This technical officer, so far as technique is concerned, so far as the minerals which are extracted are concerned, will be able to tell the Minister exactly what the mineral value is, but he will not be able to tell the Minister what actual damage the farmer is going to suffer in the development of his land and what damage he is going to suffer in regard to the potentialities of the land itself, and that is why I cannot associate myself with the proposal that the Mining Leases Board is going to have the right to fix all the rents. I do not agree with a Board on which the owner is not represented, having the complete say. And more particularly, where the State is undertaking this work it will be a Department of State which is going to lay down how much the private owner is to receive. Then, in regard to the surface owners, there is an even greater difficulty. The difficulty is exactly what the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) has told us; the law provides for two different types of owners, but there are companies which over the course of years have sold land to private individuals while they have reserved the mineral rights unto themselves. Provision is made for two classes of owners, but I am not convinced that provision is being made here for the surface owner of the land, especially so far as water rights are concerned. The Minister first of all reserved the water rights, but after having reserved the water rights to the owner the law specially lays it down that the Minister can take the power to take away those water rights. A concession is made in this Bill as it now stands providing that adequate water is to be left to the private owner for his domestic use, for his gardens, and for the feeding of his cattle. Now I admit at once that compensation is to be paid, but still the Minister has taken special powers and he has taken very drastic powers, and the Minister will now have the right to determine what the needs of the farmer are. But one should not lose sight of the fact that those needs may completely change in the course of a year, or even in a month, as circumstances may develop. I as a farmer feel very unhappy about the position that a departmental officer may come and tell me how much water I require for my own domestic use, for my lands which I have laid out, and for my stock farming purposes. I think the Minister should agree in view of the great responsibility and the demands imposed on private persons that that water should not be touched without the matter having been considered, or without special consent having been given by the owner himself. If the reason is that the water is required for mining purposes, very well, but if the Government official is to say how much water I need for my domestic use, then the law is really going too far. What is reserved for the owner is his premises and certain other improvements are also specially exempted under this Bill. For instance, orchards, vineyards, nurseries, boreholes, dams, water works and a whole lot of other things are exempted, and it is laid down that no mining work is to be done within a 100 or 200 yards from such works. But there are other improvements on the farm as well, essential improvements, and they are not reserved. A man’s wire fencing, his fencing round his camps, and other things, are not reserved. In those instances I cannot claim that no work is to be done within 200 or 100 yards from those improvements. Surely we should give this right to the owner, that if there are such buildings or improvements on a farm a difference should be made, and that he should not be affected by the prospecting or by the mining that may be undertaken, and that the ordinary course of his farming should not be affected. I think that is the very least we can expect from the Minister in this respect. Now there is another matter I want to say something about, namely, the differentiation under the provisions of this Bill. The Minister considers it to be in the interests of the country as a whole that the minerals shall be exploited and developed in the interests of the country, and for that reason he takes unto himself the right to compel me to do certain work, and if I fail to do that work then the State can have it done by somebody else, or the State can do it itself. Is it right that the State should be allowed to interfere with my rights, that it should have the right to interfere with what is contained and laid down definitely in my Title Deeds, is it right that the State should have the right to interfere with my land, with my rights which I have acquired or inherited in terms of the law of the land? Is it right that the State should be entitled to interfere with me in the way provided for in this Bill—if it is right that the State should be entitled to do all this, then I want to know why an exception is made in respect of those areas inhabited by the natives under the Native Trust, and why the Minister should not have identical powers in regard to those territories. The Minister has already told us, and one of the native representatives has told us, that he has that power. No, there is this difference: It is laid down in this Bill that the Minister of Mines has the full power in his hands, that the full power is concentrated in the Minister, so far as my farm is concerned, but in regard to the native territories the Minister of Mines does not have that power. I am to be satisfied with the Minister of Mines taking these powers, but a distinction is made so far as native land is concerned. The Minister of Mines has not got the right to prospect native territory without having obtained the consent of the Native Trust; that is the difference. It has been put up as an argument that surely Ministers belonging to the same government will see eye to eye with each other on a matter of this kind. If that is so, why then differentiate between two classes of the population and two classes of land? Our objection is that there is a difference in principle made between native territory and European areas. It will also be contended that this House has pledged itself to give those rights to the Native Trust. But the rights I have under my Title Deed transcend the ordinary verbal promises which of course I assume we want to carry out, but the promise made to me is a written one. It is in black and white. The promise is contained in the contract I have, it is a contract giving me the right to the ownership of my land, and if the Minister does not see his way to break his promise in the one direction, then surely he should not break his promise to me either, a promise contained in my right of ownership. The Minister takes certain powers unto himself, and if he takes those powers in the one instance he should not make an exception in the other instance, but he should assume the responsibility in both instances. Finally, I want to say that this legislation, this Bill, is a Bill which we had expected the Minister to have introduced last year, and the diamond diggers particularly looked forward to a measure of this kind, because this is what the Minister told the diamond diggers: “Look here, your land is worked out, your prospects are very slight, and I am going to try to devise some scheme to give you some other work henceforth in some other direction.” The scheme which the Minister had in mind was the development and mining of base metals. We expected this Bill to come before the House last year, and the digging community was very much disappointed that the Minister failed to give effect to his promise last year and that he did not introduce this Bill then. That being so, they are gratified that the Minister has now introduced it, but I also want to say this, I quite realise some of the difficulties which the Government must experience, as there are contracts in existence and as people have vested rights under certain contracts which have been in existence for a long time. I can realise the difficulty the Government feels in interfering with those contracts, but I feel that if the Minister wants to comply with the promises which he made to the digging community it is his duty to use the power which he is taking to himself under this Bill to start State mining development and to carry it through as far as possible, or to have the mining of base minerals by the State undertaken to as large an extent as possible. Then, and then only, can the Minister give effect to his promise made to the digging community, and they are very anxiously looking forward to his giving effect to that promise and they still hope that he will give effect to it. I know that the Minister is aware of the conditions prevailing on the diggings. I only want to remind him of the speech he made in this House last year. It is unnecessary for me to tell him how critical the position of the digging community is. While it was critical when the Minister visited those areas he should realise that another year has passed and if the position was bad at the time, he must realise that it is worse today, and it is therefore the Minister’s duty to have the development of the base minerals undertaken by the State as soon as possible, and it is his duty to see to it that all possible efforts are made to give that work to the diggers which they really expect from the Minister.

When the hon. member for Pretoria, District (Mr. Oost) spoke, he told us how pleased the farmers of the Transvaal were going to be if their base minerals were mined. Then we had the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) telling us in almost the same breath that he was surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) when that hon. member objected to the principle contained in this Bill, namely, the compulsory mining of base minerals, and that he objected to the State being given the power to undertake this work. Hon. members may perhaps be surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Swellendam because they are not familiar with those parts of the country where the hon. member for Swellendam lives, and they are not familiar with the people whom he represents. I feel that when the State introduces a Bill of this kind farmers, generally speaking, who do not know much about mining, will have a better opportunity of making a success of this kind of mining, the mining of base minerals, if the State keeps its eye on the whole business, rather than if they have to deal directly with mining companies, because my experience of the agents of those companies is that it does not matter what they tell you there is only one thing they are after and that is to make money. If they can get £1,000 out of a farmer and give him 1s. in return they will do so unblushingly. Our farmers cannot stand up against that sort of thing. But the farmers will have a considerable amount of protection if they find base minerals on their land, if the Government keeps a watchful eye over the proceedings, and I therefore say that legislation of this kind is necessary. But I see a few very dangerous features in this Bill. My friends from the Transvaal have had more dealings and more knowledge of mining on their farms, but none the less we have had a little experience in this connection, and I may just say that the nature of the farms in the Transvaal as compared with the farmers in the South Western and western districts of the Cape Province is entirely different. In Clause II of the Bill we find the following provision—

That is all very well. Here the owner is recognised to a large extent, and he can keep those people away from those things because their work may damage his property. But if we look a little further we find that that same clause goes on to say this—

There the clause gives the Minister the right to allow them to work there. He can do so without the consent of the owner. He can give them the right to go and work in the man’s orchard, or to sink a borehole near his water furrow. Of course, compensation will have to be paid in that case, but now the question arises, and that is the question which the hon. member for Swellendam has also asked: “What is the nature of that compensation going to be?” It is simply left to the goodwill of the Minister’s officials or to the mercy of the Minister himself. Would it not be desirable if the Minister were to provide here for arbitration, so that in cases where the Minister and an owner cannot agree an arbitrator can be appointed to determine what the actual damage that will be caused is going to be.

We are going to move an amendment there.

The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) says that it is intended to move an amendment there. Well, if that is so, then I am going to ask the Minister to consider that amendment. I want something to that effect to be inserted in the Bill so that we are not going to run the risk of suffering damage for which we are not going to be properly compensated. But we go further. When we come to Clause 12 we come to the question of water rights, and as the hon. member for Swellendam has already said, if the Minister starts tampering with the farmer’s water rights, if he starts interfering with water which for more than a hundred years has been properly allocated and registered against title deeds of farms, with water which has been the basis for the development of farms, for the cultivation of farms and so on, he is going to take a very serious responsibility on his shoulders. The very same thing which made its appearance on the Select Committee on Irrigation in 1932 is again showing itself. At that time we were fortunately able to induce the Select Committee not to introduce that principle, namely, that water from a public stream could also be taken for tertiary use. As the Minister knows, water rights are laid down in such a manner that water from a public stream can at any time be used for domestic purposes, for the purpose of watering one’s cattle, and for the washing of vehicles. That is primary use. We get secondary use when the water from the public stream is divided among the riparian owners who use it for irrigation purposes. The question then arose in connection with tertiary use of water, namely, that factories could also use water from a public stream. Industries perhaps need water, and they would then have the right to use water from a public stream This Bill is now providing that water from such streams can be used for the mining of base minerals on a farm. Our farms in districts such as Worcester and Robertson along the Langeberge have mountain rivers close to them, and those farms have been laid out with the water of those streams. Every farmer has his allocation of water from those public streams; he may have a farm of only 150 morgen, but it has been developed and cultivated by the use of that water, so that it is worth £5,000, £6,000, £7,000 or £8,000. Take the water away, even if you compensate the farmer—the farm is worth nothing. Is he going to get £8,000 compensation? The farm will lie there and be worth nothing. It cannot even be used as a stock farm, because it is too small and it is not suitable for stock farming. Consequently, it will mean that to all intents and purposes that man’s farm has been expropriated under the pretence that he is getting compensation for the water that is being used, but the water he has is the life of the farm, and is he being compensated for that? There is another consideration. The farmer’s property is expropriated in the interest of the State; he is to get a share of the profits. Now his neighbour perhaps has no minerals on his farm. What is to become of him? He loses his water and he gets no share in the profits. I know of such a case. I have a farm on which there are base minerals. For the last twenty years that farm has been under option. I am paid well for that option, but those base minerals are not being mined. If the water is taken out of that river and all the riparian owners depend on that water, even if they are paid compensation, I can still assure the Minister that he is going to wipe out a whole crowd of farmers and the only man who will get any benefit will be myself who has these base minerals on my farm. It is not fair, and provision should be made so that the farmer is not deprived of his water. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) says that water must be reserved for domestic purposes and such things. Let me tell the Minister this, that we are entitled to water for domestic purposes, if we are riparian owners. No matter whose turn it is, the farmer is entitled to all the domestic water and all the water for his cattle, and all the water for the washing of his vehicles which he needs, but if you rob the farmer of his other water, and you can only give him water for his gardens, while all the other water is used for the mining of these base minerals, you turn that man into a poor white. He will become a bywoner on his own farm. It is provided that he is to get a certain share in the profits, a sort of premium. Well, he may be well off then if the State has the minerals on his farm developed and mined, or if the State sees to it that he is treated fairly by the mining companies which usually hunt about to secure these things at the lowest possible price, with the result that many farmers have already been driven off their farms by the work done by these people, so that instead of being rich they are poor today. In that respect the Bill is very sound, but on the other hand it contains provisions which we want to bring to the Minister’s notice, and we want to ask him to afford protection to the farmers. It is laid down that they are not allowed to do any boring within a hundred yards of a river. That is all very well, but as the hon. member for Swellendam has told us, there used to be strong fountains in certain areas, strong wells and springs—I have seen them myself—they always have plenty of water, and after boreholes have been sunk five or six miles away those springs dried up and there is nothingleft of them. We sink a borehole and when we get to a depth of a few hundred feet we get to another farmer’s water low down, or we get below the bed of the river, and it is quite possible that the water of the other holes or of the river course is diminished. We have had all those difficulties, and I am speaking from experience. As these things have happened, the Minister should go about matters very carefully in the application of this Bill, and he should be particularly careful how he applies the Bill to the farmers of the South-Western districts, because if you deprive that man of his water you cut his throat and there is nothing left of his farm.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has accused the Minister of being “koppig” — obstinate. Well, I wish to say at this stage that that has not been my experience. I think those of us who sat on that Select Committee with him and went into this Bill very thoroughly came to the conclusion that the Minister was ready and anxious to meet every criticism or every point that was brought forward. I think it is only right that this credit should be paid to him. This Bill at the first second reading was bound to meet with considerable opposition and I think I can say this, that anybody who reads the Bill now must come to the conclusion that it has been considerably improved in the Select Committee. It is only a pity that those hon. members who criticise so much and who have proposed this amendment did not take the trouble to attend that Select Committee and help to bring up a Bill such as they would like.

Hear, hear.

The Bill makes considerable inroads into certain private rights. That is true, but I think we must admit that as civilisation progresses it is unfortunately necessary to attack private rights in certain instances for the general good of the community as a whole, and that I think is all the Bill does. I feel that nowhere are rights attacked unless it is absolutely essential and imperative, but those rights which are being taken away are to be compensated for by the protection extended to the owners of ground in other respects. One respect that comes to my mind at the moment is that the owner is now certain that anyone who prospects his ground will be in a position to compensate him for any damage he causes. This Bill, as the hon. member for Pretoria District (Mr. Oost) has said, is absolutely essential—it has been necessary for many years for the development of our base metal industry. We have found that the opposition on the part of the public in some instances has been of such a nature that development could not take place, and I think that anyone acquainted with the position must realise that at least in that respect we have done away with a great deal of obstruction. The Bill has been attacked on the ground that farmers’ rights have been taken away and that a certain amount of damage will be done to their farms but the critics seem to lose sight of the fact that compensation is provided for in the event of any damage being done. So that point largely falls away. I understand that the Minister is anxious to reply tonight, so I shall not deal with other points that have been raised. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Pretoria District has effectively dealt with most of the criticism. I also want to say this about the remarks of my hon. friend for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). He also criticised the Bill in certain respects, but I think the Minister will admit that his criticism has been very fair, and so far as the rest of the criticism is concerned I think we can leave it to the Minister to deal with that.

There is one point I should like the Minister to deal with. This Bill sets out to make the development of base metals compulsory on the owner of the ground. That is the very essence of the Bill. If the owner of the ground will not prospect, mine and develop himself the base metals, which may lie underneath the surface, then the Minister has the right to allow some other person to prospect and eventually to mine. Very well, we must realise that the very essence of this Bill is the compulsion as far as the mining of base metals is concerned for the good of the State. I am not attacking that. Now Clause 20 sets out to exclude Native Trust Lands from its provisions. The clause is worded as follows—

Now those provisions practically hand over to the Native Trust the rights and duties of mining that land—certainly in consultation with the Minister. As far as the Trust is concerned with regard to land which it owns, they being the owners of the land, in trust, have the right to see that the land is mined. Nowhere in this Act is there any right given to the Native Trust to enforce the mining of metals on nativeowned land. Nowhere does this Act give the Trust the power to enforce on a native owner of ground the mining of any metals; therefore we come to this extraordinary position, that we embark on legislation which forces on the European owner the exploitation of his minerals, which subjects him for the good of the State to relinquish his rights, but you exempt the native owner of ground from the right of the State to mine. Therefore you will have a native owner in the full possession of these base metal rights and you leave with him the power to hold up the mining of those metals, while you enforce it on the European.

That is not so.

I would like the Minister to deal with that point. Perhaps at the Committee stage, in conjunction with the Minister of Native Affairs, he may take the needed power to deal with minerals on native-owned ground.

This point has been made before tonight that native-owned land or Trust-owned land is excluded from this Bill, but what Section 20 of the Bill says is this—

Now the first comment I want to make for the benefit of the hon. member who has just sat down, and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) is this, that this section does not exclude either native reserves or native-owned land from the operation of the Bill. All it says is that the Bill is subject to the operation of these two sections. Now what do these sections say? Section 24 we need not worry about; it is Section 23 that is the important one. I reads as follows, the relative portion of it—

What, then, does Section 20 mean when it says that it is subject to this Section 23? Surely it is this, that the powers exercised by the Minister of Mines under this Bill may only operate in relation to native-owned land subject to this section. In terms of this section there can only be prospecting with the consent of the Minister of Native Affairs. If the Minister of Native Affairs gives his consent in relation either to nativeowned land or to Trust land, then the provisions of this Bill will apply.

If he does.

Well, the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Native Affairs are colleagues in the same Cabinet, and the Government, as such, can procure the full operation of this Bill for native-owned land, and therefore it is not correct to say, as the hon. member for Griqauland (Mr. Gilson) and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) have said, that native-owned land is excluded. The Minister may, by a simple act of consent, which may be agreed to by his colleague the Minister of Mines—they sit cheek by jowl in the same Cabinet — secure the compulsory development of land owned by a native. As a matter of fact, adverting to the particular case of Trust land, Section 23, Sub-section (3) of the Native Land and Trust Act says this—

The Minister of Native Affairs may work the minerals in his capacity as trustee. That is what it comes to, and I hope, as a matter of fact, that that is what will happen. In his evidence before the Select Committee, the Secretary for Native Affairs said he thought it would be an excellent thing if the mineral rights in native reserves were worked by the establishment of State mines. There is no reason why they should not be if there is a Minister of Mines in power who wishes the mineral resources of the country to be developed. I want to make this one other point. I hope the Minister will consent to the following amendment when we come to the Committee stage, that where base metals are worked in native reserves, the Mines and Works Amendment Act of 1926 shall not apply. Under that Act no native may be engaged in any skilled work. I am opposed to that provision in principle, but it is part of the law of the land. However, I think no such provision ought to apply in native areas wherever minerals are worked by the Trust or by private enterprise. I think that is a reasonable request, and I hope the Minister will accede to it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House do not see why any difference should be made between the two sections of owners. Why should not the same Act apply to both sections. The hon. member who has just spoken says the Minister of Mines and the Minister of Native Affairs sit cheek by jowl, but that does not convey much when we know that a few days ago we had the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture threatening to put each other in gaol. How on earth can you make an excuse like that? What we want is uniformity. I would like to say that I feel very nervous about this Bill as far as the farmers are concerned, and you cannot blame us on this side, because it takes all the lawyers in South Africa, for instance, to interpret the irrigation laws. We have no consolidated law relating to irrigation. The mining laws are just as different and you must not blame the farmers if we say we are suspicious about these laws which we cannot understand. We are very jealous about our rights, and I cannot accept this Bill before I know that the rights of farmers are thoroughly protected. For instance, if you have two farms, one upper and one lower, and minerals are found on the lower property, the top owner is protected only to a very small extent. If his water is taken away it might make a tremendous difference to the price of his land. It may mean that in the future there can be no development of his land because you have taken away all his rights. There are many other points that the farmer is nervous about. For instance, there is a question of roads. You know what can be done by roads on a farm, they cut up your veld and there is a great deal of erosion resulting. We want to know that the Minister, at any rate, will give us a guarantee that full compensation will be paid for any loss sustained by the farmers. If he does not do this it means confiscation of the farmers’ property. We do feel we would rather have this Act operated by the State, that is to say, that this mining should be done by the State. We have seen all the criminal deeds done in the past under the old system, and we have had enough of that. The State is responsible to the people of this country, and the wealth of the State must be used for the general good of the citizens. We would like to see all parasites done away with, all combines who club together and exploit the people of this country. Mining, after all, is only the slave of the big capitalist, and if we had State mining we would at any rate have some protection for the owners of the surface rights. We feel quite definitely that any development in this direction should be done by the State and not by private individuals. I hope the Minister will give us an assurance that he will protect the farmer in every way. It is not impossible for the State to control undertakings of this nature. If Iscor can be a success and can supply South Africa with its needs, and if the railways can be run by the State, then I maintain we can safely put our trust in State-owned mines in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I wish at the outset to express my appreciation of the way in which the House has treated this Bill, and especially to express my appreciation of the very large measure of support that the principles of the Bill have received from members in all parts of the Opposition. This Bill, at any rate, has been debated on its merits, and the criticisms that have been passed upon it have dealt with the principles which are innate in the Bill, and I do not think any Minister could desire more than to have relevant criticism, appreciative or destructive, directed at the measure he introduces. So far I wish to express my appreciation, I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). May I say that I think it is regrettable, it is regrettable that he should have come here, I take it on behalf of his party, and have introduced an amendment in the terms in which he did, when in the Select Committee on which a representative of his party was duly elected, there was no suggestion of anything of the kind from start to finish. There were 20 meetings of the Select Committee, and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), who is not far removed from the hon. member for Beaufort West, attended only two meetings. He was moved off the committee, and the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) took his place. He only attended one meeting, and he was moved off the committee, and his place was taken by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop), who also only attended once. Therefore, out of 20 meetings, we had three different members of the party, and between them they only attended one-fifth of the meetings of the whole committee.

My absence was unavoidable.

I want to put my arguments in reply as shortly as I can. I believe that the good sense of the whole of South Africa desires to see the exploitation of all our wealth and undertakings, as far as possible left in the hands of private enterprise, and I do not think that South Africans, as a whole, desire to see the nationalisation of base metals or precious metals, or of the land. Let me say this, that if there were to be nationalisation of base minerals, or precious minerals, it would only be a short step to the nationalisation of the land. No, sir, we have a long history in the exploitation of minerals in which the system of leasing has been followed, and has been followed with great success; not only is it applied to precious minerals, but to base metals as well. I cannot accept the amendment which calls for complete and exclusive mining by the State.

What about the railways?

On the other hand we have made provision in this Bill for mining by the State, it was a provision which was in the original draft, and it is a provision which I most certainly intend to use and to exercise on any occasion on which it may be thought appropriate. And it is left open for any Minister who desires to establish a State mine, to bring the circumstances and the conditions in which that is to be done, before Parliament, and the consent of Parliament is necessary before that State mine can be established. The second point which has taken up most of the discussion during the debate is in regard to the protection of the rights of landowners. They are sometimes called farmers, and spoken of as though they always were farmers. As a matter of fact, the landowner is very often one man, he is the owner of the surface rights, and the mineral rights are held by somebody else, and this Bill has to deal not only with the owner of the surface rights, but also with the owner of the mineral rights, who may be an entirely different person and who, having certain rights of exploitation, has also right of access to the surface, the water and other things. I think that the Select Committee, and here again I wish to express my indebtedness to them, I think the Select Committee has gone cut of its way to protect the landowner, whether he is a farmer or whether he is not farming but has other rights over the land. I think the Select Committee has gone out of its way to protect him in every possible degree, and the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Wolfaard) was only doing justice to the Select Committee, to my department, and I may say also to myself, in seeing that we desired to do nothing better than to protect those rights to the utmost possible extent. The House must bear in mind that the object of the Bill is to secure the exploitation of base minerals, and they cannot possibly be exploited unless you give some rights of user over the surface and some rights of access to water. If you are going to close down either of those two things, you may give up the idea of exploiting the minerals.

Why not compensate them properly?

Yes, well, we are compensating. I say the provisions for compensation are ample, and I say it is not merely a question of compensation, but this is a case where they are getting an unearned reward. The hon. member says the right of mining base minerals belongs to them. I admit it at once, but they cannot make these base minerals which are deep down in the ground, worth anything at all unless they are won, and in the winning of those base metals we do this. We say to the owner, “You do it yourself and we will assist you with technical advice and provide means of assisting you financially.” We say to the owner, “Do it yourself, win everything, take the whole of the profits to yourself; if you do not want to do it yourself, give it out to somebody else whom you like, give it way to somebody else, I do not mind whom you give it to; you can give it for money if you like, you can sell it. I don’t care. But the person to whom you give these rights must work any discoveries made.” And the reward for that is this, that the landowner gets first of all a share of the profits or royalties which are made by the winning of the minerals, and secondly …

Who fixes the royalty?

The Mining Leases Board.

At their discretion.

Secondly, he gets a rental for the surface, and he gets compensation for any injury which is done to the surface.

Whatever you wish to pay.

He gets the whole of that. There is no such thing as confiscation underlying this Bill. With regard to the native-owned land and Native Trust land, the position was correctly put by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno): the minerals can be worked with the consent of the Minister.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—45:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowker, T. B.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Hare, W. D.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Long, B. K.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

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

Noes—23:

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges, T. E.

Fouche, J. J.

Labuschagne. J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Schoeman, B. J.

Swart, A. P.

Swart, C. R.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A, P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wolfaard, G. van Z.

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